Pope Francis disappoints Rohingya

by failing to condemn persecution

As the crowds trickled out of the Yangon sports ground where Pope Francis delivered his first public mass before tens of thousands of people, Khin Maung Myint, a Rohingya activist, sat on the sidelines. He was disappointed. Not in Francis, but in the advisers who appear to have dissuaded the pontiff from bringing up the plight of the Rohingya people. “Rohingya are not the ones who lost their dignity, but the people who silence the pope’s expression,” he said. “Those who pushed the pope not to use the word Rohingya, they are the ones who lost their dignity.”

Francis is nearing the end of a four-day visit to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, in which he has not publicly spoken about the persecuted Muslim minority, more than 620,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh in recent months, escaping what western leaders are calling ethnic cleansing.

Among the guests in the VIP section, where a gazebo provided protection from the hot Myanmar sun, was Aye Ne Win, the grandson of the country’s first dictator who attracted public derision recently after he dressed up as the pope for Halloween. Beside him, in a black veil, sat a beauty queen who has described the Rohingya in a YouTube video as “harbingers of terror and violence”.

In his homily on Wednesday, the pope talked about the need for forgiveness and ignoring the desire for revenge, but declined to reference violence meted out against the Rohingya, a campaign allegedly marked by gang-rape, massacres and arson. “We think that healing can come from anger or revenge,” Francis said, speaking of the many “wounded” people in Myanmar. “Yet the way of revenge is not the way of Jesus,” he said. It was his second public address in Myanmar, coming after he shared a stage with the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Tuesday, telling an audience of diplomats and journalists that all of Myanmar’s religious and minority ethnic groups – “none excluded” – should be respected.

Both speeches have fallen short of what many expected from the pope, whose advocacy for refugees has been a benchmark of his papacy. He has previously referred to “our Rohingya brothers and sisters”. At a press conference in Yangon on Wednesday night, papal spokesman Greg Burke said the moral authority of the Pope “still stands”. “You can criticize what is said or not said but the Pope is not going to lose any moral authority on this question here,” he said.

The Rohingya have suffered decades of persecution in Myanmar, where their freedoms have been slowly eroded and tens of thousands are confined to internment camps. They are widely deemed illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and labelled “Bengalis”. “For years the international community has towed the government of Myanmar’s line, refusing to say ‘Rohingya’ for fear of doing harm,” said David Baulk, a Myanmar researcher for Fortify Rights. “There should be nothing controversial about the pope identifying people by the name they want.”

Whether or not the pope should address the crisis has been a matter of debate within the Vatican since the visit was announced, according to a source familiar with discussions. “There are probably a mix of voices in the Vatican,” they said. “Those who are old school diplomats for whom caution is always their watchword and others who are a bit more bold.”

The most vocal was until recently Charles Maung Bo, Myanmar’s first cardinal, a powerful orator who has fiercely defended the Rohingya and condemned “merchants of hatred” in the form of Buddhist ultranationalists who have sanctioned the violence.

Before this week’s visit he urged the pope not to use the word, though he has made it clear he would have been happy with a compromise phrase, according to the source. “I think one factor in this was almost certainly pressure from within the church on him because he has been so outspoken until now and I think there would have been an enormous amount of pressure from other bishops,” the source said.

Who are the Rohingya?

At the press conference on Wednesday night, the split between the bishops was apparent, with one saying there was a lack of “reliable evidence” of atrocities and was not sure what was going on because he had not seen it himself.

The silence is likely to appease many Catholics in the country who either share prejudices against the Rohingya or are afraid of a nationalist backlash against the 650,000-strong Catholic community in Myanmar.

Francis is scheduled to fly to Dhaka in Bangladesh where he will meet Rohingya refugees on Thursday. But for some in Myanmar, the leader of the church has a moral obligation not to leave the country without commenting on its most pressing crisis.

After the mass, Father Thomas, a Yangon priest, said he hoped the pope brought the matter up in closed-door meetings this week with the army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

“This is the main issue in Burma,” he said.

www.theguardian.com/nov.27.2017

Pope Francis disappoints Rohingya

by failing to condemn persecution

As the crowds trickled out of the Yangon sports ground where Pope Francis delivered his first public mass before tens of thousands of people, Khin Maung Myint, a Rohingya activist, sat on the sidelines. He was disappointed. Not in Francis, but in the advisers who appear to have dissuaded the pontiff from bringing up the plight of the Rohingya people. “Rohingya are not the ones who lost their dignity, but the people who silence the pope’s expression,” he said. “Those who pushed the pope not to use the word Rohingya, they are the ones who lost their dignity.”

Francis is nearing the end of a four-day visit to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, in which he has not publicly spoken about the persecuted Muslim minority, more than 620,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh in recent months, escaping what western leaders are calling ethnic cleansing.

Among the guests in the VIP section, where a gazebo provided protection from the hot Myanmar sun, was Aye Ne Win, the grandson of the country’s first dictator who attracted public derision recently after he dressed up as the pope for Halloween. Beside him, in a black veil, sat a beauty queen who has described the Rohingya in a YouTube video as “harbingers of terror and violence”.

In his homily on Wednesday, the pope talked about the need for forgiveness and ignoring the desire for revenge, but declined to reference violence meted out against the Rohingya, a campaign allegedly marked by gang-rape, massacres and arson. “We think that healing can come from anger or revenge,” Francis said, speaking of the many “wounded” people in Myanmar. “Yet the way of revenge is not the way of Jesus,” he said. It was his second public address in Myanmar, coming after he shared a stage with the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Tuesday, telling an audience of diplomats and journalists that all of Myanmar’s religious and minority ethnic groups – “none excluded” – should be respected.

Both speeches have fallen short of what many expected from the pope, whose advocacy for refugees has been a benchmark of his papacy. He has previously referred to “our Rohingya brothers and sisters”. At a press conference in Yangon on Wednesday night, papal spokesman Greg Burke said the moral authority of the Pope “still stands”. “You can criticize what is said or not said but the Pope is not going to lose any moral authority on this question here,” he said.

The Rohingya have suffered decades of persecution in Myanmar, where their freedoms have been slowly eroded and tens of thousands are confined to internment camps. They are widely deemed illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and labelled “Bengalis”. “For years the international community has towed the government of Myanmar’s line, refusing to say ‘Rohingya’ for fear of doing harm,” said David Baulk, a Myanmar researcher for Fortify Rights. “There should be nothing controversial about the pope identifying people by the name they want.”

Whether or not the pope should address the crisis has been a matter of debate within the Vatican since the visit was announced, according to a source familiar with discussions. “There are probably a mix of voices in the Vatican,” they said. “Those who are old school diplomats for whom caution is always their watchword and others who are a bit more bold.”

The most vocal was until recently Charles Maung Bo, Myanmar’s first cardinal, a powerful orator who has fiercely defended the Rohingya and condemned “merchants of hatred” in the form of Buddhist ultranationalists who have sanctioned the violence.

Before this week’s visit he urged the pope not to use the word, though he has made it clear he would have been happy with a compromise phrase, according to the source. “I think one factor in this was almost certainly pressure from within the church on him because he has been so outspoken until now and I think there would have been an enormous amount of pressure from other bishops,” the source said.

Who are the Rohingya?

At the press conference on Wednesday night, the split between the bishops was apparent, with one saying there was a lack of “reliable evidence” of atrocities and was not sure what was going on because he had not seen it himself.

The silence is likely to appease many Catholics in the country who either share prejudices against the Rohingya or are afraid of a nationalist backlash against the 650,000-strong Catholic community in Myanmar.

Francis is scheduled to fly to Dhaka in Bangladesh where he will meet Rohingya refugees on Thursday. But for some in Myanmar, the leader of the church has a moral obligation not to leave the country without commenting on its most pressing crisis.

After the mass, Father Thomas, a Yangon priest, said he hoped the pope brought the matter up in closed-door meetings this week with the army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

“This is the main issue in Burma,” he said.

www.theguardian.com/nov.27.2017

Pope Francis disappoints Rohingya

by failing to condemn persecution

As the crowds trickled out of the Yangon sports ground where Pope Francis delivered his first public mass before tens of thousands of people, Khin Maung Myint, a Rohingya activist, sat on the sidelines. He was disappointed. Not in Francis, but in the advisers who appear to have dissuaded the pontiff from bringing up the plight of the Rohingya people. “Rohingya are not the ones who lost their dignity, but the people who silence the pope’s expression,” he said. “Those who pushed the pope not to use the word Rohingya, they are the ones who lost their dignity.”

Francis is nearing the end of a four-day visit to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, in which he has not publicly spoken about the persecuted Muslim minority, more than 620,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh in recent months, escaping what western leaders are calling ethnic cleansing.

Among the guests in the VIP section, where a gazebo provided protection from the hot Myanmar sun, was Aye Ne Win, the grandson of the country’s first dictator who attracted public derision recently after he dressed up as the pope for Halloween. Beside him, in a black veil, sat a beauty queen who has described the Rohingya in a YouTube video as “harbingers of terror and violence”.

In his homily on Wednesday, the pope talked about the need for forgiveness and ignoring the desire for revenge, but declined to reference violence meted out against the Rohingya, a campaign allegedly marked by gang-rape, massacres and arson. “We think that healing can come from anger or revenge,” Francis said, speaking of the many “wounded” people in Myanmar. “Yet the way of revenge is not the way of Jesus,” he said. It was his second public address in Myanmar, coming after he shared a stage with the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Tuesday, telling an audience of diplomats and journalists that all of Myanmar’s religious and minority ethnic groups – “none excluded” – should be respected.

Both speeches have fallen short of what many expected from the pope, whose advocacy for refugees has been a benchmark of his papacy. He has previously referred to “our Rohingya brothers and sisters”. At a press conference in Yangon on Wednesday night, papal spokesman Greg Burke said the moral authority of the Pope “still stands”. “You can criticize what is said or not said but the Pope is not going to lose any moral authority on this question here,” he said.

