Perspectives interculturelles et interlinguistiques sur le discours académique – Crosscultural and Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Volume 1

The Department of French Studies of the University of Turku (Finland) organized an International Bilingual Conference on Crosscultural and Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Academic Discourse from 2022 May 2005. The event hosted specialists on Academic Discourse from Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, and the USA. This book is the first volume in our series of publications on Academic Discourse (AD hereafter). The following pages are composed of selected papers from the conference and focus on different aspects and analytical frameworks of Academic Discourse. One of the motivations behind organizing the conference was to examine and expand research on AD in different languages. Another one was to question to what extent academic genres are culturebound and language specific or primarily field or domain specific. The research carried out on AD has been mainly concerned with the use of English in different academic settings for a long time now – mainly written contexts – and at the expense of other languages. Alternatively the academic genre conventions of English and English speaking world have served as a basis for comparison with other languages and cultures. We consider this first volume to be a strong contribution to the spreading out of researches based on other languages than English in AD, namely Finnish, French, Italian, Norwegian and Romanian in this book. All the following articles have a strong link with the French language: either French is constitutive of the AD corpora under examination or the article was written in French. The structure of the book suggests and provides evidence that the concept of AD is understood and tackled to varying degrees by different scholars. Our first volume opens up the discussion on what AD is and backs dissemination, overlapping and expansion of current research questions and methodologies. The book is divided into three parts and contains four articles in English and six articles in French. The papers in part one and part two cover what we call the prototypical genre of written AD, i.e. the research article. Part one follows up on issues linked to the 13 Research Article (RA hereafter). Kjersti Fløttum asks wether a typical RA exists and concentrates on authors’ voices in RA (self and other dimensions), whereas Didriksen and Gjesdal’s article focuses on individual variation of the author’s voice in RA. The last article in this section is by Nadine Rentel and deals with evaluation in the writing of RA. Part two concentrates on the teaching and learning of AD within foreign language learning, another more or less canonical genre of AD. Two aspects of writing are covered in the first two articles: foreign students’ representations on rhetorical traditions (Hidden) and a contrastive assessment of written exercices in French and Finnish in Higher Education (Suzanne). The last contribution in this section on AD moves away from traditional written forms and looks at how argumentation is constructed in students’ oral presentations (Dervin and Fauveau). The last part of the book continues the extension by featuring four articles written in French exploring institutional and scientific discourses. Institutional discourses under scrutiny include the European Bologna Process (Galatanu) and Romanian reform texts (Moilanen). As for scientific discourses, the next paper in this section deconstructs an ideological discourse on the didactics of French as a foreign language (Pescheux). Finally, the last paper in part three reflects on varied forms of AD at university (Defays). We hope that this book will add some fuel to continue discussing diverse forms of and approches to AD – in different languages and voices! No need to say that with the current upsurge in academic mobility, reflecting on crosscultural and crosslinguistic AD has just but started.

Une étude sociolinguistique sur la communication multilingue des deux commissaires européens sur Twitter

L’objectif de cette étude est d’examiner le discours des deux commissaires européens sur Twitter. L’étude se concentre à déterminer les langues principales du discours, la présence du dialogue multilingue et quelques caractéristiques des ressources utilisées par les participants. La recherche examine également les sujets du discours et le rôle des hashtags. Le corpus de l’étude consiste en 20 tweets par commissaire et ses réactions. La méthode de recherche est ethnographique. Le cadre théorique de l’étude se base sur la sociolinguistique de la globalisation (Blommaert, Heller) et les théories sur la communication médiée par l’ordinateur (Androutsopoulos). Les résultats de l’analyse montrent que les deux commissaires communiquent en plusieurs langues et les participants en introduisent encore plus dans leurs réactions. Il n’y a pas d’interaction entre les politiciens et les participants. La réflexivité métalinguistique est présente dans les réactions – les participants critiquent le choix de langue des commissaires. Ainsi, le choix de la langue des politiciens devient le sujet de la discussion. L’utilisation des pronoms je et nous dans le discours des politiciens fait également l’objet de la recherche. Les nous collectifs du corpus expriment surtout une collectivité professionnelle mais également une collectivité idéologique. Les sujets du discours des politiciens sont principalement liés à l’actualité de l’UE tandis que les participants introduisent surtout des sujets où les politiciens sont critiqués. En ce qui concerne les hashtags, deux catégories ont été identifiées : les hashtags qui ont comme objectif de faire le concept visible ou bien les hashtags qui ont comme but de guider les participants à interpréter le message d’une façon spécifique. L’étude montre également que le principe du multilinguisme n’est pas respecté par les politiciens sur Twitter. Pourtant, Twitter peut fournir une plate-forme égalitaire pour la discussion. Ainsi, il serait intéressant d’étudier Twitter du point de vue de l’égalité linguistique.