Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 7:1 (2019) ► pp.4–29

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Capturing technical terms in spoken CLIL

A holistic model for identifying subject-specific vocabulary

 | University of Vienna
 | University of Vienna
 | University of Vienna
Published online: 28 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17029.rie
Abstract
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL), an educational approach using a foreign language to teach non-language subjects, has been consistently gaining in popularity. Despite an increasing research base suggesting its benefits for general language proficiency, the contribution made to learning and using subject-specific target language elements is largely under-researched. This paper addresses one aspect of this, i.e. students’ use of subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL classroom communication. We propose a holistic model for identifying both single and multi-word lexical units specific to the school subject in oral classroom data, integrating corpus-linguistic and qualitative data analysis. The method is trialled using a data set of 16 hours of secondary-school CLIL classroom data within the subject of European economics and politics in Year 12. Findings show that a holistic definition of subject-specific vocabulary is vital, and that the model constitutes an adequate and flexible tool for specifying CLIL terminology in oral classroom discourse.
Zusammenfassung
Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht (CLIL), ein pädagogischer Ansatz, bei dem Sachfachunterricht in einer Fremdsprache abgehalten wird, hat im Schulwesen zunehmend an Popularität gewonnen. Obgleich zahlreiche Forschungsarbeiten vorliegen, die den positiven Einfluss auf die allgemeine Sprachkompetenz nahelegen, ist im Gegensatz dazu der Effekt von CLIL auf das Lernen und die Verwendung fachspezifischer fremdsprachlicher Elemente noch kaum erforscht. Diese Arbeit untersucht einen solchen Teilaspekt, nämlich den Einsatz fachspezifischer Terminologie durch SchülerInnen in der CLIL-Unterrichtskommunkation. Wir stellen ein holistisches Modell vor, das korpuslinguistische und qualitative Datenanalyse vereint und es dadurch ermöglicht, schulfachspezifische lexikalische Einwort- und auch Mehrwortausdrücke in mündlichen Unterrichtsdaten zu identifizieren. Die Methode wird anhand eines Datenkorpus mündlicher Unterrichtsdaten von 16 Schulstunden der 12. Schulstufe in einem CLIL-Fach mit Schwerpunkt Europäische Wirtschaft und Politik erprobt. Die Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass eine holistische Definition fachspezifischen Vokabulars unerlässlich ist und dass das vorgestellte Modell ein adäquates und flexibles Instrument zur Spezifikation von CLIL-Terminologie im mündlichen Unterrichtsdiskurs darstellt.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.CLIL and subject-specific vocabulary
    • 2.1The notion of subject-specific vocabulary
    • 2.2Previous research on subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL
    • 2.3Insights from related disciplines
  • 3.A holistic 3-phase model for determining subject-specific vocabulary in oral CLIL-data
    • 3.1Phase 1: Automatized quantitative analysis: Keyword & cluster analysis
    • 3.2Phase 2: Qualitative selection through researchers (rating scale steps 1&2)
    • 3.3Phase 3: Final selection involving experts (rating scale steps 3&4)
  • 4.Trialling the 3-phase model
    • 4.1Data set
    • 4.2Conducting the SSV analysis
    • 4.3SSV in the CLIL-data set
  • 5.Strengths and limitations of the model
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (70)
References
Agustín Llach, M. (2014). Exploring the lexical profile of your CLIL learners: Towards an improvement in lexical use. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2 1, 53–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahmad, K., Davies, A., Fulford, H., & Rogers, M. (1994). What is a term? The semi-automatic extraction of terms from text. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 267–278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2010). AntConc. [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). AntWordProfiler. [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). (2007). Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013a). The New Academic Word List. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
(2013b). The New General Service List. Retrieved from [URL]
Chung, T. M., & Nation, P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15 (2), 103–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Identifying technical vocabulary. System, 32 1, 251–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 1, 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Vocabulary in ESP. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 115–132). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csomay, E., & Petrović, M. (2012). ‘Yes, your Honor!’: A corpus-based study of technical vocabulary in discipline-related movies and TV shows. System, 40 1, 305–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 1, 182–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2). .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2010a). Language use and language learning in CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL (pp. 279–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
