Cover not available
Article In:
Thematic Issue: Trends in Second Language Pragmatics Research Part 2
[Applied Pragmatics 6:2] 2024
► pp. 169–182

Learner pragmatics in English-medium-instruction courses at university

Current research and future avenues

ORCID logo | Universitat Jaume I
ORCID logo | Universitat Jaume I
This paper critically reviews pragmatic-oriented investigations of English-medium instruction (EMI) courses in tertiary education. Analyses on potential gains in pragmatic competence, classroom interaction, and e-politeness define some of the lines of research identified. Speech acts like requests and opinions (e.g., Taguchi, 2012, 2014) or directives (e.g., Smit, 2010) are still the main foci of interest, along with pragmatic markers (e.g., Ament et al., 2018) or openings and closings (e.g., Codina-Espurz & Salazar-Campillo, 2019). A more holistic perspective has also been adopted to examine functional adequacy in writing (e.g., Herraiz-Martinez & Alcón-Soler, 2019). Strengths and limitations of studies conducted in the EMI context are discussed and, from this, a research agenda is put forward. Lastly, future investigators are encouraged to explore the complex interplay between external (e.g., target language contact) and internal factors (e.g., proficiency, motivation, or willingness to communicate) which may have an impact on learner pragmatics.
Keywords: EMI, pragmatics, speech acts, pragmatic markers, functional adequacy, sociopragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Why EMI?
  • 2.Learning pragmatics in EMI: Does pragmatic competence take care of itself?
    • 2.1Pragmatic gains of EMI: Learner written performance
    • 2.2Pragmatic gains of EMI: Learner oral performance
  • 3.Critical insights and future directions: Towards CLIL-ising EMI?
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (40)
References
Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (2), 183–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ament, J., Barón Parés, J., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2020a). Exploring the relationship between motivations, emotions and pragmatic marker use in English-medium instruction learners. CercleS, 10 (2), 469–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). A study on the functional uses of textual pragmatic markers by native speakers and English-medium instruction learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 156 1, 41–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ament, J., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on Economics undergraduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5 (1), 47–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ament, J., Pérez-Vidal, C., & Barón Parés, J. (2018). The effects of English-medium instruction on the use of textual and interpersonal markers. Pragmatics, 28 (4), 517–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021). CLIL vs EMI: Different approaches or the same dog with a different collar? In M. L. Carrió-Pastor & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms (pp. 13–30). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón-Soler & M. P. Safont-Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Codina-Espurz, V., & Salazar-Campillo, P. (2019). Openings and closings in emails by CLIL students: A pedagogical proposal. English Language Teaching, 12 (2), 57–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised university. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–158). Carl Winteer.Google Scholar
Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council.Google Scholar
Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6 (3), 455–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Eurydice.Google Scholar
Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. LACLIL, 11 (1), 19–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herraiz-Martinez, A. (2018). Functional adequacy: The influence of English medium instruction, English proficiency and previous language learning experiences. [Doctoral dissertation]. Universitat Jaume I. [URL]
Herraiz-Martinez, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2018). English-medium instruction and functional adequacy in L2 writing. In A. Sánchez-Hernández & A. Herraiz-Martinez (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp. 145–170). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2019). Pragmatic outcomes in the English-medium instruction context: The influence of intensity of instruction. Applied Pragmatics, 1 (1), 68–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher college of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34 (3), 321–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2022). English-medium instruction in higher education. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. LongmanGoogle Scholar
Macaro, E. (2015). English Medium Instruction: Time to start asking some difficult questions. Modern English Teacher, 24 (2), 4–7. [URL]
(2018a). English medium instruction: Language and content in policy and practice. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). English medium instruction: A research agenda for a worldwide phenomenon. In C. M. Coonan, A. Bier, & E. Ballarin (Eds.), La didattica delle lingue del nuovo millennio: Le sfide dell’internazionalizzazione (pp. 15–20). Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51 (1), 36–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2008). Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. Alcón-Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 94–113). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (3), p. 315–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Addressing the research gap in teacher training for EMI: An evidence-based teacher education proposal in monolingual contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48 1, 100927. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). CLIL-ising EMI: An analysis of student and teacher training needs in monolingual contexts. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 171–191). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramiro, M. S. S., & Pérez, M. D. M. S. (2015). Analyzing writing in English-medium instruction at university. Linguarum Arena, 6 1, 45–58. [URL]
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp.129–153). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Pragmatic socialization in an English-medium university in Japan. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52 (2), 157–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). ‘Contextually’ speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48 1, 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., Hirschi, K., & Kang, O. (2022). Longitudinal L2 development in the prosodic marking of pragmatic meaning: Prosodic changes in L2 speech acts and individual factors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44 (3), 843–858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tai, H.-Y. (2015). Writing development in syntactic complexity, accuracy and fluency in a content and language integrated learning class. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2 (3), 149–156. Available online at: [URL]