Introduction to part III
Discourse Analysis and CLIL
Article outline
- Why is it relevant to study CLIL through the lens of discourse analysis?
- What are the cornerstones of a discourse analysis approach to CLIL?
- What kind of data are typically used in discourse analysis studies of CLIL?
- The focus of CLIL classroom discourse analysis
- Focus 1: Processes of knowledge construction: Learning “the subject” via L2
- Focus 2: CLIL classroom as a context of language use and a space of social (inter)action
- Linguistic competence
- Discourse competence
- Strategic competence
- Intercultural competence
- Sociolinguistic competence
- Conclusion
-
References
References (59)
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.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse. An Essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. 

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
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.
Coetzee-Lachmann, D. (2009). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Osnabrück.
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. 

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007a). The discourse of CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007b). Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. (pp. 201–2010). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (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.

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.
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. 

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. 

Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J. (1986). Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.
García, O., & Wei, Li. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Gee, J. P. (2014). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
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.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
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 <[URL]>
Hofmann, V., & Hopf, J. (2015). An analysis of cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL biology lessons. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at <[URL]>
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. 

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
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.
Kovacs, C. (2009). Lexical learning in CLIL geography classrooms. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna.
Kramer-Dahl, A., Teo, P., & Chia, A. (2007). Supporting knowledge construction and literate talk in secondary social studies. Linguistics and Education, 18, 167–199. 

Kröss, L. M. (2014). Cognitive discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL physics lessons. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at <[URL]>
Lackner, M. (2012). The use of subject-related discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL history classes. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna. Available at <[URL]>
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–79. 

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.
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.
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.
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.
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. 

Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.-J. (2007). CLIL as a catalyst for change in language education. Babylonia, 3, 33–37.
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.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL: A sociocultural perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38–45.
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. 

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.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, F. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
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.
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.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. 

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.
Pascual Peña, I. (2010b). Teachers’ questions in CLIL contexts. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers, 19(3), 65–71.
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (Eds.). (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: CUP. 

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schindelegger, V. (2009). The IRF sequence in CLIL and EFL classrooms. Unpublished diploma thesis, University of Vienna.
Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362.
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.
Widdowson, H.G. (2004). Text, context, pretext. Oxford: Blackwell. 

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. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Alejo-González, Rafael, Manuel Lucero, Mary Schleppegrell & Ana Sánchez
Gaballo, Viviana
2023.
Translation in CLIL.
Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 9:1
► pp. 71 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.