1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Volume 8, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Foreign language learners’ phraseological proficiency remains problematic, even at advanced levels (e.g., Meunier, 2012Meunier & Granger, 2008Siepmann, 2008). While the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) method is believed to facilitate foreign language learning by fostering input, interaction, and output, little attention has been paid to the phraseological competence of CLIL learners. The present study aims to fill this gap as it is framed within an interdisciplinary project on CLIL in Belgium and specifically focuses on the phrasicon, i.e. the phraseological lexicon, of 5th year French-speaking secondary school learners of English in immersive (CLIL) and non-immersive (NON-CLIL) settings. The paper reports on (1) an analysis of the variety/range of the phrasicon and (2) an overview of phraseological accuracy. The analyses are based on a corpus of written productions of 180 learners. The findings of this study indicate higher frequency, range and accuracy in the phrasicon of CLIL learners.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
2020-03-31
2025-02-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
    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. P.
    (2009) The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary use of content and non-content EFL learners. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp.112–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781847691675‑010
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691675-010 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2010) An overview of variables affecting lexical transfer in writing: A review study. International Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 1–17. doi:  10.5296/ijl.v2i1.445
     https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v2i1.445 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahns, J.
    (1997) Kollokationen und Wortschatzarbeit im Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berendse, E. P. H.
    (2014) Acquiring L2 English prepositions in an L1 Dutch environment: The effect of immersion through CLIL teaching. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht.
  5. Brown, H., & Bradford, A.
    (2017) EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. InP. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp.328–334). Tokyo: JALT.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  7. Celaya, M. L.
    (2008) ‘I study natus in English’: Lexical transfer in CLIL and regular learners. InR. Monroy, & A. Sánchez (Eds.), 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges (pp.43–49). Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Celaya, M. L., & Torras, M. R.
    (2001) L1 influence and EFL vocabulary: Do children rely more on L1 than adult learners?Proceedings from the 25th AEDEAN Meeting (pp.1–14). University of Granada.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cobb, T.
    (2003) Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 393–424. doi:  10.3138/cmlr.59.3.393
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.3.393 [Google Scholar]
  10. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
    (2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000074
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000074 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cowie, A. P.
    (1981) The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–235. doi:  10.1093/applin/II.3.223
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/II.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2008) Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. InW. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp.139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:  10.1017/S0267190511000092
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Cock, S.
    (2003) Recurrent sequences of words in native speaker and advanced learner spoken and written English: A corpus-driven approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
  16. De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & McEnery, T.
    (1998) An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.67–79). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, N. C.
    (Ed.) (1994) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2002a) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. doi:  10.1017/S0272263102002024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2002b) Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339. doi:  10.1017/S0272263102002140
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002140 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. InC. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.63–103). Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000025
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025 [Google Scholar]
  22. Erman, B., & Warren, B.
    (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20(1), 29–62. doi:  10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fernández, B. G., & Schmitt, N.
    (2015) How much collocation knowledge do L2 learners have?ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(1), 94–126. doi:  10.1075/itl.166.1.03fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.166.1.03fer [Google Scholar]
  24. Francis, B. & Poole, R.
    (Eds.) (2009) Oxford Collocations Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Granger, S.
    (1998) Learner English on computer. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Granger, S., & Meunier, F.
    (2008) Phraseology in language learning and teaching: Where to from here?InF. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp.247–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.138.19gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138.19gra [Google Scholar]
  27. Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
    (2008) Disentangling the phraseological web. InS. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.139.07gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.07gra [Google Scholar]
  28. Gries, S. T.
    (2015) Statistics for learner corpus research. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp.159–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139649414.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Handl, S.
    (2008) Essential collocations for learners of English: The role of collocational direction and weight. InF. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp.43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.138.06han
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138.06han [Google Scholar]
  30. Hasselgren, A.
    (1994) Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237–258. doi:  10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1994.tb00065.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Heid, U.
    (2008) Computational phraseology: An overview. InS. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.337–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.139.28hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.28hei [Google Scholar]
  32. Hiligsmann, P., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I. & Simonis, M.
    (2017) Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium: Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17(109), 1–25. file:///C:/Users/bulon/Downloads/Hiligsmann%20et%20al%20(2017)%20Assessing%20CLIL%20in%20French-speaking%20Belgium%20(1).pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hong, A. L., Rahim, H. A., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin, K.
