Métamorphoses identitaires en situation de mobilité

Identity metamorphoses in a context of mobility This study has its roots in the current upsurge in student mobility and in the scientific debates about the concepts of identity and intercultural communication. Based on a corpus of interviews with French Erasmus students in Finland, the study blends in theories of postmodern identity, intercultural hermeneutics and discourse analysis to examine how the students construct themselves and diverse ‘othernesses’ (included theirs) when they talk about their experiences. The use of the French pronoun on, pronoun switches, and virtual voices (ex: I said to myself...) allowed to pinpoint the students’ unstable identity metamorphoses in their discourses: integration of liquid and solid selves, infidelity in identification with the French but also with Erasmus ‘tribes’, and games of identity. Though the exchange experience appears as interesting for the students, the results show that many and varied misconceptions about identity, culture, intercultural communication, language use, and strangeness lead the students to evaluate their experiences negatively. The implication of the study is that students should be prepared for their time abroad, not so much in terms of ‘grammars of culture’ (e.g. ‘Finns behave in such and such ways’, ‘the French are...’), but through the development of competences to analyse the identity metamorphoses that take place in intercultural encounters and prevent people from meeting each other as diverse individuals. This could make study abroad one of the best training periods for postmodernity and globalization.

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.

Enseigner l'interculturel dans le supérieur: quels discours et approches d'un concept ambigu à l'heure de l'internationalisation? Le cas de la Finlande

L‘interculturel est un concept souvent partagé mais rarement défini dans la recherche alors que ses compréhensions, interprétations et applications sont variées, ce qui mène à des malentendus et des positionnements épistémologiques et méthodologiques ambigus. En parallèle, de nombreuses critiques et propositions de réorientations de la notion voient le jour. Nous entendons faire le point sur la notion et son intégration potentielle dans l‘enseignement de la communication interculturelle (ECI). Notre étude se base sur l‘analyse de six groupes focalisés d‘enseignants (-chercheurs) impliqués dans l‘enseignement de l‘interculturel du niveau supérieur en Finlande, pays du nord de l‘Europe. Nous avons recours aux paradigmes postmodernes et aux sciences du langage (analyse du discours inspirée d‘auteurs français, et plus particulièrement de l‘école française de la deuxième génération (les théories de l‘énonciation (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2002 ; Marnette, 2005) et une approche du dialogisme inspirée par Bakhtine (1977))). Ces méthodes permettent de mettre en avant la complexité identitaire en posant l‘hétérogénéité du discours comme principe, c‘est-à-dire qu‘elles considèrent que tout discours inclut la « voix » de l‘autre. Repérer la présence de ces voix dans les discours des enseignants/chercheurs nous a permis de démontrer comment celles-ci participaient à la construction de leur identité pendant l‘interaction. Nous avons pu observer comment les relations entre ces interactions verbales donnaient lieu à des instabilités (contradictions, omissions), dont l‘étude nous a aidée à déduire leur(s) façon(s) de concevoir l‘interculturel. Les discours analysés révèlent a) que la définition de l‘interculturel est partagée sans être perçue de la même manière et b) que les différentes représentations du concept peuvent varier dans le discours d‘un même enseignant, mettant en évidences des contradictions qui posent problème s‘il s‘agit de communiquer un savoir-être aux apprenants. Nous nous sommes efforcée de trouver la place d‘un interculturel renouvelé parmi ces discours et de dissocier l‘image de l‘éducation interculturelle qui est promue en Finlande de ce qui est proposé en réalité : les changements actuels semblent avoir un minimum d‘impact sur la façon dont les enseignants traitent l‘interculturel. Nous nous demandons alors comment l‘Etat finlandais peut promouvoir un enseignement interculturel cohérent sans proposer aux enseignants/chercheurs une formation qui leur permettrait de reconnaitre les diverses diversités impliquées par l‘interculturel. Mots clés : Communication interculturelle, diversité, culture, enseignement supérieur finlandais.