1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Volume 7, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL), an educational approach using a foreign language to teach non-language subjects, has been consistently gaining in popularity. Despite an increasing research base suggesting its benefits for general language proficiency, the contribution made to learning and using subject-specific target language elements is largely under-researched. This paper addresses one aspect of this, i.e. students’ use of subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL classroom communication. We propose a holistic model for identifying both single and multi-word lexical units specific to the school subject in oral classroom data, integrating corpus-linguistic and qualitative data analysis. The method is trialled using a data set of 16 hours of secondary-school CLIL classroom data within the subject of European economics and politics in Year 12. Findings show that a holistic definition of subject-specific vocabulary is vital, and that the model constitutes an adequate and flexible tool for specifying CLIL terminology in oral classroom discourse.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
2019-02-28
2024-10-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agustín Llach, M.
    (2014) Exploring the lexical profile of your CLIL learners: Towards an improvement in lexical use. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2, 53–73. 10.1075/jicb.2.1.03agu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.2.1.03agu [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmad, K., Davies, A., Fulford, H., & Rogers, M.
    (1994) What is a term? The semi-automatic extraction of terms from text. InM. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp.267–278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.2.33ahm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.2.33ahm [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, L.
    (2010) AntConc. [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2013) AntWordProfiler. [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
    British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007) Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved from www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.
  7. Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J.
    (2013a) The New Academic Word List. Retrieved from www.newgeneralservicelist.org.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2013b) The New General Service List. Retrieved fromwww.newgeneralservicelist.org
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chung, T. M.
    (2003) A corpus comparison approach for terminology extraction. Terminology, 9, 221–245. 10.1075/term.9.2.05chu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/term.9.2.05chu [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung, T. M., & Nation, P.
    (2003) Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 103–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2004) Identifying technical vocabulary. System, 32, 251–263. 10.1016/j.system.2003.11.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  12. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2013) Vocabulary in ESP. InB. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.115–132). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Csomay, E., & Petrović, M.
    (2012) ‘Yes, your Honor!’: A corpus-based study of technical vocabulary in discipline-related movies and TV shows. System, 40, 305–315. 10.1016/j.system.2012.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. 10.1017/S0267190511000092
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2). doi:  10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U.
    (Eds.) (2010a) Language use and language learning in CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.14dal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.14dal [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010b) Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL (pp.279–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Davies, M.
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Drouin, P.
    (2003) Term extraction using non-technical corpora as a point of leverage. Terminology, 9, 99–115. 10.1075/term.9.1.06dro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/term.9.1.06dro [Google Scholar]
  23. (2010) TermoStat. [Computer Software]. Montréal, Canada: Universitè de Montréal.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J.
    (1998) Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunning, T.
    (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Fernández Fontecha, A.
    (2014) Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas [Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages], 9, 23–32. 10.4995/rlyla.2014.2077
     https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2014.2077 [Google Scholar]
  27. Flowerdew, J.
    (2011) ESP and corpus studies. InD. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for Specific Purposes research (pp.222–251). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fulford, H.
    (2001) Exploring terms and their linguistic environment in text: A domain-independent approach to automated term extraction. Terminology, 7, 259–279. 10.1075/term.7.2.08ful
     https://doi.org/10.1075/term.7.2.08ful [Google Scholar]
  29. Gablasova, D.
    (2014) Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 976–991. 10.1111/modl.12150
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12150 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gardner, D.
    (2007) Validating the construct of “word” in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 241–265. 10.1093/applin/amm010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gierlinger, E., & Wagner, T.
    (2016) The more the merrier – Revisiting CLIL-based vocabulary growth in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 37–63. 10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ha, A. Y. L., & Hyland, K.
    (2017) What is technicality? A technical analysis model for EAP vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28, 35–49. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Heatley, A., Nation, P., & Cohead, A.
    (2000) RANGE. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2015) The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. 10.1177/1362168814541736
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541736 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hüttner, J., & Smit, U.
    (2014) CLIL (Content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton (2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, 160–176. 10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2018) Negotiating political positions: Subject-specific oral language use in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 287–302. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1386616
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1386616 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hyland, K.
    (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2009) The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL vs. non-CLIL instruction. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp.81–92). Bristol: Channel View Publications. 10.21832/9781847691675‑008
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691675-008 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kwary, D. A.
    (2011) A hybrid method for determining technical vocabulary. System, 39, 175–185. 10.1016/j.system.2011.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Llinares, A.
    (2015) Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925 [Google Scholar]
  41. Llinares, A., & Morton, T.
    (2010) Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 46–65. 10.1080/19463011003750681
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19463011003750681 [Google Scholar]
  42. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R.
    (2010) Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL (pp.125–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N.
    (2012) A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320. 10.1093/applin/ams010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams010 [Google Scholar]
  45. Martínez, I. A., Beck, S. C., & Panza, C. B.
    (2009) Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 183–198. 10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Moghadam, N. Z., & Fatemipour, H.
    (2014) The effect of CLIL on vocabulary development by Iranian secondary school EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 2004–2009. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.635
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.635 [Google Scholar]
  47. Morton, T.
    (2015) Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. 10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nation, P.
    (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. 10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2008) Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle and Cengage.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2013) Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139858656
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2016) Making and using word lists for language learning and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.208
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.208 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nelson, M.
    (2000) A corpus-based study of business English and business English teaching materials (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.
  53. Nikula, T.
    (2012) On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language use in CLIL. InE. A. Soler, & M.-P. Safont-Jorda (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp.133–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2015) Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27. 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A.
    (2013) CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. 10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik [Google Scholar]
  56. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F.
    (2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and multilingual education. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.1–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑004
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ojeda Alba, J.
    (2009) Themes and vocabulary in CLIL and non-CLIL Instruction. InR. M. Jiménez Catalán & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning : Evidence from research in Europe (pp.95–116). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691675‑011
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691675-011 [Google Scholar]
  58. Olsson, E.
    (2015) Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk [Modern Language], 109(2), 51–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Pérez-Vidal, C. & Roquet, H.
    (2015) The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pinna, A.
    (2007) Exploiting LSP corpora in the study of foreign languages. InD. Gálová (Ed.), Languages for specific purposes: Searching for common solutions (pp.146–162). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Preisfeld, A.
    (2016) Die Bedeutung bilingualen Experimentalunterrichts in Biologie für die fachliche und sprachliche Kompetenz [The contribution of bilingual experiment-based instruction in biology to language and subject competence]. InB. Dier, A. Preisfeld, & L. Schmelter (Eds.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterentwickeln und erforschen [Enhancing and investigating bilingual instruction] (pp.103–123). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Read, J.
    (2007) Second language vocabulary assessment. International Journal of English Studies, 7, 105–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Rizzo, C. R., & Pérez, M. J. M.
    (2015) A key perspective on specialized lexis: Keywords in Telecommunication Engineering for CLIL. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198, 386–396. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.458
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.458 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sylvén, L. K., & Ohlander, S.
    (2014) The CLISS Project: Receptive vocabulary in CLIL versus non-CLIL groups. Moderna Språk [Modern Language], 108(2), 80–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Valpouri, L. & Nassaji, H.
    (2013) A corpus-based study of academic vocabulary in chemistry. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 248–263. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  66. VOICE
    VOICE (2010) Voice transcription conventions [2.1]. Retrieved from https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/transcription_general_information.
  67. Wang, J., Liang, S., & Ge, G.
    (2008) Establishment of a medical Academic Word List. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 442–458. 10.1016/j.esp.2008.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  68. West, M.
    (1953) A General Service List of English words. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Woodward-Kron, R.
    (2008) More than just jargon – the nature and role of specialist language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 234–249. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  70. Xanthou, M.
    (2011) The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching, 10(4), 116–126.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
Loading
Capturing technical terms in spoken CLIL
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7, 4 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; L2 lexicon; subject-specific language; technical vocabulary; upper-secondary school

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error