Article published in:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 166:2 (2015) ► pp. 307329


Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K.
(2006) Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S.D.
(1974) Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M.P.
(2013) Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., García Mayo, M.P., & Leeser, M.J.
(2014) Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 22, 7–22.Google Scholar
Bongartz, C.
(2003) Grammar growth and L1 transfer: On accuracy development in immersion programs. In J. Rymarczyk & H. Haudeck (Eds.), In search of the active learner (pp. 99–115). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brown, R.
(1973) A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2007) Discourse in content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G.J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G.
(2007) An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2005) What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H.C., & Burt, M.K.
(1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eurydice European Network
(2006) Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from http://​eacea​.ec​.europa​.eu​/ressources​/eurydice​/pdf​/0​_integral​/071EN​.pdfGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P.
(2002) Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 323–341. Special issue on “The role of interaction in instructed language learning”. Guest Editors: M. P. García Mayo & E. Alcón Soler. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P., & Villarreal Olaizola, I.
(2011) The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27(1), 129–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S.
(1997) Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2003) Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A.
(2000) Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goenaga, P.
(1980) Gramatika bideetan. Donostia: Erein.Google Scholar
Goldshneider, J., & DeKeyser, R.
(2005) Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 55, Supplement 1: 27–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B.
(2001) The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Wexler, K.
(2002) Why is “is” easier than “-s”? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research, 18, 95–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S.
(2002) Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M.
(2000) Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S.
(1999) Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Jäppinen, A.-K.
(2005) Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 148–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Järvinen, H.M.
(2005) CLIL in Finland. In The CLIL quality matrix. Central workshop report, coord. D. Marsh. Retrieved from http://​www​.ecml​.at​/mtp2​/CLILmatrix​/pdf​/wsrepD3E2005​_6​.pdf
Kumaravadivelu, B.
(1991) Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2), 98–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(1998) Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D.
(2009) The Implementation of CLIL and Attitudes towards Trilingualism. ITL –International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157, 23–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M.J.
(2008) Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65 (2), 195–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R.
(2010) Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luk, Z.P., & Shirai, Y.
(2009) Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural –s, articles, and possessive’s. Language Learning, 59(4), 721–754. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
(2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.
(2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual, bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T.
(2002) Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J.
(1973) Error analysis and second language strategies. In J. Oller & J. Richards (Eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 1–27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1990) The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M., & Tucker, G.
(1974) Error analysis and English language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning, 24(1), 69–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.
(1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M.
(1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Song, M.-J., & Suh, B.-R.
(2008) The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N.
(2007) Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1985) Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Gook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Syndicate, U.C.L.E
(2001) Quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S.
(1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 51, 326–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uggen, M.S.
(2012) Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 505–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(1996) Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2007) Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R.
(1990) Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, L.
(2003) Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J.
(1998) What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar