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
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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Osnabrück.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.

Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
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.

Nikula, T., Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
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
Cited by 2 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 6 may 2023. 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.