Article published in:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 8:1 (2020) ► pp. 107136
References

References

Agustín Llach, M. P.
(2009) The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary use of content and non-content EFL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 112–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) An overview of variables affecting lexical transfer in writing: A review study. International Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bahns, J.
(1997) Kollokationen und Wortschatzarbeit im Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Berendse, E. P. H.
(2014) Acquiring L2 English prepositions in an L1 Dutch environment: The effect of immersion through CLIL teaching. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Brown, H., & Bradford, A.
(2017) EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp. 328–334). Tokyo: JALT.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Celaya, M. L.
(2008) ‘I study natus in English’: Lexical transfer in CLIL and regular learners. In R. Monroy, & A. Sánchez (Eds.), 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges (pp. 43–49). Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia.Google Scholar
Celaya, M. L., & Torras, M. R.
(2001) L1 influence and EFL vocabulary: Do children rely more on L1 than adult learners? Proceedings from the 25th AEDEAN Meeting (pp. 1–14). University of Granada.Google Scholar
Cobb, T.
(2003) Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 393–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A. P.
(1981) The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(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. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
(2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S.
(2003) Recurrent sequences of words in native speaker and advanced learner spoken and written English: A corpus-driven approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & McEnery, T.
(1998) An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 67–79). London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(Ed.) (1994) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2002a) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20(1), 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, B. G., & Schmitt, N.
(2015) How much collocation knowledge do L2 learners have? ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(1), 94–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francis, B. & Poole, R.
(Eds.) (2009) Oxford Collocations Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S.
(1998) Learner English on computer. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Meunier, F.
(2008) Phraseology in language learning and teaching: Where to from here? In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 247–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
(2008) Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2015) Statistics for learner corpus research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 159–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Handl, S.
(2008) Essential collocations for learners of English: The role of collocational direction and weight. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgren, A.
(1994) Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heid, U.
(2008) Computational phraseology: An overview. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 337–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hiligsmann, P., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I. & Simonis, M.
(2017) Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium: Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17(109), 1–25. file://​​/C:​/Users​/bulon​/Downloads​/Hiligsmann%20et%20al%20(2017)%20Assessing%20CLIL%20in%20French​-speaking%20Belgium%20(1)​.pdf
Hong, A. L., Rahim, H. A., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin, K.
(2001) Collocations in Malaysian English learners’ writing: A corpus-based error analysis. 3L; Language, linguistics and literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17 (special issue), 31–44. http://​ejournals​.ukm​.my​/3l​/article​/view​/986​/900
Howarth, P. A.
(1996) Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
James, C.
(2013) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klampfl, A.
(2010) A comparative study of writing proficiency between an Austrian CLIL and mainstream EFL class with regard to vocabulary (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Wien, Vienna.Google Scholar
Klégr, A.
(1997) English complex prepositions of the prepositional phrase type. Prague Studies in English XXII, AUC, Philologica, 5, 51–78. http://​emsa​.ff​.cuni​.cz​/system​/files​/English%20Complex%20Prepositions%20of%20the%20Prepositonal%20Phrase%20Type​_Kl%C3%A9gr​.pdf
Krashen, S. D.
(1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R.
(2013) Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun-noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 939–966. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D.
(2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
(2009) Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M.
(2014) Investigating the validity of internet television as a resource for acquiring L2 formulaic sequences. System, 42, 164–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D.
(2008) Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
Met, M.
(1999) Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Meunier, F.
(2012) Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Granger, S.
(2008) Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mewald, C.
(2007) A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and in mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 139–178). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C.
(Ed.) (2006) Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 578–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2012) Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Naves, T., Miralpeix, I., & Celaya, M. L.
(2005) Who transfers more … and what? Cross-linguistic influence in relation to school grade and language dominance in EFL. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(2), 113–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T.
(2010) Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M.
(2008) Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, T.
(2015) Learner corpora and grammar. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 231–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roever, C.
(2011) What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT journal, 66(1), 10–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Redwood, S.
(2011) Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs: A corpus-informed study. In F. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin, & M. Paquot (Eds.), A taste for corpora. In honour of Sylviane Granger (pp. 173–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.
(2012) WordSmith Tools. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Siepmann, D.
(2005) Discourse markers across languages: A contrastive study of second-level discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008) Phraseology in learners’ dictionaries: What, where and how. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 185–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L.
(2012) Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 28–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thewissen, J.
(2008) The phraseological errors of French-, German-, and Spanish speaking EFL learners: Evidence from an error-tagged learner corpus. In Proceedings from the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (TaLC8) (pp. 300–306). Lisbon, Associação de Estudos e de Investigação Científica do ISLA-Lisboa.Google Scholar
Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F., & Van Goethem, K.
(in press). Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch: CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 8(2).
Verspoor, M., & Edelenbos, P.
(2011) Tweetalig onderwijs zorgt voor een duurzame voorsprong. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(4), 5–13. http://​www​.lt​-tijdschriften​.nl​/ojs​/index​.php​/ltt​/article​/view​/69​/68
Wray, A.
(2012) What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Meunier, Fanny, Isa Hendrikx, Amélie Bulon, Kristel Van Goethem & Hubert Naets
2020. MulTINCo: multilingual traditional immersion and native corpus. Better-documented multiliteracy practices for more refined SLA studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 october 2020. 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.