The Rohingya have suffered decades of persecution in Myanmar, where their freedoms have been slowly eroded and tens of thousands are confined to internment camps. They are widely deemed illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and labelled “Bengalis”. “For years the international community has towed the government of Myanmar’s line, refusing to say ‘Rohingya’ for fear of doing harm,” said David Baulk, a Myanmar researcher for Fortify Rights. “There should be nothing controversial about the pope identifying people by the name they want.”

Whether or not the pope should address the crisis has been a matter of debate within the Vatican since the visit was announced, according to a source familiar with discussions. “There are probably a mix of voices in the Vatican,” they said. “Those who are old school diplomats for whom caution is always their watchword and others who are a bit more bold.”

The most vocal was until recently Charles Maung Bo, Myanmar’s first cardinal, a powerful orator who has fiercely defended the Rohingya and condemned “merchants of hatred” in the form of Buddhist ultranationalists who have sanctioned the violence.

Before this week’s visit he urged the pope not to use the word, though he has made it clear he would have been happy with a compromise phrase, according to the source. “I think one factor in this was almost certainly pressure from within the church on him because he has been so outspoken until now and I think there would have been an enormous amount of pressure from other bishops,” the source said.

Who are the Rohingya?

At the press conference on Wednesday night, the split between the bishops was apparent, with one saying there was a lack of “reliable evidence” of atrocities and was not sure what was going on because he had not seen it himself.

The silence is likely to appease many Catholics in the country who either share prejudices against the Rohingya or are afraid of a nationalist backlash against the 650,000-strong Catholic community in Myanmar.

Francis is scheduled to fly to Dhaka in Bangladesh where he will meet Rohingya refugees on Thursday. But for some in Myanmar, the leader of the church has a moral obligation not to leave the country without commenting on its most pressing crisis.

After the mass, Father Thomas, a Yangon priest, said he hoped the pope brought the matter up in closed-door meetings this week with the army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

“This is the main issue in Burma,” he said.

www.theguardian.com/nov.27.2017

Pope Francis disappoints Rohingya

by failing to condemn persecution

As the crowds trickled out of the Yangon sports ground where Pope Francis delivered his first public mass before tens of thousands of people, Khin Maung Myint, a Rohingya activist, sat on the sidelines. He was disappointed. Not in Francis, but in the advisers who appear to have dissuaded the pontiff from bringing up the plight of the Rohingya people. “Rohingya are not the ones who lost their dignity, but the people who silence the pope’s expression,” he said. “Those who pushed the pope not to use the word Rohingya, they are the ones who lost their dignity.”

Francis is nearing the end of a four-day visit to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, in which he has not publicly spoken about the persecuted Muslim minority, more than 620,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh in recent months, escaping what western leaders are calling ethnic cleansing.

Among the guests in the VIP section, where a gazebo provided protection from the hot Myanmar sun, was Aye Ne Win, the grandson of the country’s first dictator who attracted public derision recently after he dressed up as the pope for Halloween. Beside him, in a black veil, sat a beauty queen who has described the Rohingya in a YouTube video as “harbingers of terror and violence”.

In his homily on Wednesday, the pope talked about the need for forgiveness and ignoring the desire for revenge, but declined to reference violence meted out against the Rohingya, a campaign allegedly marked by gang-rape, massacres and arson. “We think that healing can come from anger or revenge,” Francis said, speaking of the many “wounded” people in Myanmar. “Yet the way of revenge is not the way of Jesus,” he said. It was his second public address in Myanmar, coming after he shared a stage with the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Tuesday, telling an audience of diplomats and journalists that all of Myanmar’s religious and minority ethnic groups – “none excluded” – should be respected.

Both speeches have fallen short of what many expected from the pope, whose advocacy for refugees has been a benchmark of his papacy. He has previously referred to “our Rohingya brothers and sisters”. At a press conference in Yangon on Wednesday night, papal spokesman Greg Burke said the moral authority of the Pope “still stands”. “You can criticize what is said or not said but the Pope is not going to lose any moral authority on this question here,” he said.

The Rohingya have suffered decades of persecution in Myanmar, where their freedoms have been slowly eroded and tens of thousands are confined to internment camps. They are widely deemed illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and labelled “Bengalis”. “For years the international community has towed the government of Myanmar’s line, refusing to say ‘Rohingya’ for fear of doing harm,” said David Baulk, a Myanmar researcher for Fortify Rights. “There should be nothing controversial about the pope identifying people by the name they want.”

Whether or not the pope should address the crisis has been a matter of debate within the Vatican since the visit was announced, according to a source familiar with discussions. “There are probably a mix of voices in the Vatican,” they said. “Those who are old school diplomats for whom caution is always their watchword and others who are a bit more bold.”

The most vocal was until recently Charles Maung Bo, Myanmar’s first cardinal, a powerful orator who has fiercely defended the Rohingya and condemned “merchants of hatred” in the form of Buddhist ultranationalists who have sanctioned the violence.

Before this week’s visit he urged the pope not to use the word, though he has made it clear he would have been happy with a compromise phrase, according to the source. “I think one factor in this was almost certainly pressure from within the church on him because he has been so outspoken until now and I think there would have been an enormous amount of pressure from other bishops,” the source said.

Who are the Rohingya?

At the press conference on Wednesday night, the split between the bishops was apparent, with one saying there was a lack of “reliable evidence” of atrocities and was not sure what was going on because he had not seen it himself.

The silence is likely to appease many Catholics in the country who either share prejudices against the Rohingya or are afraid of a nationalist backlash against the 650,000-strong Catholic community in Myanmar.

Francis is scheduled to fly to Dhaka in Bangladesh where he will meet Rohingya refugees on Thursday. But for some in Myanmar, the leader of the church has a moral obligation not to leave the country without commenting on its most pressing crisis.

After the mass, Father Thomas, a Yangon priest, said he hoped the pope brought the matter up in closed-door meetings this week with the army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

“This is the main issue in Burma,” he said.

www.theguardian.com/nov.27.2017

Pope Francis disappoints Rohingya

by failing to condemn persecution

As the crowds trickled out of the Yangon sports ground where Pope Francis delivered his first public mass before tens of thousands of people, Khin Maung Myint, a Rohingya activist, sat on the sidelines. He was disappointed. Not in Francis, but in the advisers who appear to have dissuaded the pontiff from bringing up the plight of the Rohingya people. “Rohingya are not the ones who lost their dignity, but the people who silence the pope’s expression,” he said. “Those who pushed the pope not to use the word Rohingya, they are the ones who lost their dignity.”

Francis is nearing the end of a four-day visit to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, in which he has not publicly spoken about the persecuted Muslim minority, more than 620,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh in recent months, escaping what western leaders are calling ethnic cleansing.

Among the guests in the VIP section, where a gazebo provided protection from the hot Myanmar sun, was Aye Ne Win, the grandson of the country’s first dictator who attracted public derision recently after he dressed up as the pope for Halloween. Beside him, in a black veil, sat a beauty queen who has described the Rohingya in a YouTube video as “harbingers of terror and violence”.

In his homily on Wednesday, the pope talked about the need for forgiveness and ignoring the desire for revenge, but declined to reference violence meted out against the Rohingya, a campaign allegedly marked by gang-rape, massacres and arson. “We think that healing can come from anger or revenge,” Francis said, speaking of the many “wounded” people in Myanmar. “Yet the way of revenge is not the way of Jesus,” he said. It was his second public address in Myanmar, coming after he shared a stage with the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Tuesday, telling an audience of diplomats and journalists that all of Myanmar’s religious and minority ethnic groups – “none excluded” – should be respected.

Both speeches have fallen short of what many expected from the pope, whose advocacy for refugees has been a benchmark of his papacy. He has previously referred to “our Rohingya brothers and sisters”. At a press conference in Yangon on Wednesday night, papal spokesman Greg Burke said the moral authority of the Pope “still stands”. “You can criticize what is said or not said but the Pope is not going to lose any moral authority on this question here,” he said.

The Rohingya have suffered decades of persecution in Myanmar, where their freedoms have been slowly eroded and tens of thousands are confined to internment camps. They are widely deemed illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and labelled “Bengalis”. “For years the international community has towed the government of Myanmar’s line, refusing to say ‘Rohingya’ for fear of doing harm,” said David Baulk, a Myanmar researcher for Fortify Rights. “There should be nothing controversial about the pope identifying people by the name they want.”

Whether or not the pope should address the crisis has been a matter of debate within the Vatican since the visit was announced, according to a source familiar with discussions. “There are probably a mix of voices in the Vatican,” they said. “Those who are old school diplomats for whom caution is always their watchword and others who are a bit more bold.”

The most vocal was until recently Charles Maung Bo, Myanmar’s first cardinal, a powerful orator who has fiercely defended the Rohingya and condemned “merchants of hatred” in the form of Buddhist ultranationalists who have sanctioned the violence.

Before this week’s visit he urged the pope not to use the word, though he has made it clear he would have been happy with a compromise phrase, according to the source. “I think one factor in this was almost certainly pressure from within the church on him because he has been so outspoken until now and I think there would have been an enormous amount of pressure from other bishops,” the source said.

Who are the Rohingya?

At the press conference on Wednesday night, the split between the bishops was apparent, with one saying there was a lack of “reliable evidence” of atrocities and was not sure what was going on because he had not seen it himself.

The silence is likely to appease many Catholics in the country who either share prejudices against the Rohingya or are afraid of a nationalist backlash against the 650,000-strong Catholic community in Myanmar.

Francis is scheduled to fly to Dhaka in Bangladesh where he will meet Rohingya refugees on Thursday. But for some in Myanmar, the leader of the church has a moral obligation not to leave the country without commenting on its most pressing crisis.

