Esta pesquisa nasce de um questionamento proveniente do cotidiano do professor de língua estrangeira: devem ser corrigidos os erros cometidos pelos alunos, enquanto eles falam em atividades de conversação? Com o intuito de responder a essa pergunta, o presente estudo aponta para os efeitos em aprendizes brasileiros de italiano de dois tipos distintos de intervenções corretivas, durante a realização de atividades de produção oral a partir de temas pré-definidos, tipologia de exercício usada para a prática de conversação em sala de aula. Na fase experimental do estudo, os seis alunos participantes foram divididos em três duplas: os alunos de uma das duplas tiveram os seus erros tratados com correções implícitas do tipo retomada (recasts), os de outra dupla receberam correções explícitas metalinguísticas e os alunos da terceira dupla não tiveram os seus erros tratados com nenhum tipo de intervenção corretiva (grupo de controle). Foram escolhidos dois elementos gramaticais como alvo das correções: o uso do verbo esserci e a flexão nominal de número. As correções implícitas previam a interrupção da fala do aluno e o fornecimento imediato da forma correta sem explicações, assim que era identificado um erro; já as correções explícitas consistiam na interrupção da fala e na explicação metalinguística sobre o erro cometido pelo aluno, sem o fornecimento da forma correta, à qual o aluno devia chegar autonomamente. Foram usados três tipos distintos de testes gramaticais em três diferentes momentos (antes, depois e um mês depois das produções orais com as intervenções corretivas), na tentativa de identificar alterações no nível de conhecimento implícito e explícito dos alunos em relação aos elementos linguísticos focalizados na pesquisa. Foram também realizados uma entrevista e um questionário, para a obtenção de dados qualitativos complementares. Não houve resultados homogêneos entre os alunos de cada dupla. Portanto, os efeitos dos dois tipos de tratamento dos erros são descritos em função do perfil de cada aluno e do tipo de erro corrigido. A esses fatores acrescentam-se o tipo e o propósito da atividade durante a qual ocorrem a conversação e o movimento corretivo. Em suma, mais do que apontar para a supremacia de um tipo de correção em detrimento do outro, o presente estudo traz uma discussão que pode auxiliar o professor de língua estrangeira, tanto a se preparar para propor atividades de produção oral em sala de aula, quanto a decidir como reagir ao identificar a ocorrência de um erro na fala de seus alunos. / This research stems from a daily question faced by foreign language teachers: should the errors made by students be corrected during their speeches in conversation activities? In order to answer this question, this study points to the effects on two distinct types of corrective interventions on Brazilian learners of Italian, while performing oral production activity with predefined themes, a type of exercise used to practice conversation in the classroom. In the empirical phase of the study, the six participants were split into three pairs: students from one of the pairs received implicit feedback (recasts), students from the second pair received explicit feedback (metalinguistic explanation) and students of the third pair did not receive any corrective intervention (control group). Two grammatical elements were chosen as correction targets: the use of the verb esserci and the inflectional rules (plural and singular) in noun phrases. Implicit feedbacks were performed through interruption of students speech and immediate supply of the right form, as soon as an error was identified, without further explanation; explicit feedbacks were made by the interruption of the speech and metalinguistic explanation about the students error, without providing the correct form to which the student should arrive autonomously. We used three different types of grammar tests at different times of the study (before, after and one month after the oral productions with corrective interventions), in an attempt to identify changes in the level of implicit and explicit knowledge of the students regarding the target structures. We also conducted interviews and questionnaires to obtain additional qualitative data. We could not find homogeneous results among students of each pair. Therefore, the effects of each type of error treatment are described according to the profile of each student and the type of error. To these factors we should add the type and purpose of the activity during which have occurred both the conversation and the corrective interventions. In short, rather than point to the supremacy of one type of feedback over the other one, this study provides a discussion that may help foreign language teachers to prepare themselves not only to propose oral production activities in the classroom, but also to decide how to react when they identify an error in the speech of their students.

