Article published in:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 31:2 (2018) ► pp. 467–494

Pragmatics in CLIL

A comparison of CLIL and non-CLIL students’ requests

| San Jorge University-Zaragoza
This study is a mixed-method, cross-sectional study that compares the acquisition of request modification in the productions of two secondary school groups (15–16 years old) in two school programs: content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and traditional mainstream (non-CLIL). A total of 192 requests were gathered from both groups by means of an elicitation instrument (a Written Discourse Completion Test – WDCT). The requestive pragmatic moves (external and internal modifiers and request strategies) were analysed according to their pragmatic functions (softeners and aggravators) and a data-driven taxonomy of request modification was elaborated in line with previously developed taxonomies (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Alcón Soler et al., 2005) for the data analysis. The results showed that both groups share similarities typical of foreign language learners. Nonetheless, significant statistical differences between them indicated that the CLIL group had a fuller repertoire of request modification strategies, yet their sociopragmatic knowledge is questioned.
Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), pragmatic competence, request modification, taxonomy of requests
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
    • 2.1Interpersonal language and the importance of language pragmatics to CLIL students
    • 2.2Pragmatics in CLIL classroom discourse
    • 2.3Requestive modifiers and strategies: Taxonomies and studies
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2The elicitation instrument
    • 3.3Data collection procedure
    • 3.4Data analysis
      • 3.4.1Initial data coding
      • 3.4.2Newly emerging pragmatic features
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Softening and aggravating external modifiers
    • 4.2Softening and aggravating internal modifiers
    • 4.3Softening strategies
    • 4.4Aggravating strategies in CLIL and non-CLIL learners’ requests
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 27 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.16040.nas
References
Achiba, M.
(2003) Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics (Vol. 21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ackerl, C.
(2007) Lexico-Grammar in the essays of CLIL and EFL students: Error analysis of written production. Views-Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K.
(2006) Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English 1. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alcón Soler, E. & Mártinez Flor, A. M.
(Eds.) (2008) Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Vol. 301). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alcón Soler, E., Safont Jordá, M. P., & Mártinez Flor, A.
(2005) Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 41, 1–35.Google Scholar
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.
(1993) Learning the rules of academic talk. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 279‐304 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2013) Developing L2 Pragmatics. Language Learning, 631, 68–86. 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
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(1978) Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brubæk, S.
(2012) Pragmatics competence in English at the VG1 level: To what extent are Norwegian students able to adapt to contextual demands when making requests in English? Acta Didactica Norge, 6(1), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J.
(2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S.
(1995) Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in applied linguistics, 6(2), 5–35.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J.
(2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2002) The Common European Framework of Reference: CEFR. Retrieved from https://​www​.coe​.int​/t​/dg4​/linguistic​/source​/framework​_en​.pdf
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J.
(1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 191, 121–129.Google Scholar
(2008) BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol 2 Literacy (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2005) Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: directives in Content and Language Integrated Classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1275–1293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. CrossrefGoogle 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
Downing, A., & Locke, P.
(1992) A university course in English grammar. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.
(2012) Strategies, modification, and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 531, 21–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1992) Learning to communicate in the classroom. A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enomoto, S., & Marriott, H.
(1994) Investigating evaluative behavior in Japanese tour guiding interaction. Multilingua, 131, 131–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, C.
(2007) Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gassner, D., & Maillat, D.
(2006) Spoken competence in CLIL: A pragmatic take on recent Swiss data. Views-Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3), 15–22.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1978) Language as social semiotic. Arnold: London.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M.
(2014) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Continuum Education Limited. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, L.
(2005) Politeness in Spain: ‘thanks but no thanks’. In L. Hickey & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 317–330). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, T.
(1997) The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
House, J. & Kasper, G.
(1981) Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157–185). Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kasper, G.
(1997) Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://​www​.nflrc​.hawaii​.edu​/NetWorks​/NW06/
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C.
(2003) Coping with high imposition requests: high vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. Martínez Flor, E. Usó Juan, & A. Fernández (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence in Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 161–184). Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D.
(2008) Foreign Language competence in CLIL courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 11, 31–42.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
(2009) Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
(2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
(2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A.
(2013) CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 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, 311, 391–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nashaat Sobhy, N.
(2017) Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nashaat Sobhy, N. & Llinares, A.
(Forthcoming 2019) CLIL students’ pragmatic competence: a comparison between naturally-occurring and elicited requests. To appear In A. Sánchez-Hernández & A. Herraiz-Martínez (Eds). Learning Second Language Pragmatics beyond Traditional Contexts (Linguistic Insights – Studies in language Communication). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Navés, T.
(2011) How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency? 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. 129–153). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Naves, T., & Victori, M.
(2010) CLIL in Catalonia: an overview of research studies. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 30–54). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nikula, T.
(2005) English as an object of study in classrooms: interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 161, 27–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26(2), 206–223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. Alcón Soler and A. Martínez Flor (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 94–113). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Otcu, B., & Zeyrek, D.
(2008) Development of requests: A study on Turkish learners of English. In M. Püetz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 265–300). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J.
(2001) Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. Available from http://​quantpsy​.org.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
(2015) The effects of implementing CLIL in education. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 51–68). Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.Google 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). Netherlands: Springer International Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, G.
(2009) Interlanguage pragmatic development. The study abroad context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1979) Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G.
(1975) The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 251, 139–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M.
(1999) Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K.
(2017) Motivation, second language learning in CLIL. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 51–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, A.
(1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, V.
(2011) Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wannaruk, A.
(2008) Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC journal, 39(3), 318–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R.
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woodfield, H., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.
(2010) I just need more time: a study of native and non-native students’ requests to faculty for late submission. Multilingua, 29(1), 77–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Llinares, Ana
2021. Discussion: multiple approaches in CLIL: cognitive, affective and linguistic insights. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2022. 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.