Cover not available
Part of
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 125–144

Speech function analysis to explore CLIL students’ spoken language for knowledge construction

 | Autonomous University of Madrid
 | Birkbeck, University of London
This chapter focuses on the register variable of tenor within systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to examine spoken interaction involving secondary CLIL history learners in two contexts: one-to-one interviews with a researcher, and role-plays with peers. Tenor refers to the role relationship between interactants, and its impact on language use. We adapt speech function analyses developed by Eggins and Slade (1997) for ordinary conversation to settings in which CLIL learners jointly construct aspects of content knowledge in one subject, history. The findings show that the negotiation and roles assigned to participants impacted on the ways the learners managed to construct history content knowledge. We argue that speech function analysis can throw light on how role relationships in spoken interaction can create or restrict affordances for the expression of content knowledge in CLIL.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Role-plays and interviews as contexts for knowledge construction and language production in CLIL
  • Speech function analysis in educational contexts
  • Exploring CLIL students’ use of speech functions in role-plays and interviews
    • Students’ use of speech functions across the two tasks: The broader picture
    • Role assignment and negotiation in interviews
    • Confronting and challenging in role-plays
    • Construing content knowledge in prolonging moves: The uses of enhancement
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.08lli
References (28)
References
Al-Arishi, A.Y. (1994). Role-play, real-play, and surreal-play in the ESOL classroom. ELT Journal, 48(4), 337–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120–145). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C. (2006). Learning the language of school history: the role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New directions, new methods. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 219–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, S., McNaught, L., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Understanding joint construction in the tertiary context. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 135–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joughin, G. (2010). A short guide to oral assessment. Leeds: Leeds Met Press in association with University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
Kosti, K., Κοndoyianni, A., & Tsiaras, A. (2015). Fostering historical empathy through drama‐in‐ education: A pilot study on secondary school students in Greece. Drama Research, 6(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 46–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2016). Evaluative language use by teachers and students in CLIL across contexts: integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz Milne, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, D., & Serra, C. (2009). Immersive education and cognitive strategies: Can the obstacle be the advantage in a multilingual society? International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 186–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2003). A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 421–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer, & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179–204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nikula, T., Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). European research on CLIL classroom discourse. International Journal of Immersion and Content Based Education, 1(1), 70–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, S., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2008). Using exchange structure analysis to explore argument in text-based computer conferences. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 257–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (2008). Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume) (pp. 13–16). Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., & Leopold, L. (2012). A critical role for role-playing pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 29(2), 121–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A. (2009). CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Alejo-González, Rafael, Manuel Lucero, Mary Schleppegrell & Ana Sánchez
2023. Student-teacher interaction in CLIL and non-CLIL elementary education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 11:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Lo, Yuen Yi, Angel M. Y. Lin & Yiqi Liu
2023. Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:3 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 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.