Cover not available
Part of
Language Acquisition in CLIL and Non-CLIL Settings: Learner corpus and experimental evidence on passive constructions
Verena Möller
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 80] 2017
► pp. 369–384

References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. A 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.1995. The normal distribution. BMJ 310: 298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apsel, Carsten. 2012. Coping with CLIL. Dropouts from CLIL streams in Germany. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 47–56.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti. 2008. Univariate, Bivariate, and Multivariate Methods in Corpus-Based Lexicography – A Study of Synonymy. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Artigal, Josep Maria. 1997. The Catalan immersion programme. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 133–150. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arviso, Marie & Holm, Wayne. 1990. Native 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. 1998. Learning 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. 2009. Green 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. 1997b. Learning 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. 1999. Learning 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. 1995. Learning English – Green Line NEW 2. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
. 1997a. Learning English – Green Line NEW 3. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy. 2008. It'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. 1994. Learning English – Green Line NEW 1. Schülerbuch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Bankhardt, Christina. 2010. Die Einwilligungserklärung. <[URL]> (01 November 2015).
Banks, David. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing. Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Barber, Elizabeth J.W. 1975. Voice – 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. 1994. Outliers in Statistical Data, 3rd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Baron, Alistair & Rayson, Paul. 2009. Automatic 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. 1982. The Passive Aspect in English, German and Russian. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Basil. 1971. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation. A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Björklund, Siv. 1997. Immersion 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York NY: Hold Rinehart Winston.Google Scholar
Bohnet, Bernd. 2010. Top 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. 2012. A 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. 2012. Towards 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. 2013. Great 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. 2009. KESS 7. Kompetenzen und Einstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern – Jahrgangsstufe 7. <[URL]> (19 September 2014).
Bos, Wilfried & Pietsch, Marcus. 2007. KESS 4 – Kompetenzen und Einstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern am Ende der Jahrgangsstufe 4 in Hamburger Grundschulen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bredenbröker, Winfried. 2000. Förderung der fremdsprachlichen Kompetenz durch bilingualen Unterricht. Empirische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2002. Förderung 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. 2012. CLIL in Germany – Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 5–16.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The 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. 2011. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39: 523–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürgi, Heidi. 2009. Zweisprachiges 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. 2008. Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Burmeister, Petra. 1994. Englisch 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. 2001. Success 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. 2015. Learner corpus methodology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 35–55. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael. 1999. The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3(1): 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone. 2015. Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1): 8–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone, Genesee, Fred & Gorter, Durk. 2014. Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35(3): 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee-Lachmann, Debbie. 2007. Assessment 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. 2007. Commission working document. Report on the implementation of the Action Plan 'Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity'. <[URL]> (2 September 2015).
Corino, Elisa & Marello, Carla. 2009. VALICO. Studi di linguistica e didattica. Perugia: Guerry Edizioni.Google Scholar
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. 1998. Recommendation No. R (98) 6 of the committee of ministers to member states concerning modern languages. <[URL]> (2 September 2015).
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizatbeth. 1979. The Prepositional Passive in English: A Semantic-Syntactic Analysis, with a Lexicon of Prepositional Verbs. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couve de Murville, Stefanie & Lenz, Friedrich. 2012. Englisch 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. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cummins, Jim. 2008. BICS 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagneaux, Estelle, Denness, Sharon, Granger, Sylviane, Meunier, Fanny, Neff, JoAnne & Thewissen, Jennifer. 2005. Error Tagging Manual Version 1.2. Louvain-La-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2008. Outcomes 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
. 2009a. Die 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
. 2009b. Communicative 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. 2009. Technology-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Nikula, Tarja & Smit, Ute. 2010a. Charting 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Language 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Smit, Ute. 2007. Introduction. In Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Ute Smit (eds.), 7–23. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Pieter. 1984. Problem-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. 2013. Learner-internal psychological factors. In The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Julia Herschensohn & Martha Young-Scholten (eds.), 159–179. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana & Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2006. Error tagging systems for learner corpora. RESLA 19: 83–102.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana, Meurers, Detmar, Valera, Salvador & Wunsch, Holger. 2010. Towards interlanguage POS annotation for effective learner corpora in SLA and FLT. Language Forum 36(1–2): 139–154.Google Scholar
Doff, Sabine. 2010. Theorie 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. 1996. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
European Commission. 1995. White paper on education and learning. Teaching and learning. Towards the learning society. <[URL]> (30 August 2015).
. 2003. Communication 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. <[URL]> (30 August 2015).
Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. <[URL]> (31 August 2015).
Evert, Stefan & The OCWB Development Team. 2010a. The IMS Open Corpus Workbench (CWB). Corpus encoding tutorial. <[URL]> (1 November 2015).
. 2010b. The IMS Open Corpus Workbench (CWB). CQP query language tutorial. <[URL]> (1 November 2015).
Evert, Stefan & Hardie, Andrew. 2011. Twenty-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. 1979. Variation and Change in Alabama English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fehling, Sylvia. 2009. Lernprozesse 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. 2009. Discovering 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. 2015. Zur 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. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Acquisition: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Garside, Roger. 1987. The 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. 1997. A 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. 2007. Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan & Selinker, Larry. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gebauer, Sandra Kristina, Zaunbauer, Anna C.M. & Möller, Jens. 2015. Englischer 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. 1985. Second language learning through immersion: A review of U.S. programs. Review of Educational Research 55(4): 541–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Learning Through Two Languages: Studies in Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ghasemi, Asghar & Zahediasl, Saleh. 2012. Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism 10(2): 486–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gierlinger, Erwin, Hainschink, Verena & Spann, Harald. 2007. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) auf der Sekundarstufe I. Entwicklung, Forschung und Praxis. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2015. From 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1976. Why the passive? In English-French Contrastive Analyses, Jacques Van Roey, René Dirven, & I.K. Engels (eds.), 23–57. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
. 1983. The be + past participle Construction in Spoken English. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
. 1996. From 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
. 1997. Automated retrieval of passives from native and learner corpora. Precision and recall. Journal of English Linguistics 25(4): 365–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998a. The 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
. 1998b. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Anthony Paul Cowie (ed.), 145–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2002. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Computer 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Learner corpora. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), 259–275. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The 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
. 2015. Contrastive interlanguage analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Dagneaux, Estelle, Meunier, Fanny & Paquot, Magali. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Quirk, Randolph. 1992. A Student's Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2015. Statistics for learner corpus research. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds.), 159–181. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grum, Urška. 2009. Lexikalische 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
. 2012. Mündliche Sprachkompetenzen deutschsprachiger Lerner des Englischen. Entwicklung eines Kompetenzmodells zur Leistungsheterogenität. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1986. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Martin, J.R. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. Granville. 1949. To get/be invited. Modern Language Notes 64: 433–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heid, Ulrich. 2009. Metadata 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. 2000. KFT 4–12+ R Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 1997. Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research 8(1): 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Research findings on teaching grammar for academic writing. English Teaching 68(4): 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollm, Jan, Hüttermann, Armin, Keßler, Jörg-Ulrich & Schlemminger, Gérald. 2010a. Zwischenbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung zum Schulversuch 'Bilinguale Züge an Realschulen' in Baden-Württemberg. <[URL]> (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. 2011. Lexico-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. 2009. Design of the Darmstadt Scientific Corpus (DaSciTex). <[URL]> (2 November 2015).
Horn, Wolfgang. 2003. PSB-R 6–13. Prüfsystem für Schul- und Bildungsberatung für 6. bis 13. Klassen – revidierte Fassung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Hornby, Albert Sydney. 2010. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, Julia & Rieder-Bünemann, Angelika. 2010. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2008. Collection 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. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Champaign IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Jexenflicker, Silvia & Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2010. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Robert Keith. 1997. The Hong Kong education system. Late immersion under stress. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 171–189. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ju, Min Kyong. 2000. Overpassivization errors by second language learners. The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 85–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kameen, Patrick T. 1993. Syntactic 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. 2012. Fremdsprachenerwerb 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. 2009. ELIAS. Early Language and Intercultural Acquisition Studies. Magdeburg: ELIAS.Google Scholar
Kersten, Kristin, Imhoff, Christine & Sauer, Bianca. 2002. The 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. 1978. The 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. 2006. Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Zentrale Befunde der Studie Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International (DESI). <[URL]> (30 August 2015).
KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz). 2013. Bericht 'Konzepte für den bilingualen Unterricht – Erfahrungsbericht und Vorschläge zur Weiterentwicklung'. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 17.10.2013. <[URL]> (1 September 2015).
Knoedler-Pasch, Margarete, Pasch, Peter, Pongratz, Susanne, Selz, Ulrike, Slogsnat, Helmut, Tepe, Thomas, Theis, Rolf & Weisshaar, Harald. 2003. Skyline Advanced Level. Ausgabe A. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Korff, Helga & Ringel-Eichinger, Angela. 2005. One Language, Many Voices. An Anthology about the Legacy of Empire. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Kozianka, Sabine & Ewig, Michael. 2009. Materialien 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. 2009. Spracharbeit 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. 2013. It 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. 2011. Mitteilung der Landesregierung. Bericht der Landesregierung zu einem Beschluss des Landtags; hier: Die Realschule in Baden-Württemberg – im Schatten von Hauptschule und Gymnasium. <[URL]> (1 September 2015).
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Long, Michael H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, David. 2001. Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22(5): 401–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Foreign language competence in Content and Language Integrated Learning. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1: 30–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, David & Sierra, Juan Manuel. 2010. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64(4): 367–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawton, Denis. 1968. Social Class, Language and Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lee, Joseph J. 2005. The native speaker: An achievable model? Asian EFL Journal 7(2): 152–163.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1997a. Introducing corpus annotation. In Corpus Annotation. Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora, Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech & Anthony McEnery (eds.), 1–18. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1997b. Grammatical 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. 1994. CLAWS4: 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. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmberg, Timm & Wörner, Kai. 2008. Annotation 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. 1997. Immersion in Singapore preschools. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 190–209. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Linke, Gabriele. 2015. Die 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. 2012. Bilingualer 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. 1966. The Language of Elementary School Children [Research Report No. 1]. Champaign IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2008. Mehrdeutigkeiten 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. 2005. Second Language Research. Methodology and Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maden-Weinberger, Ursula. 2009. Modality 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. 2010. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current changes in English syntax. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), 318–342. Malden, Oxford & Victoria: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, David & Richards, Brian. 2002. Investigating accomodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19: 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell P., Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann & Santorini, Beatrice. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–330.Google Scholar
Marsh, David, Maljers, Anne & Hartiala, Aini-Kristiina. 2001. Profiling European CLIL Classrooms. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
May, Stephen. 2005. Bilingual/immersion education in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Setting the context. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(5): 365–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, Kim, Neumann, Heike & Trofimovich, Pavel. 2015. Eliciting production of L2 target structures through priming activities. Canadian Modern Language Review 71(1): 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew. 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menard, Scott. 2010. Logistic Regression. From Introductory to Advanced Concepts and Applications. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meriläinen, Lea. 2010. Syntactic 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. 1998. Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 19–37. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
. 2010. Learner corpora and English language teaching: Checkup time. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 21(1): 209–220.Google Scholar
Meunier, Fanny & Gouverneur, Céline. 2009. New 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurers, Detmar & Wunsch, Holger. 2010. Linguistically 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). 1994. Bildungsplan für das Gymnasium. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag.Google Scholar
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg). 2001. Ergänzung zum Bildungsplan für die Grundschule. Fremdsprachen Englisch/Französisch. <[URL]> (16 March 2011).
. 2004a. Bildungsplan 2004. Allgemein bildendes Gymnasium. Ditzingen: Philipp Reclam Jun.Google Scholar
. 2004b. Struktur des Unterrichts in den deutsch-englischen Abteilungen der Gymnasien. <[URL]> (01 November 2012).
. 2004c. Bildungsplan 2004. Grundschule. Ditzingen: Philipp Reclam Jun.Google Scholar
. 2006. Realschule. Bildung in Baden-Württemberg. Bilingualer Unterricht. Braunschweig: Westermann.Google Scholar
. 2008. Bilingualer Unterricht deutsch-englisch an allgemein bildenden Gymnasien. <[URL]> (1 September 2015).
. 2012. Bildungsplan 2012. Werkrealschule. <[URL]> (10 September 2015).
. 2015. Die Gemeinschaftsschule in Baden-Württemberg. <[URL]> (10 September 2015).
MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg) & Landesinstitut für Schulentwicklung. 2010. Bildungsplan 2012. Werkrealschule. <[URL]> (10 September 2015).
Möller, Jens & Zaunbauer, Anna Chr. M. 2008. MOBI – Monolinguales und bilinguales Lernen in der Grundschule. Kiel. <[URL]> (2 September 2015).
Möller, Verena. 2012. Does 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. 2011. The 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). 2014. JIM-Studie 2014. Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media. <[URL]> (10 September 2015).
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Rohrbach, Jan-Marc. 2006. Rethinking 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. 2004. PIRLS 2006. Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Assessment Framework and Specifications. <[URL]> (18 September 2015).
Myers, Raymond H. 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. Boston MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Myles, Florence. 2015. Second 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2004. Learner 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Corpora 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. 2003. Konzeption zur pädagogisch-organisatorischen Struktur und zu schulischen Vermittlungsformen der Arbeitssprache Sorbisch/Wendisch in der Niederlausitz ab der Primarstufe. <[URL]> (24 February 2017).
Obondo, Margaret Akinyi. 1997. Bilingual 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. 2009. The European Schools. <[URL]> (2 September 2015).
Oshita, Hiroyuki. 2000. What 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osterhage, Sven. 2009. Sachfachkönnen (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. 2005. SPSS 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. 1987. The English Verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Paquot, Magali. 2013. Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3): 391–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Terri & Rosner, Mary. 1983. Discovering and teaching syntactic structures in three technical disciplines. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 13(2): 109–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petermann, Franz & Winkel, Sandra. 2007. FLM 7–13. Fragebogen zur Leistungsmotivation für Schüler der 7. bis 13. Klasse. Frankfurt: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Potter, Robert R. 1967. Sentence structure and prose quality: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English 1(1): 17–28.Google Scholar
Prat Zagrebelsky, Maria Teresa. 2004. Computer Learner Corpora. Theoretical Issues and Empirical Case Studies of Italian Advanced EFL Learners' Interlanguage. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Prüfer, Katharina. 2013. CLIL 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. 2014. Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language & Communication 37: 60–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2009. Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. <[URL]> (7 October 2015).
Reznicek, Marc, Lüdeling, Anke, Krummes, Cedric, Schwantuschke, Franziska, Walter, Maik, Schmidt, Karin, Hirschmann, Hagen & Andreas, Thorsten. 2012. Das Falko-Handbuch. Korpusaufbau und Annotationen. Version 2.01. <[URL]> (10 May 2014).
Rhodes, Susan. 1997. The Active and Passive Voice Are Equally Comprehensible in Scientific Writing. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
Riley, Kathryn. 1991. Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 21(3): 239–257. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rost, Detlef H. 2009. Intelligenz. Fakten und Mythen. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2007. Lexical grammar: The get-passive as a case in point. ICAME Journal 31: 89–105.Google Scholar
Rumlich, Dominik. 2013. Students' 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
. 2014. Prospective 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
. 2016. Evaluating Bilingual Education in Germany. CLIL Students' General English Proficiency, EFL Self-Concept and Interest. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rymarczyk, Jutta. 2010. Sich 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. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schmid, Helmut. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing . Manchester: University of Manchester.
. 2008. Tokenizing 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. <[URL]> (1 September 2015).
Schwarz, Hellmut. 1997. English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 1: 5. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 1998. English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 2: 6. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 1999a. English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 3: 7. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 1999b. English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 4: 8. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2001. English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 5: 9. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2002. English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 6: 10. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2006. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 1: 5. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2007a. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 2: 6. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2007b. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 3: 7. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2008. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 4: 8. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2010a. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 5: 9. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2010b. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 5: Abschlussband für die 5-jährige Sekundarstufe I. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
. 2011. English G 21. Ausgabe A. Band 6: 10. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Hellmut & Whittaker, Mervyn. 2010. Context 21 Baden-Württemberg. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Jung, Silvia. 2010. Mädchen und Jungen im Spiegel der Schulstatistik. Statistisches Monatsheft Baden-Württemberg 6: 14–18.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10(3): 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1996. EAGLES. Preliminary recommendations on Corpus Typology. <[URL]> (5 October 2015).
Slaughter, Helen B. 1997. Indigenous 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sneller, Betsy & Fisher, Sabriya. 2014. When get got noticed: The emerging salience of get-passives. Paper presented at the 38th Penn Linguistics conference, Philadelphia PA.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2003. Reassessing Māori regeneration. Language in Society 32(4): 553–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Gabriele. 1979. Studies in the Function of the Passive. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Stevens, James P. 1996. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 3rd edn. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stiles, Dawn B. 1997. Four 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. 1966. On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill & Johnson, Robert Keith. 1997. Immersion education. A category within bilingual education. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, Merrill Swain & Robert Keith Johnson (eds.), 1–16. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon. 2005. The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2): 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Fidell, Linda S. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics. New York NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Thaler, Engelbert. 2010. Summit G8. Text and Methods. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Thomson, Audrey & Martinet, Agnes. 1991. A Practical English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thurstone, Louis Leon. 1938. Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vollmer, Helmut J. 2002. Bilingualer 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
. 2009. Diskursfunktion 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. 1979. Why must the passive be damned? College Composition and Communication 30(3): 251–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Anja. 2009. Deconstructing the English Passive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith & Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisshaar, Harald. 2006a. Green Line 1. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Green Line 2. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
. 2007. Green Line 3. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
. 2008. Green Line 4. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
. 2009. Green Line 5. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
. 2010. Green Line 6. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Rand R. 2003. Applying Contemporary Statistical Techniques. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, Terence G. & García, Ofelia. 2016. Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal 100: 48–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilhelmer, Nadja. 2008. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Teaching Mathematics in English. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Wolff, Dieter. 2002. Möglichkeiten 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. 2007. What 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. 2009. Learners' 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. 1977. A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 2007. Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL): Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien. Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2009. Die 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
. 2012. Linguistic thresholds in the CLIL classroom? The threshold hypothesis revisited. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 17–28.Google Scholar