Language Acquisition in CLIL and Non-CLIL Settings

Learner corpus and experimental evidence on passive constructions

| Université catholique de Louvain
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027210777 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027264909 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Language Acquisition in CLIL and Non-CLIL Settings builds a bridge between Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpus Research (LCR) methodologies to take the evaluation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to a new level. The study innovates in two main ways. First, it is based on a highly diversified L2 database which includes learner corpus data as well as experimental data from the same learners. These linguistic components of the database are complemented with extensive information on learner variables, including cognitive and affective factors, which are rarely studied in LCR. Second, the study relies on multifactorial statistical analyses to assess the effectiveness of CLIL itself as well as the impact of the selectivity inherent in the CLIL system, which has frequently been ignored. The linguistic focus of the study is the English passive, which is investigated in CLIL and non-CLIL teaching materials, and subsequently related to learner output.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 80]  2017.  xx, 417 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations and acronyms
xi–xii
List of figures
xiii–xiv
List of tables
xv–xviii
Preface
xix–xx
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–8
Chapter 2. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
9–43
Chapter 3. The passive
45–90
Chapter 4. Methods of data collection and processing
91–137
Chapter 5. Methods of data analysis
139–180
Chapter 6. The passive in teaching materials
181–225
Chapter 7. The selectivity of CLIL – learner variables
227–243
Chapter 8. The impact of CLIL – Corpus data
245–301
Chapter 9. The impact of CLIL – Experimental data
303–358
Chapter 10. Conclusion
359–368
References
369–384
Appendices
385–407
Index
409–417
“Möller presents one of the first comprehensive analyses of the efficacy of CLIL. Her study is a great example of how to do state-of-the-art, theoretically and statistically informed corpus linguistics. Anyone interested in bilingualism, bilingual teaching approaches, quantitative corpus linguistics, and the passive for that matter should like to read this book.”
“Möller’s book paves the way for (and convincingly calls for more) usage-based SLA research taking into account numerous variables. In addition to traditional learner variables (such as age, mother tongue background, etc.) her study also includes cognitive, affective and input-related variables which are all known to impact communicative competence in a second/foreign language. Her book helps us (re)assess the actual impact of CLIL by shedding light on variables that are still too often ignored. A must read for researchers and teachers interested in CLIL!”
“The book impressively showcases how much can be gained by combining empirical evidence from learner corpora with results from experimental tasks targeting specific language constructions and psychological learner variables capturing individual differences. It is all the more exciting that it does so in real-life instructional contexts, where the rich empirical basis can help address specific hypotheses about Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Incorporating several control group settings, the study supports a multi-faceted perspective of the impact of CLIL that also provides results that some will be surprised by. A great book for all researchers and practitioners looking for methodologically sophisticated, empirically well-grounded work linking second language research and foreign language teaching and learning.”
“This monograph achieves its main goal; namely, to explore a variety of factors influencing success in CLIL programs. In so doing, it confirms that selectivity, while an extremely important factor, is not the only factor influencing learners’ performance. Corpus and experimental data give a clear view of the passive voice constructions learners can produce at this stage. [...] this is an informative study that helps the reader better discern not only how CLIL is understood in Germany, and, more specifically, in the Baden-Württembergish context, but also what factors contribute to its success.”
References

References

Alexiadou, Artemis
2005A note on non-canonical passives: The case of the get-passive. In Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds.), 13–21. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Altman, Douglas G. & Bland, J. Martin
1995The normal distribution. BMJ 310: 298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apsel, Carsten
2012Coping with CLIL. Dropouts from CLIL streams in Germany. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 47–56.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti
2008Univariate, Bivariate, and Multivariate Methods in Corpus-Based Lexicography – A Study of Synonymy. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Artigal, Josep Maria
1997The Catalan immersion programme. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 133–150. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arviso, Marie & Holm, Wayne
1990Native American language immersion programs: Can there be bilingual education when the language is going (or gone) as a child language? Journal of Navajo Education 8(1): 39–47.Google Scholar
Ashford, Stephanie, Beile, Werner, Beile-Bowes, Alice, Hellyer-Jones, Rosemary, Horner, Marion, Lampater, Peter, Pasch, Peter, Stenzel, Klaus & Volk, Gunther
1998Learning English – Green Line NEW 5. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Ashford, Stephanie, Butzko, Ellen, Carleton-Gertsch, Louise, Johannvordersielhorst, Anja, Horner, Marion, Kaminski, Cornelia, Klose, Hartmut, Krey, Katja, Meißner, Christine, Nürnberger, Uli, Pongratz, Susanne, Tepe, Thomas & Weisshaar, Harald
2009Green Line Oberstufe Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Ashford, Stephanie, Finkbeiner, Claudia, Hellyer-Jones, Rosemary, Horner, Marion, Lampater, Peter, Mattison, Michael, Pasch, Peter, Roth, Rolf W., Slogsnat, Helmut, Stenzel, Klaus, Volk, Gunther & Winck, Margaret
1997bLearning English – Green Line NEW 4. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Ashford, Stephanie, Finkbeiner, Claudia, Hellyer-Jones, Rosemary, Horner, Marion, Lampater, Peter, Pasch, Peter, Roth, Rolf W., Stenzel, Klaus, Volk, Gunther, Beile-Bowes, Alice & Beile, Werner
1999Learning English – Green Line NEW 6. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Ashford, Stephanie, Hellyer-Jones, Rosemary, Horner, Marion, Lampater, Peter, Lanzer, Harriette, Pasch, Peter, Roth, Rolf W., Slogsnat, Helmut, Stenzel, Klaus, Volk, Gunther, Winck, Margaret, Wonham, Harold S. & Finkbeiner, Claudia
1995Learning English – Green Line NEW 2. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
1997aLearning English – Green Line NEW 3. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy
2008It's only human... In Investigating English with Corpora. Studies in Honour of Maria Teresa Prat, Aurelia Martelli & Virginia Pulcini (eds.), 343–354. Monza: Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher.Google Scholar
Aston, Paul, Hellyer-Jones, Rosemary, Horner, Marion, Lampater, Peter, Lanzer, Harriette, Pasch, Peter, Roth, Rolf W., Slogsnat, Helmut, Stenzel, Klaus, Stribel, Dorit, Wonham, Harold S., Beile, Werner, Beile-Bowes, Alice, Finkbeiner, Claudia, Posener, Alan & Winck, Margaret
1994Learning English – Green Line NEW 1. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Banks, David
2008The Development of Scientific Writing. Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Barber, Elizabeth J.W.
1975Voice – Beyond the passive. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Cathy Cogen (ed.), 16–24. Berkeley CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Barnett, Vic & Lewis, Toby
1994Outliers in Statistical Data, 3rd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Baron, Alistair & Rayson, Paul
2009Automatic standardisation of texts containing spelling variation. How much training data do you need? In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference, CL2009, Liverpool, UK, Michaela Mahlberg, Victorina González-Díaz & Catherine Smith (eds.). Liverpool: University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Beedham, Christopher
1982The Passive Aspect in English, German and Russian. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Basil
1971Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1995Dimensions of Register Variation. A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2009Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Björklund, Siv
1997Immersion in Finland in the 1990s. A state of development and expansion. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 85–101. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York NY: Hold Rinehart Winston.Google Scholar
Bohnet, Bernd
2010Top accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 89–97. Beijing: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bohnet, Bernd & Nivre, Joakim
2012A transition-based system for joint part-of-speech tagging and labeled non-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning EMNLP , 1455–1465. Jeju Island, Korea: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bonnet, Andreas
2012Towards an evidence base for CLIL. How to integrate qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant perspectives in CLIL research. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 66–78.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Andreas & Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
2013Great expectations? Competence and standard related questions concerning CLIL moving into the mainstream. In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice, Stephan Breidbach & Britta Viebrock (eds.), 269–284. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bos, Wilfried, Bonsen, Martin, Gröhlich, Carola, Guill, Karin, May, Peter, Rau, Anna, Stubbe, Tobias C., Vielus, Ulrich & Wocken, Hans
2009KESS 7. Kompetenzen und Einstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern – Jahrgangsstufe 7. http://​bildungsserver​.hamburg​.de​/contentblob​/2627296​/data​/pdf​-kess​-7​.pdf (19 September 2014).
Bos, Wilfried & Pietsch, Marcus
2007KESS 4 – Kompetenzen und Einstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern am Ende der Jahrgangsstufe 4 in Hamburger Grundschulen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bredenbröker, Winfried
2000Förderung der fremdsprachlichen Kompetenz durch bilingualen Unterricht. Empirische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2002Förderung fremdsprachlicher Kompetenz durch bilingualen Unterricht: Empirische Untersuchungen. In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. Didaktik, Lehrer-/Lernerforschung und Bildungspolitik zwischen Theorie und Empirie, Stephan Breidbach, Gerhard Bach & Dieter Wolff (eds.), 141–149. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Breidbach, Stephan & Viebrock, Britta
2012CLIL in Germany – Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 5–16.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1982The passive in lexical theory. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.), 3–86. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bruton, Anthony
2011Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39: 523–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bürgi, Heidi
2009Zweisprachiges Lernen an drei Gymnasien in der Schweiz: Ziele, Aufwand und Ertrag. In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) im Kontext von Sprache, Kultur and Multiliteralität, Stephan-Alexander Ditze & Anna Halbach (eds.), 187–201. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bullon, Stephen
2008Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Burmeister, Petra
1994Englisch im Bili-Vorlauf. Pilotstudie zur Leistungsfähigkeit des verstärkten Vorlaufs in der 5. Jahrgangsstufe deutsch-englisch bilingualer Zweige in Schleswig-Holstein. Kiel: 1&f Verlag.Google Scholar
Calderón, Margarita & Slavin, Robert E.
2001Success for all in a two-way immersion school. In Bilingual Education, Donna Christian & Fred Genesee (eds.), 27–40. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus
2015Learner corpus methodology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 35–55. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael
1999The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3(1): 41–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone
2015Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1): 8–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone, Genesee, Fred & Gorter, Durk
2014Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35(3): 243–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee-Lachmann, Debbie
2007Assessment of Subject-Specific Task Performance of Bilingual Geography Learners: Analysing Aspects of Subject-Specific Written Discourse. PhD dissertation, Universität Osnabrück.