After the mass, Father Thomas, a Yangon priest, said he hoped the pope brought the matter up in closed-door meetings this week with the army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

“This is the main issue in Burma,” he said.

www.theguardian.com/nov.27.2017

Pope Francis disappoints Rohingya

by failing to condemn persecution

As the crowds trickled out of the Yangon sports ground where Pope Francis delivered his first public mass before tens of thousands of people, Khin Maung Myint, a Rohingya activist, sat on the sidelines. He was disappointed. Not in Francis, but in the advisers who appear to have dissuaded the pontiff from bringing up the plight of the Rohingya people. “Rohingya are not the ones who lost their dignity, but the people who silence the pope’s expression,” he said. “Those who pushed the pope not to use the word Rohingya, they are the ones who lost their dignity.”

Francis is nearing the end of a four-day visit to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, in which he has not publicly spoken about the persecuted Muslim minority, more than 620,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh in recent months, escaping what western leaders are calling ethnic cleansing.

Among the guests in the VIP section, where a gazebo provided protection from the hot Myanmar sun, was Aye Ne Win, the grandson of the country’s first dictator who attracted public derision recently after he dressed up as the pope for Halloween. Beside him, in a black veil, sat a beauty queen who has described the Rohingya in a YouTube video as “harbingers of terror and violence”.

In his homily on Wednesday, the pope talked about the need for forgiveness and ignoring the desire for revenge, but declined to reference violence meted out against the Rohingya, a campaign allegedly marked by gang-rape, massacres and arson. “We think that healing can come from anger or revenge,” Francis said, speaking of the many “wounded” people in Myanmar. “Yet the way of revenge is not the way of Jesus,” he said. It was his second public address in Myanmar, coming after he shared a stage with the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Tuesday, telling an audience of diplomats and journalists that all of Myanmar’s religious and minority ethnic groups – “none excluded” – should be respected.

Both speeches have fallen short of what many expected from the pope, whose advocacy for refugees has been a benchmark of his papacy. He has previously referred to “our Rohingya brothers and sisters”. At a press conference in Yangon on Wednesday night, papal spokesman Greg Burke said the moral authority of the Pope “still stands”. “You can criticize what is said or not said but the Pope is not going to lose any moral authority on this question here,” he said.

The Rohingya have suffered decades of persecution in Myanmar, where their freedoms have been slowly eroded and tens of thousands are confined to internment camps. They are widely deemed illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and labelled “Bengalis”. “For years the international community has towed the government of Myanmar’s line, refusing to say ‘Rohingya’ for fear of doing harm,” said David Baulk, a Myanmar researcher for Fortify Rights. “There should be nothing controversial about the pope identifying people by the name they want.”

Whether or not the pope should address the crisis has been a matter of debate within the Vatican since the visit was announced, according to a source familiar with discussions. “There are probably a mix of voices in the Vatican,” they said. “Those who are old school diplomats for whom caution is always their watchword and others who are a bit more bold.”

The most vocal was until recently Charles Maung Bo, Myanmar’s first cardinal, a powerful orator who has fiercely defended the Rohingya and condemned “merchants of hatred” in the form of Buddhist ultranationalists who have sanctioned the violence.

Before this week’s visit he urged the pope not to use the word, though he has made it clear he would have been happy with a compromise phrase, according to the source. “I think one factor in this was almost certainly pressure from within the church on him because he has been so outspoken until now and I think there would have been an enormous amount of pressure from other bishops,” the source said.

Who are the Rohingya?

At the press conference on Wednesday night, the split between the bishops was apparent, with one saying there was a lack of “reliable evidence” of atrocities and was not sure what was going on because he had not seen it himself.

The silence is likely to appease many Catholics in the country who either share prejudices against the Rohingya or are afraid of a nationalist backlash against the 650,000-strong Catholic community in Myanmar.

Francis is scheduled to fly to Dhaka in Bangladesh where he will meet Rohingya refugees on Thursday. But for some in Myanmar, the leader of the church has a moral obligation not to leave the country without commenting on its most pressing crisis.

After the mass, Father Thomas, a Yangon priest, said he hoped the pope brought the matter up in closed-door meetings this week with the army chief, Min Aung Hlaing, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

“This is the main issue in Burma,” he said.

www.theguardian.com/nov.27.2017

LA PLACE DE LA GRAMMAIRE DANS LA CLASSE

DE FRANÇAIS LANGUE ÉTRANGÈRE - FLE

D’après des recherches réalisées les dernières années, pour les enseignants, la grammaire est une composante linguistique qu’ils estiment très importante en classe de langue. Dans ce nouveau millénaire, il semble bien que l’oubli qu’elle a souffert durant la période de l’approche communicative ne soit plus à l’ordre du jour. Même s’il est incontestable que l’apprenant apprend à communiquer en communiquant, il ne peut néanmoins se passer de grammaire dans les pratiques langagières. Tout se déroule comme si la grammaire redevenait un passage obligatoire pour l’enseignement du FLE. Toutefois, cette dernière ne serait pas l’unique objet de l’enseignement, car la compréhension et l’expression orales sont également importantes.

Cette remarque est d’autant plus significative que ces composantes n’étaient pas proposées et qu’un enseignant sur trois a pris soin de le préciser. Dans leur esprit, il existe une relation évidente entre un enseignement formel de la langue et la mise en pratique des formes dans des situations de communication essentiellement orales. Les enseignants du FLE appliquent le principe selon lequel l’apprentissage de la langue passe par des pratiques communicatives en langue cible, mais avec de la grammaire. Dans le cadre de la classe, cette dernière est ancrée dans une réalité textuelle et contextuelle: il cesse d’y avoir une coupure entre emplois et formes, on arrive à la complémentarité.

Ce retour en force de la grammaire dans la classe de langue paraît correspondre aux attentes des apprenants. Elle devance le lexique et la civilisation, la phonétique n’apparaissant pas comme primordiale. Il y a donc correspondance entre ce qu’attendent les apprenants et ce que proposent les enseignants. Cependant, il faut éviter de tomber dans l’écueil d’un enseignement de la langue toujours plus grammaticalisé, sous prétexte d’attendre une demande indispensable pour parvenir à la maîtrise du français.

Il convient d’autre part de s’interroger sur les causes de cette reconnaissance de la valeur de la grammaire par les enseignants comme par les apprenants. Peut-être leur apporte-t-elle un sentiment de sécurité. Lorsque l’apprenant prend connaissance d’une nouvelle règle de grammaire, il a l’impression de maîtriser une partie du système linguistique, même si le réemploi dans des situations de communication ne va pas toujours de soi. Pour un apprenant en français, apprendre la grammaire, c’est parvenir progressivement à appréhender la langue. Il la perçoit comme un élément de stabilité parmi le nombre plus ou moins élevé de réalisations langagières possibles pour un acte de parole. L’enseignant, conscient de ces limites mais aussi de la nécessité de prendre appui sur ce qui lui semble le plus stable dans la langue, intègre la grammaire dans son programme de cours. Il reste cependant à déterminer dans quelle proportion.

Sur ce problème nous dirons qu’il ne faut pas que la grammaire prenne une trop grande place en classe de FLE. À trop vouloir répondre aux attentes des apprenants, il est possible de tomber dans le piège d’une focalisation excessive sur la grammaire qui ne garantit pas nécessairement une bonne compétence communicative orale et/ou écrite en français.

En ce qui concerne la formation, si l’enseignement de la grammaire ne constitue pas une fin en soi et qu’il est tout aussi inconcevable que l’enseignant du FLE vise à une transmission intégrale des savoirs grammaticaux, il est aussi vrai que l’enseignement de la grammaire en FLE exige qu’elle soit intégrée dans l’entier de la formation dispensée aux étudiants. Cela implique d’envisager conjointement la dimension de l’enseignement (relations entre théories et méthodologies) et celle de l’apprentissage (obstacles et réussites dans l’appropriation scolaire).

Extrait et adaté de Marie-Christine Fougerouse,

Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne, in Études de

linguistique appliquée, 2001/2 et de Jacques David,

in Le français aujourd'hui 2011/5.

LA PLACE DE LA GRAMMAIRE DANS LA CLASSE

DE FRANÇAIS LANGUE ÉTRANGÈRE - FLE

D’après des recherches réalisées les dernières années, pour les enseignants, la grammaire est une composante linguistique qu’ils estiment très importante en classe de langue. Dans ce nouveau millénaire, il semble bien que l’oubli qu’elle a souffert durant la période de l’approche communicative ne soit plus à l’ordre du jour. Même s’il est incontestable que l’apprenant apprend à communiquer en communiquant, il ne peut néanmoins se passer de grammaire dans les pratiques langagières. Tout se déroule comme si la grammaire redevenait un passage obligatoire pour l’enseignement du FLE. Toutefois, cette dernière ne serait pas l’unique objet de l’enseignement, car la compréhension et l’expression orales sont également importantes.

Cette remarque est d’autant plus significative que ces composantes n’étaient pas proposées et qu’un enseignant sur trois a pris soin de le préciser. Dans leur esprit, il existe une relation évidente entre un enseignement formel de la langue et la mise en pratique des formes dans des situations de communication essentiellement orales. Les enseignants du FLE appliquent le principe selon lequel l’apprentissage de la langue passe par des pratiques communicatives en langue cible, mais avec de la grammaire. Dans le cadre de la classe, cette dernière est ancrée dans une réalité textuelle et contextuelle: il cesse d’y avoir une coupure entre emplois et formes, on arrive à la complémentarité.

Ce retour en force de la grammaire dans la classe de langue paraît correspondre aux attentes des apprenants. Elle devance le lexique et la civilisation, la phonétique n’apparaissant pas comme primordiale. Il y a donc correspondance entre ce qu’attendent les apprenants et ce que proposent les enseignants. Cependant, il faut éviter de tomber dans l’écueil d’un enseignement de la langue toujours plus grammaticalisé, sous prétexte d’attendre une demande indispensable pour parvenir à la maîtrise du français.

