Volume 31, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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., 1989Alcón 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Achiba, M.
    (2003) Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics (Vol.2). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596131
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596131 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 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. 10.1080/13803610500392160
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alcón Soler, E. & Mártinez Flor, A. M.
    (Eds.) (2008) Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Vol.30). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690869
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690869 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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, 4, 1–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bardovi‐Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.
    (1993) Learning the rules of academic talk. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279‐30410.1017/S0272263100012122
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012122 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2013) Developing L2 Pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68–86. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00738.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bialystok, E.
    (1983) Some Factors in the Selection and Implementation of Communication Strategies. InC. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp.100–118). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.
    (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1978) Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. InE. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp.56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. 10.5617/adno.1089
    https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.1089 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J.
    (2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01330.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Cenoz, J.
    (2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. doi:  10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 [Google Scholar]
  15. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2002) The Common European Framework of Reference: CEFR. Retrieved fromhttps://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cummins, J.
    (1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2008) BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. InB. Street & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol 2 Literacy (pp.71–83). New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_36
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. (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]
  21. 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. 10.1093/applin/aml007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Downing, A., & Locke, P.
    (1992) A university course in English grammar. New York: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.
    (2012) Strategies, modification, and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 21–28. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. 10.1017/S0272263100010445
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010445 [Google Scholar]
  25. Enomoto, S., & Marriott, H.
    (1994) Investigating evaluative behavior in Japanese tour guiding interaction. Multilingua, 13, 131–161. 10.1515/mult.1994.13.1‑2.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1994.13.1-2.131 [Google Scholar]
  26. Félix-Brasdefer, C.
    (2007) Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–28610.1515/IP.2007.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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]
  28. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1978) Language as social semiotic. Arnold: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M.
    (2014) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Continuum Education Limited. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hickey, L.
    (2005) Politeness in Spain: ‘thanks but no thanks’. InL. Hickey & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp.317–330). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597398‑024
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597398-024 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hill, T.
    (1997) The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Tokyo, Japan.
  32. House, J. & Kasper, G.
    (1981) Politeness markers in English and German. InF. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp.157–185). Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kasper, G.
    (1997) Can pragmatic competence be taught?Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved fromwww.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
  34. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C.
    (2003) Coping with high imposition requests: high vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. InA. 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]
  35. Lasagabaster, D.
    (2008) Foreign Language competence in CLIL courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
    (2009) Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Leech, G. N.
    (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A.
    (2013) CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 81–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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, 31, 391–417. 10.1093/applin/amp041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041 [Google Scholar]
  42. Nashaat Sobhy, N.
    (2017) Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests. InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp.67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.05sob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.05sob [Google Scholar]
  43. Nashaat Sobhy, N. & Llinares, A.
    (Forthcoming 2019) CLIL students’ pragmatic competence: a comparison between naturally-occurring and elicited requests. To appear InA. Sánchez-Hernández & A. Herraiz-Martínez (Eds). Learning Second Language Pragmatics beyond Traditional Contexts (Linguistic Insights – Studies in language Communication). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Navés, T.
    (2011) How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency?InY. 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]
  45. Naves, T., & Victori, M.
    (2010) CLIL in Catalonia: an overview of research studies. InD. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp.30–54). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Nikula, T.
    (2005) English as an object of study in classrooms: interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16, 27–58. 10.1016/j.linged.2005.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2007) Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26(2), 206–223. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00502.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00502.x [Google Scholar]
  48. (2008) Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. InE. Alcón Soler and A. Martínez Flor (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp.94–113). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690869‑007
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690869-007 [Google Scholar]
  49. Otcu, B., & Zeyrek, D.
    (2008) Development of requests: A study on Turkish learners of English. InM. Püetz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.265–300). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 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 fromquantpsy.org.
  51. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2015) The effects of implementing CLIL in education. InM. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp.51–68). Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Salazar Campillo, P.
    (2007) Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT coursebooks. InE. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.). Intercultural language use and language learning (pp.207–222). Netherlands: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑5639‑0_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_11 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schauer, G.
    (2009) Interlanguage pragmatic development. The study abroad context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Searle, J.
    (1979) Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  55. Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G.
    (1975) The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 25, 139–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐1770.1975.tb00114.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐1770.1975.tb00114.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Sifianou, M.
    (1999) Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sylvén, L. K.
    (2017) Motivation, second language learning in CLIL. InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.51–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.04syl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.04syl [Google Scholar]
  58. Trosborg, A.
    (1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110885286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, V.
    (2011) Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.207
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.207 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wannaruk, A.
    (2008) Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC journal, 39(3), 318–337. doi:  10.1177/0033688208096844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208096844 [Google Scholar]
  61. Watts, R.
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  62. 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. 10.1515/mult.2010.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2010.004 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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