Commission of the European Communities
2007Commission working document. Report on the implementation of the Action Plan 'Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity'. http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/PDF​/?uri​=CELEX:52007DC0554​&from​=EN (2 September 2015).
Corino, Elisa & Marello, Carla
2009VALICO. Studi di linguistica e didattica. Perugia: Guerry Edizioni.Google Scholar
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
1998Recommendation No. R (98) 6 of the committee of ministers to member states concerning modern languages. https://​wcd​.coe​.int​/com​.instranet​.InstraServlet​?command​=com​.instranet​.CmdBlobGet​&InstranetImage​=530647​&SecMode​=1​&DocId​=459522​&Usage​=2 (2 September 2015).
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizatbeth
1979The Prepositional Passive in English: A Semantic-Syntactic Analysis, with a Lexicon of Prepositional Verbs. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couve de Murville, Stefanie & Lenz, Friedrich
2012Englisch als Unterrichtssprache: Lernstandserhebungen in einer immersiven Grundschule. In Bilinguales Lernen. Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachfachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz, Friedrich Lenz (ed.), 79–102. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Coyle, Do, Hood, Philip & Marsh, David
2010CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cummins, Jim
2008BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 2: Literacy, 2nd edn, Brian V. Street & Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), 71–83. New York NY: Springer Science + Business Media LLC. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dagneaux, Estelle, Denness, Sharon, Granger, Sylviane, Meunier, Fanny, Neff, JoAnne & Thewissen, Jennifer
2005Error Tagging Manual Version 1.2. Louvain-La-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
2008Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Current research from Europe. In Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching, Werner Delanoy & Laurenz Volkmann (eds.), 139–157. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
2009aDie Fremdsprache Englisch als Medium des Wissenserwerbs: Definieren und Hypothesenbilden. In Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung. 2nd edn, Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), 67–79. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009bCommunicative competence and the CLIL lesson. In Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from Research in Europe, Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe & Rosa María Jiménez Catalán (eds.), 197–214. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Hüttner, Julia, Schindelegger, Veronika & Smit, Ute
2009Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal 1(2): 18–25.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Llinares, Ana, Lorenzo, Francisco & Nikula, Tarja
2014”You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics 35(2): 213–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Nikula, Tarja & Smit, Ute
2010aCharting policies, premises and research on Content and Language Integrated Learning. In Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms [AILA Applied Linguistics Series 7], Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds), 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010bLanguage use and language learning in CLIL. Current findings and contentious issues. In Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms [AILA Applied Linguistics Series 7], Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds), 279–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Smit, Ute
2007Introduction. In Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Ute Smit (eds.), 7–23. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Pieter
1984Problem-oriented tagging of English corpus data. In Corpus Linguistics. Recent Developments in the Use of Computer Corpora in English Language Research, Jan Aarts & Willem Meijs (eds.), 123–139. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Dewaele, Jean-Marc
2013Learner-internal psychological factors. In The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Julia Herschensohn & Martha Young-Scholten (eds.), 159–179. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana & Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús
2006Error tagging systems for learner corpora. RESLA 19: 83–102.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana, Meurers, Detmar, Valera, Salvador & Wunsch, Holger
2010Towards interlanguage POS annotation for effective learner corpora in SLA and FLT. Language Forum 36(1–2): 139–154.Google Scholar
Doff, Sabine
2010Theorie und Praxis des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts: Forschungsfelder, Themen, Perspektiven. In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe. Eine Einführung, Sabine Doff (ed.), 11–25. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela
1996The semantics of get-passives. In Functional Descriptions. Theory in Practice [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 121], Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), 179–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod
1994The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
European Commission
1995White paper on education and learning. Teaching and learning. Towards the learning society. http://​europa​.eu​/documents​/comm​/white​_papers​/pdf​/com95​_590​_en​.pdf (30 August 2015).
2003Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee of the Regions. Promoting language learning and diversity: An action plan 2004 – 2006. http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/PDF​/?uri​=CELEX:52003DC0449​&from​=EN (30 August 2015).
Eurydice
(2006) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. http://​www​.indire​.it​/lucabas​/lkmw​_file​/eurydice​/CLIL​_EN​.pdf (31 August 2015).
Evert, Stefan & The OCWB Development Team
2010aThe IMS Open Corpus Workbench (CWB). Corpus encoding tutorial. cwb​.sourceforge​.net​/files​/CWB​_Encoding​_Tutorial​.pdf (1 November 2015).
2010bThe IMS Open Corpus Workbench (CWB). CQP query language tutorial. cwb​.sourceforge​.net​/files​/CQP​_Tutorial​.pdf (1 November 2015).
Evert, Stefan & Hardie, Andrew
2011Twenty-first century corpus workbench: Updating a query architecture for the new millennium. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference . Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Feagin, Crawford
1979Variation and Change in Alabama English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fehling, Sylvia
2009Lernprozesse und kognitive Entwicklung im bilingualen Unterricht: Bericht aus einer zweijährigen Longitudinalstudie. In Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 2nd edn, Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), 51–63. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Field, Andy
2009Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (and Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll), 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fisher, Sabriya & Sneller, Betsy
2013 Get vs. be: Social class differences in variable passive auxiliary use. Paper presented at the New Ways of Analyzing Variation 42 conference, Pittsburgh PA.
Garbe, Gabriele, Schmidt, Katja & Schütt, Sabine
2015Zur Entwicklung der fremdsprachlichen Kompetenzen immersiv unterrichteter Schülerinnen und Schüler in der Grundschule. In Immersion und bilingualer Unterricht (Englisch). Erfahrungen – Entwicklungen – Perspektiven, Gabriele Linke & Katja Schmidt (eds.), 53–77. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Gardner, Robert C.
1985Social Psychology and Second Language Acquisition: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Garside, Roger
1987The CLAWS word-tagging system. In The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-Based Approach, Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech & Geoffrey Sampson (eds.), 30–41. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Garside, Roger & Smith, Nicolas
1997A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora, Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech & Anthony McEnery (eds.), 102–121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan & Mackey, Alison
2007Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan & Selinker, Larry
2008Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gebauer, Sandra Kristina, Zaunbauer, Anna C.M. & Möller, Jens
2015Englischer Immersionsunterricht in der Grundschule: Effekte und vermittelnde Prozesse. In Immersion und bilingualer Unterricht (Englisch). Erfahrungen – Entwicklungen – Perspektiven, Gabriele Linke & Katja Schmidt (eds.), 111–128. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Genesee, Fred
1985Second language learning through immersion: A review of U.S. programs. Review of Educational Research 55(4): 541–561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987Learning Through Two Languages: Studies in Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ghasemi, Asghar & Zahediasl, Saleh
2012Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism 10(2): 486–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gierlinger, Erwin, Hainschink, Verena & Spann, Harald
2007Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) auf der Sekundarstufe I. Entwicklung, Forschung und Praxis. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2015From design to collection of learner corpora. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds.), 9–34. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T.
2009Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane
1976Why the passive? In English-French Contrastive Analyses, Jacques Van Roey, René Dirven, & I.K. Engels (eds.), 23–57. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
1983The be + past participle Construction in Spoken English. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
1996From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds.), 37–51. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
1997Automated retrieval of passives from native and learner corpora. Precision and recall. Journal of English Linguistics 25(4): 365–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998aThe computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 3–18. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
1998bPrefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Anthony Paul Cowie (ed.), 145–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2002A bird's-eye view of learner corpus research. In Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching 6], Sylviane Granger, Joseph Hung & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds.), 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly 37(3): 538–546. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Computer learner corpus research: Current status and future prospects. In Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Perspective, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds.), 123–145. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Learner corpora. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), 259–275. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In Corpora and Language Teaching, Karin Aijmer (ed.), 13–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013The passive in learner English. Corpus insights and implications for pedagogical grammar. In Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World, Vol. 1: Papers from LCSAW2013, Shin Ichiro Ishikawa (ed.), 5–15. Kobe: School of Languages and Communication, Kobe University.Google Scholar
2015Contrastive interlanguage analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Dagneaux, Estelle, Meunier, Fanny & Paquot, Magali
2009The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Quirk, Randolph
1992A Student's Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2015Statistics for learner corpus research. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds.), 159–181. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grum, Urška
2009Lexikalische Differenzen im mündlichen Englisch: Regelschüler und bilinguale Schüler im Vergleich. In Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 2nd edn, Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), 119–132. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012Mündliche Sprachkompetenzen deutschsprachiger Lerner des Englischen. Entwicklung eines Kompetenzmodells zur Leistungsheterogenität. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1986An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Martin, J.R.
1993Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. Granville
1949To get/be invited. Modern Language Notes 64: 433–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heid, Ulrich
2009Metadata for learner corpora: A case study on VALICO. In VALICO. Studi di linguistica e didattica, Elisa Corino & Carla Marello (eds.), 151–165. Perugia: Guerry Edizioni.Google Scholar
Heller, Kurt A. & Perleth, Christoph
2000KFT 4–12+ R Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli
1997Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 361–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research 8(1): 5–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Research findings on teaching grammar for academic writing. English Teaching 68(4): 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollm, Jan, Hüttermann, Armin, Keßler, Jörg-Ulrich & Schlemminger, Gérald
2010aZwischenbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung zum Schulversuch 'Bilinguale Züge an Realschulen' in Baden-Württemberg. https://​www​.ph​-ludwigsburg​.de​/fileadmin​/subsites​/2b​-engl​-t​-01​/Bili​/Zwischenbericht​_Schulversuch​_BLLZuege​_RS​_Ba​-Wue​.pdf (1 September 2015).
(2010b) BiliReal 2012: Bilinguale Züge für Englisch und Französisch in der Realschule. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung 49: 151–187.Google Scholar
Holtz, Mônica
2011Lexico-Grammatical Properties of Abstracts and Research Articles. A Corpus-Based Study of Scientific Discourse from Multiple Disciplines. PhD dissertation, Technische Universität Darmstadt.
Holtz, Mônica & Teich, Elke
2009Design of the Darmstadt Scientific Corpus (DaSciTex). www​.linglit​.tu​-darmstadt​.de​/fileadmin​/linglit​/holtz​/DaSciTex​/dfg​-corpus​-design​.pdf (2 November 2015).
Horn, Wolfgang
2003PSB-R 6–13. Prüfsystem für Schul- und Bildungsberatung für 6. bis 13. Klassen – revidierte Fassung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Hornby, Albert Sydney
2010Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1988English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, Julia & Rieder-Bünemann, Angelika
2010A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives by children with CLIL and non-CLIL instruction. In Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms [AILA Applied Linguistics Series 7], Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds.), 61–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan
2008Collection strategies and design decisions. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), 154–168. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W.
1965Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Champaign IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Jexenflicker, Silvia & Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
2010The CLIL differential. Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms [AILA Applied Linguistics Series 7], Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds.), 169–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Robert Keith
1997The Hong Kong education system. Late immersion under stress. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 171–189. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ju, Min Kyong
2000Overpassivization errors by second language learners. The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 85–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kameen, Patrick T.
1993Syntactic skill and ESL writing quality. In Learning to Write: First Language, Second Language. Selected Papers from the 1979 CCTE Conference,Ottawa, Canada, Aviva Freedman (ed.), 162–170. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kersten, Kristin
2012Fremdsprachenerwerb im Kindesalter: Forschungsergebnisse aus bilingualen Kitas. In Bilinguales Lernen. Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachfachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz, Friedrich Lenz (ed.), 25–56. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kersten, Kristin, Frey, Eva & Hähnert, Alexandra
2009ELIAS. Early Language and Intercultural Acquisition Studies. Magdeburg: ELIAS.Google Scholar
Kersten, Kristin, Imhoff, Christine & Sauer, Bianca
2002The acquisition of English verbs in an elementary school immersion program in Germany. In An Integrated View of Language Development. Papers in Honor of Henning Wode, Petra Burmeister, Thorsten Piske & Andreas Rohde (eds.), 473–497. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Kleinmann, Howard H.
1978The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition. In Second Language Acquisition Research. Issues and Implications, William C. Ritchie (ed.), 157–174. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klieme, Eckhard, Eichler, Wolfgang, Helmke, Andreas, Lehmann, Rainer H., Nold, Günter, Rolff, Hans-Günter, Schröder, Konrad, Thomé, Günther & Willenberg, Heiner
2006Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Zentrale Befunde der Studie Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International (DESI). www​.dipf​.de​/de​/forschung​/projekte​/pdf​/biqua​/desi​-zentrale​-befunde (30 August 2015).
KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz)
2013Bericht 'Konzepte für den bilingualen Unterricht – Erfahrungsbericht und Vorschläge zur Weiterentwicklung'. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 17.10.2013. http://​www​.kmk​.org​/fileadmin​/veroeffentlichungen​_beschluesse​/2013​/201​_10​_17​-Konzepte​-_bilingualer​-_Unterricht​.pdf (1 September 2015).
Knoedler-Pasch, Margarete, Pasch, Peter, Pongratz, Susanne, Selz, Ulrike, Slogsnat, Helmut, Tepe, Thomas, Theis, Rolf & Weisshaar, Harald
2003Skyline Advanced Level. Ausgabe A. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Korff, Helga & Ringel-Eichinger, Angela
2005One Language, Many Voices. An Anthology about the Legacy of Empire. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Kozianka, Sabine & Ewig, Michael
2009Materialien für den bilingualen Biologieunterricht: Eine Erhebung von Bestand und Bedarf. In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) im Kontext von Sprache, Kultur and Multiliteralität, Stephan-Alexander Ditze & Anna Halbach (eds.), 135–145. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krampitz, Sina
2009Spracharbeit im bilingualen Unterricht. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. In Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 2nd edn, Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), 133–146. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Küppers, Almut & Trautmann, Matthias
2013It is not CLIL that is a success – CLIL students are! Some critical remarks on the current CLIL boom. In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice, Stephan Breidbach & Britta Viebrock (eds.), 285–296. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Landtag von Baden-Württemberg
2011Mitteilung der Landesregierung. Bericht der Landesregierung zu einem Beschluss des Landtags; hier: Die Realschule in Baden-Württemberg – im Schatten von Hauptschule und Gymnasium. http://​www​.landtag​-bw​.de​/files​/live​/sites​/LTBW​/files​/dokumente​/WP15​/Drucksachen​/0000​/15​_0455​_D​.pdf (1 September 2015).
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Long, Michael H.
1991An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, David
2001Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22(5): 401–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Foreign language competence in Content and Language Integrated Learning. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1: 30–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, David & Sierra, Juan Manuel
2010Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64(4): 367–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, Denis
1968Social Class, Language and Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lee, Joseph J.
2005The native speaker: An achievable model? Asian EFL Journal 7(2): 152–163.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1997aIntroducing corpus annotation. In Corpus Annotation. Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora, Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech & Anthony McEnery (eds.), 1–18. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1997bGrammatical tagging. In Corpus Annotation. Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora, Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech & Anthony McEnery (eds.), 19–33. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Garside, Roger & Bryant, Michael
1994CLAWS4: The tagging of the British National Corpus. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics COLING 1994 , 622–628.
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmberg, Timm & Wörner, Kai
2008Annotation standards. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), 484–501. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lim, Swee Eng, Gan, Linda & Sharpe, Pamela
1997Immersion in Singapore preschools. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 190–209. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Linke, Gabriele
2015Die Entwicklung von muttersprachlichen und sachfachlichen Kompetenzen bei immersiv unterrichteten Kindern: Ergebnisse eines Englisch-Immersionsprojekts an der Grundschule. In Immersion und bilingualer Unterricht (Englisch). Erfahrungen – Entwicklungen – Perspektiven, Gabriele Linke & Katja Schmidt (eds.), 79–109. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Lipski-Buchholz, Kathrin
2012Bilingualer Unterricht + Mathematik = … Eine Rechnung, die aufgeht? Bilingualer Mathematikunterricht unter der Lupe. In Bilinguales Lernen. Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachfachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz, Friedrich Lenz (ed.), 131–147. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Loban, Walter
1966The Language of Elementary School Children [Research Report No. 1]. Champaign IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke
2008Mehrdeutigkeiten und Kategorisierung: Probleme bei der Annotation von Lernerkorpora. In Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten, Maik Walter & Patrick Grommes (eds.), 119–140. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mackey, Alison & Gass Susan
2005Second Language Research. Methodology and Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maden-Weinberger, Ursula
2009Modality in Learner German – A Corpus-Based Study Investigating Expressions of Modality in Argumentative Texts Written by British Learners of German. PhD dissertation, Lancaster University.
Maillat, Didier
2010The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. In Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms [AILA Applied Linguistics Series 7], Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds.), 39–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey
2006Current changes in English syntax. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), 318–342. Malden, Oxford & Victoria: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, David & Richards, Brian
2002Investigating accomodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19: 85–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell P., Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann & Santorini, Beatrice
1993Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–330.Google Scholar
Marsh, David, Maljers, Anne & Hartiala, Aini-Kristiina
2001Profiling European CLIL Classrooms. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
May, Stephen
2005Bilingual/immersion education in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Setting the context. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(5): 365–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, Kim, Neumann, Heike & Trofimovich, Pavel
2015Eliciting production of L2 target structures through priming activities. Canadian Modern Language Review 71(1): 75–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew
2012Corpus Linguistics. Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menard, Scott
2010Logistic Regression. From Introductory to Advanced Concepts and Applications. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meriläinen, Lea
2010Syntactic transfer in the written English of Finnish students: Persistent grammar errors or acceptable lingua franca English? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 4(1): 51–64.Google Scholar
Meunier, Fanny
1998Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 19–37. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
2010Learner corpora and English language teaching: Checkup time. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 21(1): 209–220.Google Scholar
Meunier, Fanny & Gouverneur, Céline
2009New types of corpora for new educational challenges: Collecting, annotating and exploiting a corpus of textbook material. In Corpora and Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 33], Karin Aijmer (ed.), 179–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meurers, Detmar & Wunsch, Holger
2010Linguistically annotated learner corpora: Aspects of a layered linguistic encoding and standardized representation. In Proceedings of the International Conference Linguistic Evidence , 218–221. Berlin: ZAS.
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus und Sport Baden-Württemberg)
1994Bildungsplan für das Gymnasium. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag.Google Scholar
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg)
2001Ergänzung zum Bildungsplan für die Grundschule. Fremdsprachen Englisch/Französisch. www​.ls​-bw​.de​/bildungsplaene​/allgbilschulen​/lp​/bpgse​.pdf (16 March 2011).
2004aBildungsplan 2004. Allgemein bildendes Gymnasium. Ditzingen: Philipp Reclam Jun.Google Scholar
2004bStruktur des Unterrichts in den deutsch-englischen Abteilungen der Gymnasien. www​.schule​-bw​.de​/unterricht​/faecher​/englisch​/bilingual​/organisation​/merkblatt​_o4o5​.pdf (01 November 2012).
2004cBildungsplan 2004. Grundschule. Ditzingen: Philipp Reclam Jun.Google Scholar
2006Realschule. Bildung in Baden-Württemberg. Bilingualer Unterricht. Braunschweig: Westermann.Google Scholar
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg) & Landesinstitut für Schulentwicklung
Möller, Jens & Zaunbauer, Anna Chr. M.
2008MOBI – Monolinguales und bilinguales Lernen in der Grundschule. Kiel. http://​www​.psychpaed​.uni​-kiel​.de​/freedownloads​/Untersuchungsergebnisse​.pdf (2 September 2015).
Möller, Verena
2012Does immersion make a difference? Compiling annotated corpora to investigate the use of the English passive. In Language Learning and Language Use – Applied Linguistics Approaches. Papers Selected from the Junior Research Meeting – Essen 2011, Saskia Kersten, Christian Ludwig, Dorothee Meer & Bernd Rüschoff (eds.), 151–165. Duisburg: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr.Google Scholar
Möller, Verena & Heid, Ulrich
2011The English passive and the German learner – Compiling an annotated learner corpus to investigate the importance of educational settings. In Multilingual Resources and Multilingual Applications. Proceedings of the Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (GSCL), Hanna Hedeland, Thomas Schmidt & Kai Wörner (eds.), 233–238.Google Scholar
MPFS (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsbund Südwest)
2014JIM-Studie 2014. Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media. http://​www​.mpfs​.de​/fileadmin​/JIM​-pdf14​/JIM​-Studie​_2014​.pdf (10 September 2015).
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Rohrbach, Jan-Marc
2006Rethinking applied corpus linguistics from a language-pedagogical perspective: New departures in learner corpus research. In Planing, Gluing and Painting Corpora: Inside the Applied Corpus Linguist's Workshop, Bernhard Kettemann & Georg Marko (eds.), 205–232. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mullis, Ina V.S., Kennedy, Ann M., Martin, Michael O. & Sainsbury, Marian
2004PIRLS 2006. Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Assessment Framework and Specifications. http://​www​.iea​.nl​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/Publications​/Electronic​_versions​/PIRLS​_2006​_Framework​_1stEd​.pdf (18 September 2015).
Myers, Raymond H.
1990Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. Boston MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Myles, Florence
2015Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds.), 309–331. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja
2004Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 12], John McH. Sinclair (ed.), 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Corpora and language teaching: What learner corpora have to offer. In Linguistics, Language Learning and Language Teaching, D.J. Allerton, Cornelia Tschichold & Judith Wieser (eds.), 105–118. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Norberg, Madlena
2003Konzeption zur pädagogisch-organisatorischen Struktur und zu schulischen Vermittlungsformen der Arbeitssprache Sorbisch/Wendisch in der Niederlausitz ab der Primarstufe. http://​www​.witaj​-sprachzentrum​.de​/files​/koncepcija​.pdf (24 February 2017).
Obondo, Margaret Akinyi
1997Bilingual education in Africa: An overview. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 5: Bilingual Education, Jim Cummins & David Corson (eds.), 25–32. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools
2009The European Schools. http://​www​.eursc​.eu​/getfile​/566​/2 (2 September 2015).
Oshita, Hiroyuki
2000What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: A corpus study of 'passive' unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research 16(4): 293–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhage, Sven
2009Sachfachkönnen (scientific literacy) bilingual und monolingual unterrichteter Biologieschüler: Ein Kompetenzvergleich. In Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 2nd edn, Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), 41–50. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pallant, Julie
2005SPSS Survival Manual. A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (Version 12). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
1987The English Verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Paquot, Magali
2013Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3): 391–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Terri & Rosner, Mary
1983Discovering and teaching syntactic structures in three technical disciplines. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 13(2): 109–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petermann, Franz & Winkel, Sandra
2007FLM 7–13. Fragebogen zur Leistungsmotivation für Schüler der 7. bis 13. Klasse. Frankfurt: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Potter, Robert R.
1967Sentence structure and prose quality: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English 1(1): 17–28.Google Scholar
Prat Zagrebelsky, Maria Teresa
2004Computer Learner Corpora. Theoretical Issues and Empirical Case Studies of Italian Advanced EFL Learners' Interlanguage. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Prüfer, Katharina
2013CLIL modules in the mathematics classroom – Reasons for their implementation and first empirical results. In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice, Stephan Breidbach & Britta Viebrock (eds.), 251–266. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2014Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language & Communication 37: 60–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul
2009Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. http://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/wmatrix/ (7 October 2015).
Reznicek, Marc, Lüdeling, Anke, Krummes, Cedric, Schwantuschke, Franziska, Walter, Maik, Schmidt, Karin, Hirschmann, Hagen & Andreas, Thorsten
Rhodes, Susan
1997The Active and Passive Voice Are Equally Comprehensible in Scientific Writing. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
Riley, Kathryn
1991Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 21(3): 239–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Römer, Ute
(2005) Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy. A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rost, Detlef H.
2009Intelligenz. Fakten und Mythen. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph
2007Lexical grammar: The get-passive as a case in point. ICAME Journal 31: 89–105.Google Scholar
Rumlich, Dominik
2013Students' general English proficiency prior to CLIL: Empirical evidence for substantial differences between prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students in Germany. In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice, Stephan Breidbach & Britta Viebrock (eds.), 181–201. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2014Prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students' interest in English (classes): A quasi-experimental study on German sixth-graders. In Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL, Ruth Breeze, Carmen Llamas Saíz, Concepción Martínez Pasamar & Cristina Tabernero Sala (eds.), 75–95. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2016Evaluating Bilingual Education in Germany. CLIL Students' General English Proficiency, EFL Self-Concept and Interest. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rymarczyk, Jutta
2010Sich ein Bild machen und darüber reden – das Fach Kunst im bilingualen Unterricht. In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe. Eine Einführung, Sabine Doff (ed.), 89–103. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, Muriel
2006Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schmid, Helmut
1994Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing . Manchester: University of Manchester.
2008Tokenizing and part-of-speech tagging. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), 527–551. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwab, Götz, Keßler, Jörg-Ulrich & Hollm, Jan
2012'BiliHauptSchule' – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Projekts Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht an der Hermann-Butzer Schule Schwieberdingen. Abschlussbericht. https://​www​.ph​-ludwigsburg​.de​/fileadmin​/subsites​/2b​-engl​-t​-01​/user​_files​/schwab​/Material​/1207​_Abschlussbericht​_BiliHS​.pdf (1 September 2015).
Schwarz, Hellmut
1997English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 1: 5. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
1998English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 2: 6. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
1999aEnglish G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 3: 7. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
1999bEnglish G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 4: 8. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2001English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 5: 9. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2002English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 6: 10. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2006English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 1: 5. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2007aEnglish G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 2: 6. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2007bEnglish G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 3: 7. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2008English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 4: 8. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2010aEnglish G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 5: 9. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2010bEnglish G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 5: Abschlussband für die 5-jährige Sekundarstufe I. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
2011English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 6: 10. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Hellmut & Whittaker, Mervyn
2010Context 21 Baden-Württemberg. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Jung, Silvia
2010Mädchen und Jungen im Spiegel der Schulstatistik. Statistisches Monatsheft Baden-Württemberg 6: 14–18.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry
1972Interlanguage. IRAL 10(3): 209–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
1996EAGLES. Preliminary recommendations on Corpus Typology. www​.ilc​.cnr​.it​/EAGLES96​/corpustyp​/corpustyp​.html (5 October 2015).
Slaughter, Helen B.
1997Indigenous language immersion in Hawai'i. A case study of Kula Kaiapuni Hawai’i, an effort to save the indigenous language of Hawai’i. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 105–129. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sneller, Betsy & Fisher, Sabriya
2014When get got noticed: The emerging salience of get-passives. Paper presented at the 38th Penn Linguistics conference, Philadelphia PA.
Spolsky, Bernard
2003Reassessing Māori regeneration. Language in Society 32(4): 553–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Gabriele
1979Studies in the Function of the Passive. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Stevens, James P.
1996Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 3rd edn. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stiles, Dawn B.
1997Four successful indigenous language programs. In Teaching Indigenous Languages. Selected Papers from the Annual Symposium on Stabilizing Indigenous Languages, Jon Reyhner (ed.), 248–262. Flagstaff AZ: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan
1966On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill & Johnson, Robert Keith
1997Immersion education. A category within bilingual education. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 1–16. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon
2005The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2): 169–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Fidell, Linda S.
1996Using Multivariate Statistics. New York NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Thaler, Engelbert
2010Summit G8. Text and Methods. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Thomson, Audrey & Martinet, Agnes
1991A Practical English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thurstone, Louis Leon
1938Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vollmer, Helmut J.
2002Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht als Inhalts- und als Sprachlernen. In Bilingualer Unterricht. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxis, Perspektiven, Gerhard Bach & Susanne Niemeyer (eds.), 51–73. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009Diskursfunktion und fachliche Diskurskompetenz bei bilingualen und monolingualen Geografielernern. In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) im Kontext von Sprache, Kultur and Multiliteralität, Stephan-Alexander Ditze & Anna Halbach (eds.), 165–185. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Walpole, Jane R.
1979Why must the passive be damned? College Composition and Communication 30(3): 251–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Anja
2009Deconstructing the English Passive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith & Labov, William
1983Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 29–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weisshaar, Harald
2006aGreen Line 1. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
2006bGreen Line 2. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
2007Green Line 3. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
2008Green Line 4. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
2009Green Line 5. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
2010Green Line 6. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Rand R.
2003Applying Contemporary Statistical Techniques. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, Terence G. & García, Ofelia
2016Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal 100: 48–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelmer, Nadja
2008Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Teaching Mathematics in English. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Wolff, Dieter
2002Möglichkeiten zur Entwicklung von Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa. In Bilingualer Unterricht. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxis, Perspektiven, Gerhard Bach & Susanne Niemeyer (eds.), 159–172. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard Zhonghua
2007What can SLA learn from contrastive corpus linguistics? The case of passive constructions in Chinese learner English. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 3(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Yassin, Sopia Md, Marsh, David, Tek, Ong Eng & Ying, Lai Ying
2009Learners' perceptions towards the teaching of science through English in Malaysia: A quantitative analysis. International CLIL Research Journal 1(2): 54–69.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, Reinard Willem
1977A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, Wolfgang
2007Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL): Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien. Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009Die Gerechtigkeitsfalle bilingualer Bildungsgänge. In Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 2nd edn, Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), 161–173. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012Linguistic thresholds in the CLIL classroom? The threshold hypothesis revisited. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 17–28.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Fuchs, Robert & Valentin Werner
2018. Tense and aspect in Second Language Acquisition and learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4:2  pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Fuchs, Robert & Valentin Werner
2020.  In Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpus Research [Benjamins Current Topics, 108],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Hendrikx, Isa & Kristel Van Goethem
2020. Receptive knowledge of intensifying adjectival compounds: Belgian French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL learners of Dutch and English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
KANWIT, MATTHEW
2019. Beyond the Present Indicative: Lexical Futures as Indicators of Development in L2 Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 103:2  pp. 481 ff. Crossref logo
Möller, Verena
2018. Promoting bilingualism at the primary and secondary level: the role of intelligence, motivation and anxiety. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Möller, Verena
2020. From pedagogical input to learner output. Pedagogical Linguistics Crossref logo
van Mensel, Luk, Amélie Bulon, Isa Hendrikx, Fanny Meunier & Kristel Van Goethem
2020. Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 september 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFDC – Language acquisition
BISAC Subject: LAN020000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Study & Teaching
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017045524 | Marc record