Advertisement

Constructing Cognitive Discourse Functions in Secondary CLIL Classrooms in Spain

  • Natalia Evnitskaya
Chapter

Abstract

In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts, the quality of learning academic content through the L2 and the effect it might have on the development of students’ academic language competence (both in the L2 and L1) are among the key concerns of the different stakeholders involved. To address this issue, this study adopts Dalton-Puffer’s (A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253, 2013) theoretical construct of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) to examine teachers’ use of subject-specific academic language, and more specifically teachers’ classification practices, in CLIL classrooms in Spain. The construct of CDFs combines linguistic and educational approaches to academic language and ‘links subject-specific cognitive learning goals with the linguistic representations they receive in classroom interaction’ (Dalton-Puffer, Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying and integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 29–54). Bristol and Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2016, p. 30). Classifying is essential for knowledge construction in any school discipline as they help learners move from specific to abstract (Mohan, Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986). However, empirical research on how CDFs are realised in CLIL classroom interaction is still in its beginnings. This chapter contributes to the on-going research by examining in detail one CLIL science teacher’s classifying practices when constructing scientific knowledge, from a multimodal conversation-analytic perspective (Jefferson, Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Retrieved from http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/liso_archives/Jefferson/Transcript.pdf, 2004; Mondada, Conventions for Multimodal Transcription. Basel: Romanisches Seminar der Universität, 2014).

Keywords

Spain CLIL Classroom interaction Cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) Classifying Conversation analysis Multimodality 

References

  1. Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2018). Integration of content and language pedagogies: Cognitive discourse functions in the CLIL history classroom. CELT Matters, 2, 19–28.Google Scholar
  2. Council of Europe. (1992). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages CETS 148. Strasbourg. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/148
  3. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. In J. H. Hulstijn & J. F. Matter (Eds.), Reading in Two Languages (pp. 75–89). Amsterdam: AILA.Google Scholar
  5. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying and integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 29–54). Bristol and Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., et al. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2009). Cuando la lengua de la escuela es diferente de la lengua familiar. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 395, 46–51.Google Scholar
  9. Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging Discourses in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Researchers. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Retrieved from http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/liso_archives/Jefferson/Transcript.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2018). Explaining Hooke’s law: Definitional practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 694–717.Google Scholar
  14. Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lackner, M. (2012). The Use of Subject-Related Discourse Functions in Upper Secondary CLIL History Classes. MA thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
  17. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language Across the Curriculum & CLIL in English as an Additional Language (EAL) Contexts: Theory and Practice. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Mondada, L. (2014). Conventions for Multimodal Transcription. Basel: Romanisches Seminar der Universität.Google Scholar
  23. Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jiménez Catalán, M. (Eds.). (2009). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  25. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Edited by G. Jefferson. 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(12), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Trimble, L. (1985). English for Science and Technology. A Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Widdowson, H. G. (Ed.). (1979). Reading and Thinking in English. Discovering Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia Evnitskaya
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Multilingualism, Universitat Internacional de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations