Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 31:2 (2018) ► pp.467–494

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

Pragmatics in CLIL

A comparison of CLIL and non-CLIL students’ requests

 | San Jorge University-Zaragoza

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 27 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.16040.nas
Abstract
This study is a mixed-method, cross-sectional study that compares the acquisition of request modification in the productions of two secondary school groups (15–16 years old) in two school programs: content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and traditional mainstream (non-CLIL). A total of 192 requests were gathered from both groups by means of an elicitation instrument (a Written Discourse Completion Test – WDCT). The requestive pragmatic moves (external and internal modifiers and request strategies) were analysed according to their pragmatic functions (softeners and aggravators) and a data-driven taxonomy of request modification was elaborated in line with previously developed taxonomies (Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Alcón Soler, E., Safont Jordá, M. P., & Mártinez Flor, A. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 41, 1–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) for the data analysis. The results showed that both groups share similarities typical of foreign language learners. Nonetheless, significant statistical differences between them indicated that the CLIL group had a fuller repertoire of request modification strategies, yet their sociopragmatic knowledge is questioned.
Resumen
Este estudio tiene como objetivo determinar si tanto los alumnos de 4º de E.S.O. que participan en el programa bilingüe inglés (« AICLE o CLIL ») como los alumnos que no participan en este programa (« no-AICLE o non-CLIL ») utilizan de forma distinta los modificadores y las estrategias de petición. Dichos modificadores (externos e internos) y estrategias (directas e indirectas) fueron las dimensiones utilizadas para comparar las peticiones de los alumnos. Con el fin de suscitar dichas producciones (192 peticiones), se utilizó un Written Discourse Completion Test (WDCT) con situaciones que no estaban estrechamente relacionadas con los hábitos de clase de los alumnos. Para analizar las peticiones, se elaboró una taxonomía basada en el mismo conjunto de datos para realizar el análisis de datos siguiendo otros estudios en los que se hizo lo mismo (Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Alcón Soler, E., Safont Jordá, M. P., & Mártinez Flor, A. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 41, 1–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Los resultados demostraron que el grupo « CLIL » y el « non-CLIL » compartían similitudes típicas de los estudiantes de lenguas extranjeras. No obstante, también hubo diferencias significativas entre ellos que indican que el grupo CLIL utilizaba un repertorio más amplio de modificadores y estrategias en sus respuestas, a pesar de lo cual se pone en cuestión su conocimiento sociopragmático.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
    • 2.1Interpersonal language and the importance of language pragmatics to CLIL students
    • 2.2Pragmatics in CLIL classroom discourse
    • 2.3Requestive modifiers and strategies: Taxonomies and studies
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2The elicitation instrument
    • 3.3Data collection procedure
    • 3.4Data analysis
      • 3.4.1Initial data coding
      • 3.4.2Newly emerging pragmatic features
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Softening and aggravating external modifiers
    • 4.2Softening and aggravating internal modifiers
    • 4.3Softening strategies
    • 4.4Aggravating strategies in CLIL and non-CLIL learners’ requests
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (62)
References
Achiba, M. (2003). Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics (Vol. 21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ackerl, C. (2007). Lexico-Grammar in the essays of CLIL and EFL students: Error analysis of written production. Views-Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 6–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English 1. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alcón Soler, E. & Mártinez Flor, A. M. (Eds.). (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Vol. 301). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alcón Soler, E., Safont Jordá, M. P., & Mártinez Flor, A. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 41, 1–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 279‐304 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 Pragmatics. Language Learning, 631, 68–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1983). Some Factors in the Selection and Implementation of Communication Strategies. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 100–118). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brubæk, S. (2012). Pragmatics competence in English at the VG1 level: To what extent are Norwegian students able to adapt to contextual demands when making requests in English? Acta Didactica Norge, 6(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in applied linguistics, 6(2), 5–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2002). The Common European Framework of Reference: CEFR. Retrieved from [URL]
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 191, 121–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol 2 Literacy (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2005). Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: directives in Content and Language Integrated Classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1275–1293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 241–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downing, A., & Locke, P. (1992). A university course in English grammar. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2012). Strategies, modification, and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 531, 21–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom. A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enomoto, S., & Marriott, H. (1994). Investigating evaluative behavior in Japanese tour guiding interaction. Multilingua, 131, 131–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gassner, D., & Maillat, D. (2006). Spoken competence in CLIL: A pragmatic take on recent Swiss data. Views-Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3), 15–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Arnold: London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Continuum Education Limited. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickey, L. (2005). Politeness in Spain: ‘thanks but no thanks’. In L. Hickey & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 317–330). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157–185). Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from [URL]
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2003). Coping with high imposition requests: high vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. Martínez Flor, E. Usó Juan, & A. Fernández (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence in Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 161–184). Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign Language competence in CLIL courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 11, 31–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. 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., & Pastrana, A. (2013). CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 81–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 311, 391–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nashaat Sobhy, N. (2017). Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nashaat Sobhy, N. & Llinares, A. (Forthcoming, 2019). CLIL students’ pragmatic competence: a comparison between naturally-occurring and elicited requests. To appear In A. Sánchez-Hernández & A. Herraiz-Martínez (Eds). Learning Second Language Pragmatics beyond Traditional Contexts (Linguistic Insights – Studies in language Communication). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Navés, T. (2011). How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts (pp. 129–153). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naves, T., & Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in Catalonia: an overview of research studies. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 30–54). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object of study in classrooms: interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 161, 27–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26(2), 206–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. Alcón Soler and A. Martínez Flor (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 94–113). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Otcu, B., & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development of requests: A study on Turkish learners of English. In M. Püetz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 265–300). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J. (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. Available from [URL].
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). The effects of implementing CLIL in education. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 51–68). Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salazar Campillo, P. (2007). Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT coursebooks. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.). Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 207–222). Netherlands: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development. The study abroad context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1975). The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 251, 139–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1999). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. (2017). Motivation, second language learning in CLIL. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 51–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC journal, 39(3), 318–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodfield, H., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). I just need more time: a study of native and non-native students’ requests to faculty for late submission. Multilingua, 29(1), 77–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Yongli, Qin
2025. CLIL research over the past three decades: A bibliometric analysis. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 43:1 ► pp. 14 ff. DOI logo
Safont, Pilar
2024. Young Multilingual Pragmatics. A Focus on Requests in CLIL and Non-CLIL Settings. In Modern Approaches to Researching Multilingualism [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Llinares, Ana
2023. Discussion: multiple approaches in CLIL: cognitive, affective and linguistic insights. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 658 ff. DOI logo
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Julia Hüttner & Ana Llinares
2022. CLIL in the 21st Century. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 10:2 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Mestre-Mestre, Eva M. & María Belén Díez-Bedmar
2022. Expressing emotion. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:2 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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