Il convient d’autre part de s’interroger sur les causes de cette reconnaissance de la valeur de la grammaire par les enseignants comme par les apprenants. Peut-être leur apporte-t-elle un sentiment de sécurité. Lorsque l’apprenant prend connaissance d’une nouvelle règle de grammaire, il a l’impression de maîtriser une partie du système linguistique, même si le réemploi dans des situations de communication ne va pas toujours de soi. Pour un apprenant en français, apprendre la grammaire, c’est parvenir progressivement à appréhender la langue. Il la perçoit comme un élément de stabilité parmi le nombre plus ou moins élevé de réalisations langagières possibles pour un acte de parole. L’enseignant, conscient de ces limites mais aussi de la nécessité de prendre appui sur ce qui lui semble le plus stable dans la langue, intègre la grammaire dans son programme de cours. Il reste cependant à déterminer dans quelle proportion.

Sur ce problème nous dirons qu’il ne faut pas que la grammaire prenne une trop grande place en classe de FLE. À trop vouloir répondre aux attentes des apprenants, il est possible de tomber dans le piège d’une focalisation excessive sur la grammaire qui ne garantit pas nécessairement une bonne compétence communicative orale et/ou écrite en français.

En ce qui concerne la formation, si l’enseignement de la grammaire ne constitue pas une fin en soi et qu’il est tout aussi inconcevable que l’enseignant du FLE vise à une transmission intégrale des savoirs grammaticaux, il est aussi vrai que l’enseignement de la grammaire en FLE exige qu’elle soit intégrée dans l’entier de la formation dispensée aux étudiants. Cela implique d’envisager conjointement la dimension de l’enseignement (relations entre théories et méthodologies) et celle de l’apprentissage (obstacles et réussites dans l’appropriation scolaire).

Extrait et adaté de Marie-Christine Fougerouse,

Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne, in Études de

linguistique appliquée, 2001/2 et de Jacques David,

in Le français aujourd'hui 2011/5.

LA PLACE DE LA GRAMMAIRE DANS LA CLASSE

DE FRANÇAIS LANGUE ÉTRANGÈRE - FLE

D’après des recherches réalisées les dernières années, pour les enseignants, la grammaire est une composante linguistique qu’ils estiment très importante en classe de langue. Dans ce nouveau millénaire, il semble bien que l’oubli qu’elle a souffert durant la période de l’approche communicative ne soit plus à l’ordre du jour. Même s’il est incontestable que l’apprenant apprend à communiquer en communiquant, il ne peut néanmoins se passer de grammaire dans les pratiques langagières. Tout se déroule comme si la grammaire redevenait un passage obligatoire pour l’enseignement^A) du FLE. Toutefois, cette dernière ne serait pas l’unique objet de l’enseignement, car la compréhension et l’expression orales sont également importantes.

Cette remarque est d’autant plus significative que ces composantes n’étaient pas proposées et qu’un enseignant sur trois a pris soin de le préciser. Dans leur esprit, il existe une relation évidente entre un enseignement formel de la langue et la mise en pratique des formes dans des situations de communication essentiellement orales. Les enseignants du FLE appliquent le principe selon lequel l’apprentissage de la langue passe par des pratiques communicatives en langue cible, mais avec de la grammaire. Dans le cadre de la classe, cette dernière est ancrée dans une réalité textuelle et contextuelle: il cesse d’y avoir une coupure entre emplois et formes, on arrive à la complémentarité^B).

Ce retour en force de la grammaire dans la classe de langue paraît correspondre aux attentes des apprenants. Elle devance le lexique et la civilisation, la phonétique n’apparaissant pas comme primordiale. Il y a donc correspondance entre ce qu’attendent les apprenants^C) et ce que proposent les enseignants. Cependant, il faut éviter de tomber dans l’écueil d’un enseignement de la langue toujours plus grammaticalisé, sous prétexte d’attendre une demande indispensable pour parvenir à la maîtrise^D) du français.

Il convient d’autre part de s’interroger sur les causes de cette reconnaissance de la valeur de la grammaire par les enseignants comme par les apprenants. Peut-être leur apporte-t-elle un sentiment de sécurité. Lorsque l’apprenant prend connaissance d’une nouvelle règle de grammaire, il a l’impression de maîtriser une partie du système linguistique, même si le réemploi dans des situations de communication ne va pas toujours de soi. Pour un apprenant en français, apprendre la grammaire, c’est parvenir progressivement à appréhender la langue. Il la perçoit comme un élément de stabilité parmi le nombre plus ou moins élevé de réalisations langagières possibles pour un acte de parole. L’enseignant, conscient de ces limites mais aussi de la nécessité de prendre appui sur ce qui lui semble le plus stable dans la langue, intègre la grammaire dans son programme de cours. Il reste cependant à déterminer dans quelle proportion.

