Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2020) ► pp.95–124

From pedagogical input to learner output

Conditionals in EFL and CLIL teaching materials and learner language

| Université catholique de Louvain
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) materials have often been criticized for a lack of authenticity. However, their direct impact on learner language has rarely been assessed. We compare pedagogical input from EFL and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) materials to texts produced by learners taught via the textbooks in question. The analysis of corpus data showed that EFL textbooks did not systematically differ from CLIL materials in terms of conditional frequency and verb forms combinations. No significant difference was detected for CLIL and non-CLIL learner texts either. Both groups did, however, deviate from novice native writing in that conditionals expressing low hypotheticality were overrepresented while conditionals expressing a higher level of hypotheticality were underrepresented and frequently erroneous. Misrepresentations revealed for EFL textbooks in previous research were found to match the deviations in learner language in a way that aids L2 development rather than impairing it. Hence, fundamental changes are not required, even though more studies should be undertaken to investigate the direct impact of teaching materials on learner output.
Keywords: foreign language teaching, teaching materials, learner writing, conditional sentences, content and language integrated learning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conditional sentences
    • 2.1Classification of conditional sentences
    • 2.2Corpus studies of conditionals in L1 text
    • 2.3Studies of conditionals in teaching materials
    • 2.4Corpus studies of conditionals in learner language
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Corpora and EFL materials
    • 3.2Query and annotation procedures
    • 3.3Statistical analysis
  • 4.Conditionals in teaching materials
    • 4.1EFL materials: Typology represented in grammar sections
    • 4.2EFL and CLIL materials: Corpus analysis
  • 5.Conditionals in learner writing
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1986) Conditionals: A typology. In E. Closs Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 77–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C.
(2003) Conditional sentences: ELT typology and corpus evidence. Paper presented at the 36th Annual BAAL Meeting, University of Leeds/UK, 4–6 September 2003. [URL], last accessed 22 September 2019
(2006) Corpus-based evaluation of pedagogical materials: If-conditionals in ELT coursebooks and the BNC. Paper presented at the 7th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference, Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, 1–4 July 2006. [URL], last accessed 22 September 2019
(2007) If-conditionals as modal colligations: A corpus-based investigation. In M. Davies, P. Rayson, S. Hunston, & P. Danielsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference: CL 2007. [URL], last accessed 5 May 2019
(2013) If-conditionals in ICLE and the BNC: A success story for teaching or learning? In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 155–166). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S.
(2015a) The contribution of learner corpora to reference and instructional materials design. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 485–510). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Contrastive interlanguage analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
(2009) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H.
(2010) Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Conditional clauses in novice academic English: A comparison of Norwegian learners and native speakers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(2), 95–112. DOI logoGoogle 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. 169–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klieme, E., Eichler, W., Helmke, A., Lehmann, R. H., Nold, G., Rolff, H.-G., Schröder, K., Thomé, G., & Willenberg, H.
(2006) Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Zentrale Befunde der Studie Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International (DESI). [URL], last accessed 22 August 2019
Maden-Weinberger, U.
(2009) Modality in learner German – A corpus-based study investigating expressions of modality in argumentative texts written by British learners of German. Lancaster: Lancaster University, PhD thesis.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Love, R., & Brezina, V.
(2017) Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014. Special Issue of International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Reppen, R.
(2015) Corpus versus non-corpus-informed pedagogical materials: Grammar as the focus. In D. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 498–514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus und Sport Baden-Württemberg)
(1994) Bildungsplan für das Gymnasium. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag.Google Scholar
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg)
(2004) Bildungsplan 2004. Allgemein bildendes Gymnasium. Ditzingen: Philipp Reclam Jun.Google Scholar
Möller, V.
(2017) Language acquisition in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Learner corpus and experimental evidence on passive constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Römer, U.
(2004) Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In G. Aston, S. Bernadini, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and language learners (pp. 151–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Learner language and the norms in native corpora and EFL teaching materials: A case study of English conditionals. In S. Volk-Birke, & J. Lippert (Eds.), Anglistentag 2006 in Halle. Proceedings (pp. 355–364). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Schwarz, H.
(1998) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 2: 6. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
(1999a) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 3: 7. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
(1999b) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 4: 8. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
(2001) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 5: 9. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
(2002) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 6: 10. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J.
(1966) On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, W.
(2009) Die Gerechtigkeitsfalle bilingualer Bildungsgänge. In D. Caspari, W. Hallet, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiß (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp. 161–173). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar