Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 37:1 (2024) ► pp.1–26

La mediación textual a partir de estrategias de reformulación

Análisis comparativo entre CLIL y no CLIL

ORCID logo | Università Ca’Foscari di Venezia
ORCID logo | Universität Heidelberg

El Aprendizaje Integrado de Lengua y Contenidos o CLIL (por sus siglas en inglés, Content Language Integrated Learning) constituye un enfoque ecléctico en el que la lengua meta se emplea como medio para la enseñanza de contenidos de diferentes áreas. En este contexto, las actividades comunicativas de mediación propuestas por el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia (MCER) cobran especial interés. Este estudio a pequeña escala compara, a partir de una actividad de mediación lingüística de procesamiento textual, el rendimiento de dos grupos de alumnos de alemán como lengua extranjera (DaF) de nivel A2-B1: uno inmerso en un programa CLIL y otro bajo un enfoque tradicional (grupo no CLIL). A la luz del análisis de los datos se comprueba que los alumnos CLIL demuestran mayor recursividad en el empleo de estrategias de reformulación en la presentación de un texto mediado. Igualmente, los datos permiten observar un efecto positivo en la integración de la L1 en actividades comunicativas de mediación.

Keywords: mediación textual, CLIL, procesamiento de textos, análisis conversacional, DaF
Article outline
  • 1.El contexto CLIL y las actividades de mediación
  • 2.Marco teórico
    • 2.1Escala de mediación: Procesamiento textual
    • 2.2Variables dependientes del análisis
      • 2.2.1Estrategias de mediación
      • 2.2.2Otros recursos lingüísticos: L1, coherencia y alternancia de turnos
  • 3.Metodología
  • 4.Resultados y discusión
    • 4.1Estrategias de reformulación
    • 4.2Empleo de L1, incoherencias y alternancia de turnos
  • 5.Conclusiones
  • Agradecimientos
  • Notas
  • Referencias

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 1 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.21018.nad
References (51)

Referencias

Arjonilla Sampedro, A., Atienza Cerezo, E., Castro Carrillo, M., Cortés Moreno, M., González Argüello, M., Inglés Figueroa, M., Iruela Guerrero, A., Lahuerta Galán, J., López Ferrero, C., Montmany Molina, B., Pueyo Villa, S., Puig Soler, F., Sánchez Quintana, N., Torner Castells, S., Vañó Aymat, A., Wesenaar, D. & Martín Peris, E.
s.f.). Diccionario de términos clave de ELE. Centro Virtual de Cervantes. [Retrieved July, 25, 2020, from [URL]]
Arunachalam, S.
(2013) Experimental Methods for Linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7 (4), 221–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A.
(2011) Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39 (4), 523–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41 (3), 587–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calsamiglia, H., & Tusón, A.
(1999) Las cosas del decir. Ariel.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S.
(2011) Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied linguistics review, 2 1, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J.
(2003) The Additive Effect of Bilingualism on Third Language Acquisition: A Review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7 1, 71–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciapuscio, G. E.
(2001) Procesos y recursos de producción textual en la divulgación de ciencia. In J. Brumme (Ed.), La historia de los lenguajes iberorrománicos de especialidad: la divulgación de la ciencia. Actas del II Coloquio Internacional 27–29 de mayo de 1999 (pp. 17–42). Vervuert.Google Scholar
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A.
(2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94 (1), 103–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coste, D., & Cavalli, M.
(2015) Education, mobility, otherness: The mediation functions of schools. Consejo de Europa. [Retrieved July, 25, 2020, from [URL]].
Consejo de Europa
(2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Companion Volume With New Descriptors. Council of Europe. [URL]
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2002) Content and language integrated learning in Austrian classrooms: applied linguistics takes a look. VIEWS, 11 1, 4–26.Google Scholar
Diez, D., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., y Barr, C.
(2019) OpenIntro Statistics: Fourth Edition. [URL]
Evnitskaya, N.
(2018) Classroom Interaction and Language Learning in CLIL contexts. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 1 (1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T.
(2011) Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25 (2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuentes, M. A., & Hernández, E.
(2011) From “This is impossible” to “I will make the standard higher”: A close look at interaction in the CLIL classroom. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 4 (2), 17–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gajo, L.
(2007) Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How Does Bilingualism Contribute to Subject Development? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 1, 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaboniat, M., Müller, M., Rusch, P., & Wertenschlag, L.
(2013) Profile deutsch: gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen; Lernzielbestimmungen, Kannbeschreibungen, kommunikative Mittel, Niveau A1 – A2, B1 – B2, C1 – C2. Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. & Hidalgo, M. A.
(2017) L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67 1, 132–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González Ramírez, C.
(2005) Procedimientos de reformulación en textos de divulgación didáctica. Tejuelo, 17 1, 9–24.Google Scholar
Grupo ValEsCo
(2014) Las unidades del discurso oral. La propuesta Val.Es.Co. de segmentación de la conversación (coloquial). Estudios de Lingüñistica del Español, 35 (1), 11–71.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, A. & Padilla, X.
(2006) Bases para el análisis de las unidades menores del discurso oral: los subactos. Oralia, 91, 109–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakonen, T.
(2019) The integration of content and language in students’ task answer production in the bilingual classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (4), 428–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A.
(2016) Are CLIL learners simply faster or also different? Evidence from L1 use in the repair sequences and discourse markers of CLIL and EFL learners. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 1, 127–145.Google Scholar
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. & García Mayo, M. P.
(2012) L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. International Review of Applied Economics, 50 1, 135–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F.
(2007) The sociolinguistics of CLIL: language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada: Volumen monográfico, 27–38.Google Scholar
Liaklikhova, D.
(2019) “We can do it together!” – But can they? How Norwegian ninth graders co-constructed content and language knowledge through peer interaction in CLIL. Linguistics and Education, 54 1, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer
(2015) The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54 1, 69–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T.
(2012) Social perspectives on interaction and language learning in CLIL classrooms. In Alcón Soler, E. y Safont-Jordà, M. T. (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 105–131). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llineares, A., & Pastrana, A.
(2018) CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 59 1, 81–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdi, G., & Py, B.
(2009) To be or not to be ... a plurilingual speaker. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6 (2), 154–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinkovich, J.
(2005) Las estrategias de reformulación: el paso desde un texto fuente a un texto de divulgación didáctica. Literatura y Lingüística, 16 1, 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meredith, J.
(2019) Conversation Analysis and Online Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52 1, 241–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Móccero, M. L.
(2005) Algunos aspectos de la reformulación del discurso científico. Cuadernos de Lenguas Modernas, 5 (5), 101–116. [URL]
Nadal, L., & Thome, S.
(2021) Mediación y aprendizaje de lenguas en contextos de no inmersión: un análisis experimental. RLA. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 59 (2), 111–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E.
(2018) Exploring CLIL contribution towards the acquisition of cross-curricular competences: a comparative study on digital competence development in CLIL. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 13 1, 75–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, B., & Piccardo, E.
(2016) Developing Illustrative Descriptors of Aspects of Mediation For The CEFR: A Council of Europe Project. Retrieved October, 10, 2020, from [URL]
Pastrana, A., Llinares, A., & Pascual, I.
(2018) Students’ language use for co-construction of knowledge in CLIL group-work activities: A comparison with L1 settings. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21 1, 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavón, V., y Rubio Alcalá, F.
(2010) Teachers’ Concerns and Uncertainties about the Introduction of CLIL Programs. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 14 1, 45–58.Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L.
(2016) From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra: Journal of teaching and learning language and literature, 9 (1), 9–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a) CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28 (3), 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b) CLIL and Educational Level: A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Language Outcomes. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 29 1, 51–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) What’s hot and what’s not on the current CLIL research agenda: Weeding out the non-issues from the real issues. A response to Bruton (2019). Applied Linguistics Review. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T.
(1994) First Language Use in Second Language Production. Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 36–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Isidro, X.
(2019) The multi-faceted effects of CLIL: A literature review. Nexus Aedean Journal, 1 1, 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Satar, M.
(2015) Sustaining multimodal language learner interactions online. CALICO, 32 1, 449–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vidal, C.
(2007) The Need for Focus on Form (FonF) in Content and Language Integrated Approaches: An Exploratory Study. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 1 1, 39–54.Google Scholar
Wolff, D.
(2009) Content and Language Integrated Learning. En Knapp, K-F. & Seidelhofer, B. (Eds.), Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning (pp. 545–572). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamudio, B., & Atorresi, A.
(2000) La explicación. Eudeba.Google Scholar
Zanoni, F.
(2018) Code-switching in CLIL: The Students’ Perception. EL.LE, 7 (2), 310–326.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Nadal Sanchis, Laura & Iria Bello Viruega
2023. Insights from an empirical study on communicative functions and L1 use during conceptual mediation in L2 peer interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.