    (2001) Collocations in Malaysian English learners’ writing: A corpus-based error analysis. 3L; Language, linguistics and literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17 (special issue), 31–44. ejournals.ukm.my/3l/article/view/986/900
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Howarth, P. A.
    (1996) Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:  10.1515/9783110937923
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110937923 [Google Scholar]
  35. James, C.
    (2013) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315842912
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842912 [Google Scholar]
  36. Klampfl, A.
    (2010) A comparative study of writing proficiency between an Austrian CLIL and mainstream EFL class with regard to vocabulary (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Wien, Vienna.
  37. Klégr, A.
    (1997) English complex prepositions of the prepositional phrase type. Prague Studies in English XXII, AUC, Philologica, 5, 51–78. emsa.ff.cuni.cz/system/files/English%20Complex%20Prepositions%20of%20the%20Prepositonal%20Phrase%20Type_Kl%C3%A9gr.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Krashen, S. D.
    (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R.
    (2013) Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun-noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 939–966. doi:  10.1080/01690965.2012.701757
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.701757 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lasagabaster, D.
    (2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30–41. doi:  10.2174/1874913500801010030
     https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
    (2009) Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccp082
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lin, P. M.
    (2014) Investigating the validity of internet television as a resource for acquiring L2 formulaic sequences. System, 42, 164–176. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2013.11.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.11.010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, D.
    (2008) Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491–518. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu [Google Scholar]
  44. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York, NY: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Met, M.
    (1999) Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Meunier, F.
    (2012) Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000128
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000128 [Google Scholar]
  47. Meunier, F., & Granger, S.
    (2008) Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.138
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mewald, C.
    (2007) A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and in mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. InC. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp.139–178). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Muñoz, C.
    (Ed.) (2006) Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781853598937
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2008) Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 578–596. doi:  10.1093/applin/amm056
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm056 [Google Scholar]
  51. (Ed.) (2012) Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781847698063
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698063 [Google Scholar]
  52. Naves, T., Miralpeix, I., & Celaya, M. L.
    (2005) Who transfers more … and what? Cross-linguistic influence in relation to school grade and language dominance in EFL. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(2), 113–134. doi:  10.1080/14790710508668380
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710508668380 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nesselhauf, N.
    (2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scl.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.14 [Google Scholar]
  54. Nikula, T.
    (2010) Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/aals.7.06nik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.06nik [Google Scholar]
  55. Pallotti, G.
    (2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. doi:  10.1093/applin/amm018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm018 [Google Scholar]
  56. Paquot, M.
    (2008) Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. InF. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp.101–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.138.09paq
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138.09paq [Google Scholar]
  57. Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
    (2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000098
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098 [Google Scholar]
  58. Rankin, T.
    (2015) Learner corpora and grammar. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp.231–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139649414.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.011 [Google Scholar]
  59. Roever, C.
    (2011) What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT journal, 66(1), 10–21. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccq090
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq090 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schmitt, N., & Redwood, S.
    (2011) Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs: A corpus-informed study. InF. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin, & M. Paquot (Eds.), A taste for corpora. In honour of Sylviane Granger (pp.173–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scl.45.12sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.45.12sch [Google Scholar]
  61. Scott, M.
    (2012) WordSmith Tools. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Siepmann, D.
    (2005) Discourse markers across languages: A contrastive study of second-level discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (2008) Phraseology in learners’ dictionaries: What, where and how. InF. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp.185–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.138.15sie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138.15sie [Google Scholar]
  64. Swain, M.
    (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. InG. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L.
    (2012) Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 28–53. doi:  10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2012.01178.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x [Google Scholar]
  66. Thewissen, J.
    (2008) The phraseological errors of French-, German-, and Spanish speaking EFL learners: Evidence from an error-tagged learner corpus. InProceedings from the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (TaLC8) (pp.300–306). Lisbon, Associação de Estudos e de Investigação Científica do ISLA-Lisboa.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F., & Van Goethem, K.
    (in press). Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch: CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education8(2).
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Verspoor, M., & Edelenbos, P.
    (2011) Tweetalig onderwijs zorgt voor een duurzame voorsprong. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(4), 5–13. www.lt-tijdschriften.nl/ojs/index.php/ltt/article/view/69/68
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wray, A.
    (2012) What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. doi:  10.1017/S026719051200013X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051200013X [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
Loading
Comparing the ‘phrasicon’ of teenagers in immersive and non-immersive settings
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 8, 107 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18010.bul
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); L2 English; phraseological errors; phraseology; range; variety

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