Article published in:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 7:1 (2019) ► pp. 429
References

References

Agustín Llach, M.
(2014) Exploring the lexical profile of your CLIL learners: Towards an improvement in lexical use. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2, 53–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, K., Davies, A., Fulford, H., & Rogers, M.
(1994) What is a term? The semi-automatic extraction of terms from text. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 267–278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L.
(2010) AntConc. [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.Google Scholar
(2013) AntWordProfiler. [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
(2007) Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved from http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/.
Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J.
(2013a) The New Academic Word List. Retrieved from http://​www​.newgeneralservicelist​.org.
(2013b) The New General Service List. Retrieved from http://​www​.newgeneralservicelist​.org
Chung, T. M.
(2003) A corpus comparison approach for terminology extraction. Terminology, 9, 221–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chung, T. M., & Nation, P.
(2003) Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 103–116.Google Scholar
(2004) Identifying technical vocabulary. System, 32, 251–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). https://​rm​.coe​.int​/1680459f97.
Coxhead, A.
(2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Vocabulary in ESP. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 115–132). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csomay, E., & Petrović, M.
(2012) ‘Yes, your Honor!’: A corpus-based study of technical vocabulary in discipline-related movies and TV shows. System, 40, 305–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2). < Crossref>.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U.
(Eds.) (2010a) Language use and language learning in CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2010b) Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL (pp. 279–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/.
Drouin, P.
(2003) Term extraction using non-technical corpora as a point of leverage. Terminology, 9, 99–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) TermoStat. [Computer Software]. Montréal, Canada: Universitè de Montréal.Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J.
(1998) Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, T.
(1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Fernández Fontecha, A.
(2014) Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas [Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages], 9, 23–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J.
(2011) ESP and corpus studies. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for Specific Purposes research (pp. 222–251). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Fulford, H.
(2001) Exploring terms and their linguistic environment in text: A domain-independent approach to automated term extraction. Terminology, 7, 259–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D.
(2014) Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 976–991. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D.
(2007) Validating the construct of “word” in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 241–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gierlinger, E., & Wagner, T.
(2016) The more the merrier – Revisiting CLIL-based vocabulary growth in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 37–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ha, A. Y. L., & Hyland, K.
(2017) What is technicality? A technical analysis model for EAP vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28, 35–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heatley, A., Nation, P., & Cohead, A.
(2000) RANGE. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D.
(2015) The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U.
(2014) CLIL (Content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton (2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, 160–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Negotiating political positions: Subject-specific oral language use in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 287–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
(2009) The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL vs. non-CLIL instruction. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 81–92). Bristol: Channel View Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kwary, D. A.
(2011) A hybrid method for determining technical vocabulary. System, 39, 175–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A.
(2015) Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T.
(2010) Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 46–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
(2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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 (pp. 125–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, I. A., Beck, S. C., & Panza, C. B.
(2009) Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 183–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moghadam, N. Z., & Fatemipour, H.
(2014) The effect of CLIL on vocabulary development by Iranian secondary school EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 2004–2009. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morton, T.
(2015) Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P.
(2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle and Cengage.Google Scholar
(2013) Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Making and using word lists for language learning and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, M.
(2000) A corpus-based study of business English and business English teaching materials (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Nikula, T.
(2012) On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language use in CLIL. In E. A. Soler, & M.-P. Safont-Jorda (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 133–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2015) Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A.
(2013) CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F.
(2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and multilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ojeda Alba, J.
(2009) Themes and vocabulary in CLIL and non-CLIL Instruction. In R. M. Jiménez Catalán & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning : Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 95–116). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E.
(2015) Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk [Modern Language], 109(2), 51–74.Google Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C. & Roquet, H.
(2015) The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinna, A.
(2007) Exploiting LSP corpora in the study of foreign languages. In D. Gálová (Ed.), Languages for specific purposes: Searching for common solutions (pp. 146–162). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Preisfeld, A.
(2016) Die Bedeutung bilingualen Experimentalunterrichts in Biologie für die fachliche und sprachliche Kompetenz [The contribution of bilingual experiment-based instruction in biology to language and subject competence]. In B. Dier, A. Preisfeld, & L. Schmelter (Eds.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterentwickeln und erforschen [Enhancing and investigating bilingual instruction] (pp. 103–123). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Read, J.
(2007) Second language vocabulary assessment. International Journal of English Studies, 7, 105–125.Google Scholar
Rizzo, C. R., & Pérez, M. J. M.
(2015) A key perspective on specialized lexis: Keywords in Telecommunication Engineering for CLIL. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198, 386–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sylvén, L. K., & Ohlander, S.
(2014) The CLISS Project: Receptive vocabulary in CLIL versus non-CLIL groups. Moderna Språk [Modern Language], 108(2), 80–114.Google Scholar
Valpouri, L. & Nassaji, H.
(2013) A corpus-based study of academic vocabulary in chemistry. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 248–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VOICE
(2010) Voice transcription conventions [2.1]. Retrieved from https://​www​.univie​.ac​.at​/voice​/page​/transcription​_general​_information.
Wang, J., Liang, S., & Ge, G.
(2008) Establishment of a medical Academic Word List. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 442–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
West, M.
(1953) A General Service List of English words. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Woodward-Kron, R.
(2008) More than just jargon – the nature and role of specialist language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 234–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xanthou, M.
(2011) The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching, 10(4), 116–126.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Hüttner, Julia
2020.  In Functional Plurality of Language in Contextualised Discourse,  pp. 63 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.