Comparing the ‘phrasicon’ of teenagers in immersive and non-immersive settings
Does input quantity impact range and accuracy?
Foreign language learners’ phraseological proficiency remains problematic, even at advanced levels (e.g.,
Meunier, 2012;
Meunier & Granger, 2008;
Siepmann, 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.
Article outline
- 1.Theoretical background
- 1.1CLIL as a specific learning context
- 1.2Phraseological language
- 1.3Learner Corpus Research of the learner ‘phrasicon’
- 1.4Phraseological knowledge of CLIL learners
- 1.5The notion of emergence
- 2.Method
- 2.1Research questions and hypotheses
- 2.2Data and participants
- 2.3Extraction and classification of phraseological units
- 3.Results
- 3.1Range
- 3.1.1Global trends
- 3.1.2Frequency: Comparison CLIL/NON-CLIL
- 3.1.3Variety: Comparison CLIL/NON-CLIL
- 3.1.3.1Lexical collocations
- 3.1.3.2Grammatical collocations
- 3.1.3.3Phrasal verbs
- 3.2Accuracy
- 3.2.1Global trends
- 3.2.2Frequency: Comparison CLIL/NON-CLIL
- 3.2.3Grammaticality vs acceptability errors
- 4.Discussion and implications
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (69)
References
Agustín Llach, M. P. (2009). The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary use of content and non-content EFL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 112–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 

Agustín Llach, M. P. (2010). An overview of variables affecting lexical transfer in writing: A review study. International Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 1–17. 

Bahns, J. (1997). Kollokationen und Wortschatzarbeit im Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.
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.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp. 328–334). Tokyo: JALT.
Celaya, M. L. (2008). ‘I study natus in English’: Lexical transfer in CLIL and regular learners. In R. 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.
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.
Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 393–424. 

Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 45–61. 

Cowie, A. P. (1981). The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–235. 

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. 

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.
De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & McEnery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 67–79). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. C. (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. 

Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339. 

Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell. 

Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 17–44. 

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. 

Francis, B. & Poole, R. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford Collocations Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granger, S. (1998). Learner English on computer. London: Longman.
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Gries, S. T. (2015). Statistics for learner corpus research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 159–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

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. 

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. <[URL]>
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, 171 (special issue), 31–44. <[URL]>
Howarth, P. A. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Routledge. 

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.
Klégr, A. (1997). English complex prepositions of the prepositional phrase type. Prague Studies in English XXII, AUC, Philologica, 51, 51–78. <[URL]>
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2013). Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun-noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 939–966. 

Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30–41. 

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. 

Lin, P. M. (2014). Investigating the validity of internet television as a resource for acquiring L2 formulaic sequences. System, 421, 164–176. 

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic.
Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 111–129. 

Mewald, C. (2007). A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and in mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 139–178). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 

Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 578–596. 

Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2012). Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 

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. 

Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. 

Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 130–149. 

Rankin, T. (2015). Learner corpora and grammar. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 231–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Roever, C. (2011). What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT journal, 66(1), 10–21. 

Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
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.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. 

Thewissen, J. (2008). The phraseological errors of French-, German-, and Spanish speaking EFL learners: Evidence from an error-tagged learner corpus. In Proceedings from the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (TaLC8) (pp. 300–306). Lisbon, Associação de Estudos e de Investigação Científica do ISLA-Lisboa.
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 Education 8(2).
Verspoor, M., & Edelenbos, P. (2011). Tweetalig onderwijs zorgt voor een duurzame voorsprong. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(4), 5–13. <[URL]>
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, 321, 231–254. 

Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Hendrikx, Isa, Kristel Van Goethem & Natacha Buntinx
2024.
Intensification strength in speech: language-specific preferences and differences between native and learner language.
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 13

Bulon, Amélie & Fanny Meunier
2023.
Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners’ phrasicon in L2 Dutch: the (expected) winner does not take it all.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5
► pp. 590 ff.

Meunier, Fanny, Isa Hendrikx, Amélie Bulon, Kristel Van Goethem & Hubert Naets
2023.
MulTINCo: multilingual traditional immersion and native corpus. Better-documented multiliteracy practices for more refined SLA studies.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5
► pp. 572 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 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.