Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 7:1 (2019) ► pp.4–29

Capturing technical terms in spoken CLIL

A holistic model for identifying subject-specific vocabulary

| University of Vienna
| University of Vienna
| University of Vienna
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL), an educational approach using a foreign language to teach non-language subjects, has been consistently gaining in popularity. Despite an increasing research base suggesting its benefits for general language proficiency, the contribution made to learning and using subject-specific target language elements is largely under-researched. This paper addresses one aspect of this, i.e. students’ use of subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL classroom communication. We propose a holistic model for identifying both single and multi-word lexical units specific to the school subject in oral classroom data, integrating corpus-linguistic and qualitative data analysis. The method is trialled using a data set of 16 hours of secondary-school CLIL classroom data within the subject of European economics and politics in Year 12. Findings show that a holistic definition of subject-specific vocabulary is vital, and that the model constitutes an adequate and flexible tool for specifying CLIL terminology in oral classroom discourse.
Keywords: L2 lexicon, technical vocabulary, subject-specific language, upper-secondary school, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.CLIL and subject-specific vocabulary
    • 2.1The notion of subject-specific vocabulary
    • 2.2Previous research on subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL
    • 2.3Insights from related disciplines
  • 3.A holistic 3-phase model for determining subject-specific vocabulary in oral CLIL-data
    • 3.1Phase 1: Automatized quantitative analysis: Keyword & cluster analysis
    • 3.2Phase 2: Qualitative selection through researchers (rating scale steps 1&2)
    • 3.3Phase 3: Final selection involving experts (rating scale steps 3&4)
  • 4.Trialling the 3-phase model
    • 4.1Data set
    • 4.2Conducting the SSV analysis
    • 4.3SSV in the CLIL-data set
  • 5.Strengths and limitations of the model
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
References (70)
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 1, 53–73. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 <[URL]>.
Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013a). The New Academic Word List. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
(2013b). The New General Service List. Retrieved from [URL]
Chung, T. M. (2003). A corpus comparison approach for terminology extraction. Terminology, 9 1, 221–245. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 251–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 1, 213–238. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 305–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 1, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2010a). Language use and language learning in CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 <[URL]>.
Drouin, P. (2003). Term extraction using non-technical corpora as a point of leverage. Terminology, 9 1, 99–115. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 23–32. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D. (2007). Validating the construct of “word” in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 241–265. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 35–49. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 160–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Negotiating political positions: Subject-specific oral language use in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (3), 287–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27 1, 4–21. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwary, D. A. (2011). A hybrid method for determining technical vocabulary. System, 39 1, 175–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1 (1), 46–65. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 2004–2009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43 (3), 256–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (1), 59–82. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Making and using word lists for language learning and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54 1, 14–27. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 80–90. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 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 1, 386–396. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 248–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VOICE (2010). Voice transcription conventions [2.1]. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Wang, J., Liang, S., & Ge, G. (2008). Establishment of a medical Academic Word List. English for Specific Purposes, 27 1, 442–458. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rieder-Bünemann, Angelika, Julia Hüttner & Ute Smit
2022. ‘Who would have thought that I’d ever know that!’: subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL student interactions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25:9 ► pp. 3184 ff. DOI logo
Hüttner, Julia
2020. Functional Plurality of Language in Contextualised Discourse, ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.