Esta pesquisa nasce de um questionamento proveniente do cotidiano do professor de língua estrangeira: devem ser corrigidos os erros cometidos pelos alunos, enquanto eles falam em atividades de conversação? Com o intuito de responder a essa pergunta, o presente estudo aponta para os efeitos em aprendizes brasileiros de italiano de dois tipos distintos de intervenções corretivas, durante a realização de atividades de produção oral a partir de temas pré-definidos, tipologia de exercício usada para a prática de conversação em sala de aula. Na fase experimental do estudo, os seis alunos participantes foram divididos em três duplas: os alunos de uma das duplas tiveram os seus erros tratados com correções implícitas do tipo retomada (recasts), os de outra dupla receberam correções explícitas metalinguísticas e os alunos da terceira dupla não tiveram os seus erros tratados com nenhum tipo de intervenção corretiva (grupo de controle). Foram escolhidos dois elementos gramaticais como alvo das correções: o uso do verbo esserci e a flexão nominal de número. As correções implícitas previam a interrupção da fala do aluno e o fornecimento imediato da forma correta sem explicações, assim que era identificado um erro; já as correções explícitas consistiam na interrupção da fala e na explicação metalinguística sobre o erro cometido pelo aluno, sem o fornecimento da forma correta, à qual o aluno devia chegar autonomamente. Foram usados três tipos distintos de testes gramaticais em três diferentes momentos (antes, depois e um mês depois das produções orais com as intervenções corretivas), na tentativa de identificar alterações no nível de conhecimento implícito e explícito dos alunos em relação aos elementos linguísticos focalizados na pesquisa. Foram também realizados uma entrevista e um questionário, para a obtenção de dados qualitativos complementares. Não houve resultados homogêneos entre os alunos de cada dupla. Portanto, os efeitos dos dois tipos de tratamento dos erros são descritos em função do perfil de cada aluno e do tipo de erro corrigido. A esses fatores acrescentam-se o tipo e o propósito da atividade durante a qual ocorrem a conversação e o movimento corretivo. Em suma, mais do que apontar para a supremacia de um tipo de correção em detrimento do outro, o presente estudo traz uma discussão que pode auxiliar o professor de língua estrangeira, tanto a se preparar para propor atividades de produção oral em sala de aula, quanto a decidir como reagir ao identificar a ocorrência de um erro na fala de seus alunos. / This research stems from a daily question faced by foreign language teachers: should the errors made by students be corrected during their speeches in conversation activities? In order to answer this question, this study points to the effects on two distinct types of corrective interventions on Brazilian learners of Italian, while performing oral production activity with predefined themes, a type of exercise used to practice conversation in the classroom. In the empirical phase of the study, the six participants were split into three pairs: students from one of the pairs received implicit feedback (recasts), students from the second pair received explicit feedback (metalinguistic explanation) and students of the third pair did not receive any corrective intervention (control group). Two grammatical elements were chosen as correction targets: the use of the verb esserci and the inflectional rules (plural and singular) in noun phrases. Implicit feedbacks were performed through interruption of students speech and immediate supply of the right form, as soon as an error was identified, without further explanation; explicit feedbacks were made by the interruption of the speech and metalinguistic explanation about the students error, without providing the correct form to which the student should arrive autonomously. We used three different types of grammar tests at different times of the study (before, after and one month after the oral productions with corrective interventions), in an attempt to identify changes in the level of implicit and explicit knowledge of the students regarding the target structures. We also conducted interviews and questionnaires to obtain additional qualitative data. We could not find homogeneous results among students of each pair. Therefore, the effects of each type of error treatment are described according to the profile of each student and the type of error. To these factors we should add the type and purpose of the activity during which have occurred both the conversation and the corrective interventions. In short, rather than point to the supremacy of one type of feedback over the other one, this study provides a discussion that may help foreign language teachers to prepare themselves not only to propose oral production activities in the classroom, but also to decide how to react when they identify an error in the speech of their students.