Sur ce problème nous dirons qu’il ne faut pas que la grammaire prenne une trop grande place en classe de FLE. À trop vouloir répondre aux attentes des apprenants, il est possible de tomber dans le piège d’une focalisation excessive sur la grammaire qui ne garantit pas nécessairement une bonne compétence communicative orale et/ou écrite en français.

En ce qui concerne la formation, si l’enseignement de la grammaire ne constitue pas une fin en soi et qu’il est tout aussi inconcevable que l’enseignant du FLE vise à une transmission intégrale des savoirs grammaticaux, il est aussi vrai que l’enseignement de la grammaire en FLE exige qu’elle soit intégrée dans l’entier de la formation dispensée aux étudiants. Cela implique d’envisager conjointement la dimension de l’enseignement (relations entre théories et méthodologies) et celle de l’apprentissage (obstacles et réussites dans l’appropriation scolaire).

Extrait et adaté de Marie-Christine Fougerouse,

Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne, in Études de

linguistique appliquée, 2001/2 et de Jacques David,

in Le français aujourd'hui 2011/5.

LA PLACE DE LA GRAMMAIRE DANS LA CLASSE

DE FRANÇAIS LANGUE ÉTRANGÈRE - FLE

D’après des recherches réalisées les dernières années, pour les enseignants, la grammaire est une composante linguistique qu’ils estiment très importante en classe de langue. Dans ce nouveau millénaire, il semble bien que l’oubli qu’elle a souffert durant la période de l’approche communicative ne soit plus à l’ordre du jour. Même s’il est incontestable que l’apprenant apprend à communiquer en communiquant, il ne peut néanmoins se passer de grammaire dans les pratiques langagières. Tout se déroule comme si la grammaire redevenait un passage obligatoire pour l’enseignement du FLE. Toutefois, cette dernière ne serait pas l’unique objet de l’enseignement, car la compréhension et l’expression orales sont également importantes.

Cette remarque est d’autant plus significative que ces composantes n’étaient pas proposées et qu’un enseignant sur trois a pris soin de le préciser. Dans leur esprit, il existe une relation évidente entre un enseignement formel de la langue et la mise en pratique des formes dans des situations de communication essentiellement orales. Les enseignants du FLE appliquent le principe selon lequel l’apprentissage de la langue passe par des pratiques communicatives en langue cible, mais avec de la grammaire. Dans le cadre de la classe, cette dernière est ancrée dans une réalité textuelle et contextuelle: il cesse d’y avoir une coupure entre emplois et formes, on arrive à la complémentarité.

Ce retour en force de la grammaire dans la classe de langue paraît correspondre aux attentes des apprenants. Elle devance le lexique et la civilisation, la phonétique n’apparaissant pas comme primordiale. Il y a donc correspondance entre ce qu’attendent les apprenants et ce que proposent les enseignants. Cependant, il faut éviter de tomber dans l’écueil d’un enseignement de la langue toujours plus grammaticalisé, sous prétexte d’attendre une demande indispensable pour parvenir à la maîtrise du français.

Il convient d’autre part de s’interroger sur les causes de cette reconnaissance de la valeur de la grammaire par les enseignants comme par les apprenants. Peut-être leur apporte-t-elle un sentiment de sécurité. Lorsque l’apprenant prend connaissance d’une nouvelle règle de grammaire, il a l’impression de maîtriser une partie du système linguistique, même si le réemploi dans des situations de communication ne va pas toujours de soi. Pour un apprenant en français, apprendre la grammaire, c’est parvenir progressivement à appréhender la langue. Il la perçoit comme un élément de stabilité parmi le nombre plus ou moins élevé de réalisations langagières possibles pour un acte de parole. L’enseignant, conscient de ces limites mais aussi de la nécessité de prendre appui sur ce qui lui semble le plus stable dans la langue, intègre la grammaire dans son programme de cours. Il reste cependant à déterminer dans quelle proportion.

Sur ce problème nous dirons qu’il ne faut pas que la grammaire prenne une trop grande place en classe de FLE. À trop vouloir répondre aux attentes des apprenants, il est possible de tomber dans le piège d’une focalisation excessive sur la grammaire qui ne garantit pas nécessairement une bonne compétence communicative orale et/ou écrite en français.

En ce qui concerne la formation, si l’enseignement de la grammaire ne constitue pas une fin en soi et qu’il est tout aussi inconcevable que l’enseignant du FLE vise à une transmission intégrale des savoirs grammaticaux, il est aussi vrai que l’enseignement de la grammaire en FLE exige qu’elle soit intégrée dans l’entier de la formation dispensée aux étudiants. Cela implique d’envisager conjointement la dimension de l’enseignement (relations entre théories et méthodologies) et celle de l’apprentissage (obstacles et réussites dans l’appropriation scolaire).

Extrait et adaté de Marie-Christine Fougerouse,

Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne, in Études de

linguistique appliquée, 2001/2 et de Jacques David,

in Le français aujourd'hui 2011/5.