Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 8:1 (2020) ► pp.107–136

Comparing the ‘phrasicon’ of teenagers in immersive and non-immersive settings

Does input quantity impact range and accuracy?

| Université catholique de Louvain

Foreign language learners’ phraseological proficiency remains problematic, even at advanced levels (e.g., Meunier, 2012; Meunier & Granger, 2008; Siepmann, 2008). While the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) method is believed to facilitate foreign language learning by fostering input, interaction, and output, little attention has been paid to the phraseological competence of CLIL learners. The present study aims to fill this gap as it is framed within an interdisciplinary project on CLIL in Belgium and specifically focuses on the phrasicon, i.e. the phraseological lexicon, of 5th year French-speaking secondary school learners of English in immersive (CLIL) and non-immersive (NON-CLIL) settings. The paper reports on (1) an analysis of the variety/range of the phrasicon and (2) an overview of phraseological accuracy. The analyses are based on a corpus of written productions of 180 learners. The findings of this study indicate higher frequency, range and accuracy in the phrasicon of CLIL learners.

Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), phraseology, L2 English, range, variety, phraseological errors
Article outline
  • 1.Theoretical background
    • 1.1CLIL as a specific learning context
    • 1.2Phraseological language
    • 1.3Learner Corpus Research of the learner ‘phrasicon’
    • 1.4Phraseological knowledge of CLIL learners
    • 1.5The notion of emergence
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Research questions and hypotheses
    • 2.2Data and participants
    • 2.3Extraction and classification of phraseological units
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Range
      • 3.1.1Global trends
      • 3.1.2Frequency: Comparison CLIL/NON-CLIL
      • 3.1.3Variety: Comparison CLIL/NON-CLIL
        • 3.1.3.1Lexical collocations
        • 3.1.3.2Grammatical collocations
        • 3.1.3.3Phrasal verbs
    • 3.2Accuracy
      • 3.2.1Global trends
      • 3.2.2Frequency: Comparison CLIL/NON-CLIL
      • 3.2.3Grammaticality vs acceptability errors
  • 4.Discussion and implications
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) An overview of variables affecting lexical transfer in writing: A review study. International Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 45–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A. P.
(1981) The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–235. DOI logoGoogle 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, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 17–44. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heid, U.
(2008) Computational phraseology: An overview. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 337–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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, 171 (special issue), 31–44. [URL]
Howarth, P. A.
(1996) Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, C.
(2013) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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, 51, 51–78. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D.
(2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
(2009) Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M.
(2014) Investigating the validity of internet television as a resource for acquiring L2 formulaic sequences. System, 421, 164–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, D.
(2008) Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491–518. DOI logoGoogle 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, 321, 111–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Granger, S.
(2008) Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 578–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2012) Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 130–149. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C.
(2011) What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT journal, 66(1), 10–21. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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, 321, 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bulon, Amélie & Fanny Meunier
2023. Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners’ phrasicon in L2 Dutch: the (expected) winner does not take it all. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 590 ff. DOI logo
Meunier, Fanny, Isa Hendrikx, Amélie Bulon, Kristel Van Goethem & Hubert Naets
2023. MulTINCo: multilingual traditional immersion and native corpus. Better-documented multiliteracy practices for more refined SLA studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 572 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 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.