Cette recherche vise à décrire 1) les erreurs lexicales commises en production écrite par des élèves francophones de 3e secondaire et 2) le rapport à l’erreur lexicale d’enseignants de français (conception de l’erreur lexicale, pratiques d’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite, modes de rétroaction aux erreurs lexicales). Le premier volet de la recherche consiste en une analyse d’erreurs à trois niveaux : 1) une description linguistique des erreurs à l’aide d’une typologie, 2) une évaluation de la gravité des erreurs et 3) une explication de leurs sources possibles. Le corpus analysé est constitué de 300 textes rédigés en classe de français par des élèves de 3e secondaire. L’analyse a révélé 1144 erreurs lexicales. Les plus fréquentes sont les problèmes sémantiques (30%), les erreurs liées aux propriétés morphosyntaxiques des unités lexicales (21%) et l’utilisation de termes familiers (17%). Cette répartition démontre que la moitié des erreurs lexicales sont attribuables à une méconnaissance de propriétés des mots autres que le sens et la forme. L’évaluation de la gravité des erreurs repose sur trois critères : leur acceptation linguistique selon les dictionnaires, leur impact sur la compréhension et leur degré d’intégration à l’usage. Les problèmes liés aux registres de langue sont généralement ceux qui sont considérés comme les moins graves et les erreurs sémantiques représentent la quasi-totalité des erreurs graves. Le troisième axe d’analyse concerne la source des erreurs et fait ressortir trois sources principales : l’influence de la langue orale, la proximité sémantique et la parenté formelle entre le mot utilisé et celui visé. Le second volet de la thèse concerne le rapport des enseignants de français à l’erreur lexicale et repose sur l’analyse de 224 rédactions corrigées ainsi que sur une série de huit entrevues menées avec des enseignants de 3e secondaire. Lors de la correction, les enseignants relèvent surtout les erreurs orthographiques ainsi que celles relevant des propriétés morphosyntaxiques des mots (genre, invariabilité, régime), qu’ils classent parmi les erreurs de grammaire. Les erreurs plus purement lexicales, c’est-à-dire les erreurs sémantiques, l’emploi de termes familiers et les erreurs de collocation, demeurent peu relevées, et les annotations des enseignants concernant ces types d’erreurs sont vagues et peu systématiques, donnant peu de pistes aux élèves pour la correction. L’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite est toujours soumise à une appréciation qualitative, qui repose sur l’impression générale des enseignants plutôt que sur des critères précis, le seul indicateur clair étant la répétition. Les explications des enseignants concernant les erreurs lexicales reposent beaucoup sur l’intuition, ce qui témoigne de certaines lacunes dans leur formation en lien avec le vocabulaire. Les enseignants admettent enseigner très peu le vocabulaire en classe au secondaire et expliquent ce choix par le manque de temps et d’outils adéquats. L’enseignement du vocabulaire est toujours subordonné à des tâches d’écriture ou de lecture et vise davantage l’acquisition de mots précis que le développement d’une réelle compétence lexicale. / This research aims to describe 1) francophone students’ lexical errors in writing and 2) teachers’ relation to lexical errors (conception of error, vocabulary evaluation practices, feedback provided). The first part of the research consists in a three-level error analysis: 1) a linguistic description based on an error typology, 2) an evaluation of error gravity and 3) an explanation of the possible sources of error. The corpus analyzed is composed of 300 texts written in French class by 3rd year high school students. The analysis revealed 1144 lexical errors. The most common are semantic problems (30%), errors related to morphosyntactic properties of words (21%) and the use of colloquial words (17%). This distribution shows that half of the lexical errors are due to a lack of knowledge of word properties other than meaning and form. The evaluation of error gravity is based on three criteria: their acceptability according to dictionaries, their impact on comprehension and their degree of integration to language. Problems related to register are usually those perceived as less serious and semantic problems represent the vast majority of serious errors. The third level of analysis concerns the possible causes of the errors and identifies three main sources: influence of oral language, semantic proximity and formal similarity between the word used and the target word. The second part of the thesis concerns French teachers’ relation to lexical errors and is based on the analysis of 224 corrected essays and eight interviews. When correcting, teachers focus their attention on errors involving morphosyntactic properties of words (gender, invariability, government pattern), which they consider as grammatical errors. The more genuine lexical errors (semantic errors, use of colloquial words and collocation errors) are rarely pointed out, and comments provided regarding these types of errors are vague and inconsistent, giving students very few hints for correction. The evaluation of vocabulary in written production is always subject to a qualitative assessment, based on the teacher’s general impression rather than specific criteria, the only clear indicator being repetition. The explanations teachers provide about lexical problems rely heavily on intuition, which shows some deficiencies in their training in regards to vocabulary.

Cette recherche vise à décrire 1) les erreurs lexicales commises en production écrite par des élèves francophones de 3e secondaire et 2) le rapport à l’erreur lexicale d’enseignants de français (conception de l’erreur lexicale, pratiques d’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite, modes de rétroaction aux erreurs lexicales). Le premier volet de la recherche consiste en une analyse d’erreurs à trois niveaux : 1) une description linguistique des erreurs à l’aide d’une typologie, 2) une évaluation de la gravité des erreurs et 3) une explication de leurs sources possibles. Le corpus analysé est constitué de 300 textes rédigés en classe de français par des élèves de 3e secondaire. L’analyse a révélé 1144 erreurs lexicales. Les plus fréquentes sont les problèmes sémantiques (30%), les erreurs liées aux propriétés morphosyntaxiques des unités lexicales (21%) et l’utilisation de termes familiers (17%). Cette répartition démontre que la moitié des erreurs lexicales sont attribuables à une méconnaissance de propriétés des mots autres que le sens et la forme. L’évaluation de la gravité des erreurs repose sur trois critères : leur acceptation linguistique selon les dictionnaires, leur impact sur la compréhension et leur degré d’intégration à l’usage. Les problèmes liés aux registres de langue sont généralement ceux qui sont considérés comme les moins graves et les erreurs sémantiques représentent la quasi-totalité des erreurs graves. Le troisième axe d’analyse concerne la source des erreurs et fait ressortir trois sources principales : l’influence de la langue orale, la proximité sémantique et la parenté formelle entre le mot utilisé et celui visé. Le second volet de la thèse concerne le rapport des enseignants de français à l’erreur lexicale et repose sur l’analyse de 224 rédactions corrigées ainsi que sur une série de huit entrevues menées avec des enseignants de 3e secondaire. Lors de la correction, les enseignants relèvent surtout les erreurs orthographiques ainsi que celles relevant des propriétés morphosyntaxiques des mots (genre, invariabilité, régime), qu’ils classent parmi les erreurs de grammaire. Les erreurs plus purement lexicales, c’est-à-dire les erreurs sémantiques, l’emploi de termes familiers et les erreurs de collocation, demeurent peu relevées, et les annotations des enseignants concernant ces types d’erreurs sont vagues et peu systématiques, donnant peu de pistes aux élèves pour la correction. L’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite est toujours soumise à une appréciation qualitative, qui repose sur l’impression générale des enseignants plutôt que sur des critères précis, le seul indicateur clair étant la répétition. Les explications des enseignants concernant les erreurs lexicales reposent beaucoup sur l’intuition, ce qui témoigne de certaines lacunes dans leur formation en lien avec le vocabulaire. Les enseignants admettent enseigner très peu le vocabulaire en classe au secondaire et expliquent ce choix par le manque de temps et d’outils adéquats. L’enseignement du vocabulaire est toujours subordonné à des tâches d’écriture ou de lecture et vise davantage l’acquisition de mots précis que le développement d’une réelle compétence lexicale. / This research aims to describe 1) francophone students’ lexical errors in writing and 2) teachers’ relation to lexical errors (conception of error, vocabulary evaluation practices, feedback provided). The first part of the research consists in a three-level error analysis: 1) a linguistic description based on an error typology, 2) an evaluation of error gravity and 3) an explanation of the possible sources of error. The corpus analyzed is composed of 300 texts written in French class by 3rd year high school students. The analysis revealed 1144 lexical errors. The most common are semantic problems (30%), errors related to morphosyntactic properties of words (21%) and the use of colloquial words (17%). This distribution shows that half of the lexical errors are due to a lack of knowledge of word properties other than meaning and form. The evaluation of error gravity is based on three criteria: their acceptability according to dictionaries, their impact on comprehension and their degree of integration to language. Problems related to register are usually those perceived as less serious and semantic problems represent the vast majority of serious errors. The third level of analysis concerns the possible causes of the errors and identifies three main sources: influence of oral language, semantic proximity and formal similarity between the word used and the target word. The second part of the thesis concerns French teachers’ relation to lexical errors and is based on the analysis of 224 corrected essays and eight interviews. When correcting, teachers focus their attention on errors involving morphosyntactic properties of words (gender, invariability, government pattern), which they consider as grammatical errors. The more genuine lexical errors (semantic errors, use of colloquial words and collocation errors) are rarely pointed out, and comments provided regarding these types of errors are vague and inconsistent, giving students very few hints for correction. The evaluation of vocabulary in written production is always subject to a qualitative assessment, based on the teacher’s general impression rather than specific criteria, the only clear indicator being repetition. The explanations teachers provide about lexical problems rely heavily on intuition, which shows some deficiencies in their training in regards to vocabulary.