Article published in:
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 67–88

Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests

| San Jorge University

The study compares how three groups of learners at different educational levels in CLIL, post-CLIL and EFL classes modify their requests which were elicited by means of a written discourse completion task with two situations (different power relations). Data analysis is based on earlier request taxonomies (Alcón-Soler et al. 2005; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989), but the study also introduces new pragmatic features that appeared in the learners’ data. Qualitative and quantitative differences point to a duality in how learners use softening and aggravating request modifications, attributed to insufficient sociopragmatic knowledge. Among other finer results, the study shows that CLIL, as an educational approach, does not necessarily contribute to enhancing learners’ pragmatic competence if seen through the lens of making requests.

Published online: 16 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.05sob
References

References

Ackerl, C.
(2007) Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: Error analysis of written production. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E., Safont-Jordá, M.P., & Martínez-Flor, A.
(2005) Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: A sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electronica de Lingüistica Aplicada, 4, 1–35.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E.
(1983) Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication strategies. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 100–118). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.
(1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) The Common European Framework of Reference: CEFR. Available at www​.uk​.cambridge​.org​/elt
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T.
(2006) Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U.
(Eds.) (2010) Language use in Content-and-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.
(2008) Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(1), 111–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A.
(1987) English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Catalán, R.M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
(2007, March). Does the type of instruction have any bearing on EFL learners’ receptive vocabulary? Paper presented at the ELIA 10 Conference. Issues in Teaching, Learning, and Using Vocabulary in an L2. University of Seville, Spain.
Jiménez Catalán, R.M., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J.
(2006) Vocabulary profiles of English Foreign Language Learners in English as a Subject and as a Vehicular Language. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3), 23–27.Google Scholar
Kasper, G.
(1997) Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6). Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Available at http://​www​.nflrc​.hawaii​.edu​/NetWorks​/NW06/
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M.
(1991) Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(21), 49–69.Google Scholar
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L.
(2005) The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A.
(2013) CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 81–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P.
(2010) The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maillat, D.
(2010) The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martí-Arnándiz, O.
(2008) Grammatical and pragmatic competence in EFL contexts. In E. Alcón-Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A.
(2009) The use and function of “please” in learners’ oral requestive behavior: A pragmatic analysis. Journal of English Studies 7, 35–54.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E.
(2006) Learners’ use of request modifiers across two University ESP disciplines. IBÉRICA, 12, 23–41Google Scholar
Nashaat-Sobhy, N.
(2014) Assessing students’ interlanguage pragmatic competence through their use of modifiers and strategies in requests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Nashaat-Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A.
(2014, April). From classroom research to research design. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Nikula, T.
(2002) Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings. Pragmatics, 12(4), 447–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16(1), 27–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. Alcón Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 94–113). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
(2008) CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1). Available at http://​www​.icrj​.eu​/11​/contents​.html
(2011) Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 129–154). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salazar Campillo, P.
(2007) Examining mitigation in requests: a focus on transcripts in ELT coursebooks. In E. Alcón Soler, & M.P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 207–222). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M.
(1998) Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 457–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S.
(2008) Use of “Please” in American and New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1249–1278. Sciences, 33, 786–798. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M.
(1999) Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A.
(1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A.
(2004) The intonation of please-requests: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1521–1549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Sobhy, Nashwa Nashaat
2018. Pragmatics in CLIL. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 467 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 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.