ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to describe the
language interaction of pupils in a football game situation and to show how the
action plans are implemented. We have opted for a descriptive/exploratory
methodology that seeks to convey the pupil’s language typologies: 8 sessions
lasting one hour each with 14 boys aged 18 years and T = 8 hours of actual
practice. The goal is to help pupils to understand what happens during the play
situation in order to co-construct and implement a project of collective
action. The study includes: 1)a
qualitative analysis (Roulet, 1987) of Team“A”which aims to identify action projects developed by the boys, 2)a quantitative analysis of the same team
(Gréhaigne, Billiards,& Laroche, 1999)
seeking to check the implementation of these projects. The quantitative study
showed that pupils were able to validate their action plans during the eight
sessions. These results should be linked to the notion of“communication contract.”Indeed, in every act of communication,
partners understand and interact with each other by validating what makes sense
to them, namely:“the collective
intentions”(Searle, 1991),“joint intentionality”(Sensevy, 2008) and“negotiation”(Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1984).
Cite this paper
Zghibi, M. , Sahli, H. , Bennour, N. , Guinoubi, C. , Guerchi, M. and Hamdi, M. (2013) The Pupil’s Discourse and Action Projects: The Case of Third Year High School Pupils in Tunisia. Creative Education, 4, 165-171. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.43024.
 Austin, J. L. (1970). When saying is doing. Paris: Seuil.
 Chang, C.-W. (2009). Language, thought and action: Semio-constructivist approach in basket-ball game learning among CM2 (5th grade) pupils. Doctorate Thesis, Besan?on: University of Franche-Comté.
 Gréhaigne, J.-F. (1992). Game organization on football. Paris: ACTIO.
 Gréhaigne, J.-F., Billard, M., & Laroche, J.-Y. (1999). Collective sports teaching at school.Conception, construction, evaluation. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
 Gréhaigne, J. F. et al. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. Quest, 53, 59-76.
 Giordan, A. (1998). Learn! Paris: Belin.
 Kerbert-Orcchioni, C. (1984). The conversational negotiations (pp. 223-243). Verbum. T. VII. Nancy: Nancy: Nancy University Press.
 Lave, J., & Wenger. E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Mahut. B. (2003). Semiotic approach of didactic interactions: Gesture and verb in a PSE situation. Besan?on: University of Franche-Comté.
 Nachon, M. (2004). Interaction on physical and sportive education: The case of Basketball. Semio-linguistics kills approach and knowledge construction. Thesis, University of Franche-comté.
 Roulet, E. (1981). Exchanges, interventions and language acts in the conversation’s structure. Applied linguistics studies, 44, 7- 39.
 Roulet, E. et al. (1987). The articulation ofdiscourse on contemporary French. Peter Lang.
 Searle, J. R. (1991). Collective intentionality. In H. Parreth (Ed.), Community on speech (pp. 277-243). Liège: Mardaga.
 Sensevy, G. (2008). Comparative didactics. In Education’s dictionary. Paris: PUF.
 Zghibi, M., Zerai, Z. & Rezig, M. (2009). Verbalization’s direct effects on action’s strategies and decision makings among pupils at a football cycle. Journal of research about the intervention on physical and sportive education, 16, 118-140.
 Zerai, Z. (2006). How do girls learnthe handball? The contribution of verbalization. Master’s Thesis, Tunis: ISEFC.
 Zerai, Z. (2010). Handball learning among Tunisian and French girls: Contribution of verbalization. Doctorate Thesis, Besan?on: University of Franche-Comté.
 Zghibi, M., (2010). Linguistic interactions and learning on football. Thesis, European University.