In:Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 125–144
Speech function analysis to explore CLIL students’ spoken language for knowledge construction
Published online: 16 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.08lli
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.08lli
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the register variable of tenor within systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to examine spoken interaction involving secondary CLIL history learners in two contexts: one-to-one interviews with a researcher, and role-plays with peers. Tenor refers to the role relationship between interactants, and its impact on language use. We adapt speech function analyses developed by Eggins and Slade (1997) for ordinary conversation to settings in which CLIL learners jointly construct aspects of content knowledge in one subject, history. The findings show that the negotiation and roles assigned to participants impacted on the ways the learners managed to construct history content knowledge. We argue that speech function analysis can throw light on how role relationships in spoken interaction can create or restrict affordances for the expression of content knowledge in CLIL.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Role-plays and interviews as contexts for knowledge construction and language production in CLIL
- Speech function analysis in educational contexts
- Exploring CLIL students’ use of speech functions in role-plays and interviews
- Students’ use of speech functions across the two tasks: The broader picture
- Role assignment and negotiation in interviews
- Confronting and challenging in role-plays
- Construing content knowledge in prolonging moves: The uses of enhancement
- Discussion and conclusion
References
References (28)
Al-Arishi, A.Y. (1994). Role-play, real-play, and surreal-play in the ESOL classroom. ELT Journal, 48(4), 337–346.
Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120–145). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Coffin, C. (2006). Learning the language of school history: the role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413–429.
Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New directions, new methods. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 219–227.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–267.
Dreyfus, S., McNaught, L., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Understanding joint construction in the tertiary context. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 135–160.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Joughin, G. (2010). A short guide to oral assessment. Leeds: Leeds Met Press in association with University of Wollongong.
Kosti, K., Κοndoyianni, A., & Tsiaras, A. (2015). Fostering historical empathy through drama‐in‐ education: A pilot study on secondary school students in Greece. Drama Research, 6(1), 1–22.
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–79.
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 46–65.
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2016). Evaluative language use by teachers and students in CLIL across contexts: integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz Milne, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30.
Maillat, D., & Serra, C. (2009). Immersive education and cognitive strategies: Can the obstacle be the advantage in a multilingual society? International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 186–206.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2003). A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 421–432.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer, & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179–204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Nikula, T., Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). European research on CLIL classroom discourse. International Journal of Immersion and Content Based Education, 1(1), 70–100.
North, S., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2008). Using exchange structure analysis to explore argument in text-based computer conferences. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 257–276.
O’Donnell, M. (2008). Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume) (pp. 13–16). Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Shapiro, S., & Leopold, L. (2012). A critical role for role-playing pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 29(2), 121–130.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Alejo-González, Rafael, Manuel Lucero, Mary Schleppegrell & Ana Sánchez
2023. Student-teacher interaction in CLIL and non-CLIL elementary education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 11:1 ► pp. 4 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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.