(2010). TermoStat. [Computer Software]. Montréal, Canada: Universitè de Montréal.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19 (1), 61–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández Fontecha, A. (2014). Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas [Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages], 9 1, 23–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2011). ESP and corpus studies. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for Specific Purposes research (pp. 222–251). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gablasova, D. (2014). Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. Modern Language Journal, 98 (4), 976–991. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, D. (2007). Validating the construct of “word” in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 241–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gierlinger, E., & Wagner, T. (2016). The more the merrier – Revisiting CLIL-based vocabulary growth in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9 (1), 37–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ha, A. Y. L., & Hyland, K. (2017). What is technicality? A technical analysis model for EAP vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28 1, 35–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heatley, A., Nation, P., & Cohead, A. (2000). RANGE. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19 (1), 70–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41 1, 160–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Negotiating political positions: Subject-specific oral language use in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (3), 287–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27 1, 4–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL vs. non-CLIL instruction. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 81–92). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwary, D. A. (2011). A hybrid method for determining technical vocabulary. System, 39 1, 175–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 58–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1 (1), 46–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL (pp. 125–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33 (3), 299–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez, I. A., Beck, S. C., & Panza, C. B. (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (3), 183–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moghadam, N. Z., & Fatemipour, H. (2014). The effect of CLIL on vocabulary development by Iranian secondary school EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98 1, 2004–2009. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43 (3), 256–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (1), 59–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle and Cengage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, M. (2000). A corpus-based study of business English and business English teaching materials (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2012). On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language use in CLIL. In E. A. Soler, & M.-P. Safont-Jorda (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 133–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54 1, 14–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1 (1), 70–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and multilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ojeda Alba, J. (2009). Themes and vocabulary in CLIL and non-CLIL Instruction. In R. M. Jiménez Catalán & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning : Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 95–116). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olsson, E. (2015). Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk [Modern Language], 109 (2), 51–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C. & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54 1, 80–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinna, A. (2007). Exploiting LSP corpora in the study of foreign languages. In D. Gálová (Ed.), Languages for specific purposes: Searching for common solutions (pp. 146–162). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preisfeld, A. (2016). Die Bedeutung bilingualen Experimentalunterrichts in Biologie für die fachliche und sprachliche Kompetenz [The contribution of bilingual experiment-based instruction in biology to language and subject competence]. In B. Dier, A. Preisfeld, & L. Schmelter (Eds.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterentwickeln und erforschen [Enhancing and investigating bilingual instruction] (pp. 103–123). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Read, J. (2007). Second language vocabulary assessment. International Journal of English Studies, 7 1, 105–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzo, C. R., & Pérez, M. J. M. (2015). A key perspective on specialized lexis: Keywords in Telecommunication Engineering for CLIL. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198 1, 386–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K., & Ohlander, S. (2014). The CLISS Project: Receptive vocabulary in CLIL versus non-CLIL groups. Moderna Språk [Modern Language], 108 (2), 80–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valpouri, L. & Nassaji, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of academic vocabulary in chemistry. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12 1, 248–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VOICE (2010). Voice transcription conventions [2.1]. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Wang, J., Liang, S., & Ge, G. (2008). Establishment of a medical Academic Word List. English for Specific Purposes, 27 1, 442–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English words. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon – the nature and role of specialist language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (4), 234–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching, 10 (4), 116–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rieder-Bünemann, Angelika, Julia Hüttner & Ute Smit
2022. ‘Who would have thought that I’d ever know that!’: subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL student interactions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25:9 ► pp. 3184 ff. DOI logo
Hüttner, Julia
2020. Functional Plurality of Language in Contextualised Discourse, ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue