Article published in:
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 167181
References

References

Badertscher, H., & Bieri, T.
(2009) Wissenserwerb im Content and Language Integrated Learning: Empirische Befunde und Interpretationen [Knowledge acquisition in content-and-language‑ integrated learning: Empirical evidence and interpretations]. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B.
(1999) Vertical and horizontal discourse. An Essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E.
(1990) Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bonnet, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2013) Great Expectations? Competence and standard related questions concerning CLIL moving into the mainstream. In S. Breidbach, & B. Viebrock (Eds.), CLIL in Europe: Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 269–284). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Coetzee-Lachmann, D.
(2009) Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A.
(2013) “Zip your lips” or “Keep quiet”: Main teachers’ and language assistants’ classroom discourse in CLIL settings. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 655–669. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2007a) The discourse of CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2007b) Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. (pp. 201–2010). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google 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), 1–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U.
(2009) Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2, 17–25.Google Scholar
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., & Smit, U.
(2013) Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J.
(1986) Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
García, O., & Wei, Li.
(2014) Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P.
(2014) Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K.
(1995) “Aw, Man Where You Goin’?” Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37–62.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hampl, M.
(2011) Error and error correction in classroom conversation – A comparative study of CLIL and traditional lessons in Austria. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at http://​othes​.univie​.ac​.at
Hofmann, V., & Hopf, J.
(2015) An analysis of cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL biology lessons. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at http://​othes​.univie​.ac​.at​/37658
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
(2013) The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 16(3), 267–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
(1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jakonen, T.
(2014) Building bridges: How secondary school pupils bring their informal learning experiences into a Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classroom. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Järvinen, H.-M.
(2010) Language as a meaning making resource in learning and teaching content: Analysing historical writing in content and language integrated learning. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 145–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2010) The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, C.
(2009) Lexical learning in CLIL geography classrooms. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Kramer-Dahl, A., Teo, P., & Chia, A.
(2007) Supporting knowledge construction and literate talk in secondary social studies. Linguistics and Education, 18, 167–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kröss, L. M.
(2014) Cognitive discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL physics lessons. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at http://​othes​.univie​.ac​.at/
Lackner, M.
(2012) The use of subject-related discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL history classes. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at http://​othes​.univie​.ac​.at/
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2015) The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
(2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T.
(2016) Teachers’ and students’ evaluative practices in CLIL across contexts: integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, U. Smit, E. Dafouz, & P. Moore (Eds.). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. (pp. 189–210. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R.
(2010) Writing and speaking in the history class: Data from CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M.H., & Sato, C.J.
(1983) Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. Seliger, & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268–287). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., & Moore, P.
(2010) On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL: Towards a theory of European educational bilingualism. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 23–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.-J.
(2007) CLIL as a catalyst for change in language education. Babylonia, 3, 33–37.Google Scholar
McCormick, D.E., & Donato, R.
(2000) Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S Verplaetse (Eds.), The development of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J.
(2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Mey, J.
(2001) Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moate, J.
(2010) The integrated nature of CLIL: A sociocultural perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38–45.Google Scholar
Moore, P.
(2011) Collaborative Interaction in turn-taking: A comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 531–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P., & Nikula, T.
(2016) Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, U. Smit, E. Dafouz, & P. Moore (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. (pp. 211–234). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, F.
(2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google 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
Nikula, T.
(2007) The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179–204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nikula, T., Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2013) European research on CLIL classroom discourse. International Journal of Immersion and Content Based Education, 1(1), 70–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
(2007) From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual Peña, I.
(2010a) CLIL classrooms: an analysis of teachers’ questions and students’ responses. Paper presented at the XXVIII Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Española de Linguística Aplicada (AESLA). Vigo, Spain.
(2010b) Teachers’ questions in CLIL contexts. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers, 19(3), 65–71.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E.
(Eds.) (1990) The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
(2010) Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1994) Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schindelegger, V.
(2009) The IRF sequence in CLIL and EFL classrooms. Unpublished diploma thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Smit, U.
(2010) English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A.
(2011) Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A.
(2009) CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H.G.
(2004) Text, context, pretext. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, D.
(2007) CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.). Diverse contexts – Converging goals. CLIL in Europe (pp. 15–25). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar