Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focusing on Content or Language?: Comparing Paired Conversations in CLIL and EFL Classrooms, Using a Corpus

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ((YCLP))

Abstract

This preliminary comparative study examines two dyad interactions of Japanese learners of English in a Content and Language Integrated Learning classroom (CLIL) and a General English class (GE) at a Japanese university, focusing on discourse framework and the use of repair. Three research questions are addressed here: between these two settings, (1) are there any similarities and differences in numbers of words, turns and speaking time in the learner-learner dialogues?, (2) how do the learners frame discourses, and (3) what repairables are marked and what repair strategies are used in the respective contexts? The findings indicate longer but fewer turns were characterised in the interaction in the GE interaction, while shorter and frequent turn exchanges occurred in the CLIL one, which relates to discourse frameworks in the interactions in the two settings. Endorsement framework (topic initiation → suggestion for decision making → (dis-)alignment) was observed in the CLIL conversation with the frequent use of joint production, whereas the learners in GE adapted narrative framework (topic initiation → narrating → acknowledgement). The students in both contexts paid attention to linguistic/factual repairables. However, procedural repairables were marked only by the participants in the CLIL interaction. To repair the trouble sources, both self-repair and other-repair were used in the CLIL students although the GE participants only used the former. The distinct features in the two learner interactions might derive from differences in types of communicative action (c.f. Habermas J, Some further clarification of the concept of communicative rationality. In: Cooke M (ed) On the pragmatics of communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 307–382, 1996).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1. T indicates teacher. Sf unidentified female student and Sf1 female student 1. Slash marks ‘//’ indicate the English translation of an utterance made in German. Short pause and long pause are marked with ‘..’ and ‘…’. The question mark ‘?’ is used for rising intonation. Unintelligible words are indicated with (xxx) (Dalton-Puffer 2007, pp. xi–xii).

References

  • Adolphs, S. (2006). Introducing electronic text analysis: A practical guide for language and literary studies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: The Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C., Michael, E., & Alan, F. (2001). Discovering order in opening sequences: Calls to software helpline. In M. H. Alec & R. Mark (Eds.), How to analyse talk in institutional settings: A casebook of methods. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourses: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breidback, S., & Viebrock, B. (2013). CLIL: Complementing or compromising foreign language teaching?: Effects and perspectives of education policy plans. In B. Stephan & V. Britta (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe (pp. 11–24). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Stephen Levinson, C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, F. (2000). The language of classroom interaction and learning. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistics perspectives (pp. 184–205). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fassnacht, C., & Woods, D. (2002). Transana. Version 2.12 – Win. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Medison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and some implications for SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 127–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education: Toward a multilingual language policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. (2002). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1986). Communicative rationality and the theories of meaning and action. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 183–214). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Some further clarification of the concept of communicative rationality. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 307–382). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In M. J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social actions: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J., & Stivers, T. (1999). Online commentary in acute medical visits: A method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science & Medicine, 49, 1501–1517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynninen, N. (2011). The practice of ‘mediation’ in English as a lingua franca interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 965–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, M., Pinner, R., Mehisto, P., & Marsh, D. (2013). Editorial. International CLIL Research Journal 2(1). Available online from http://www.icrj.eu/21/editorial.html.

  • Izumi, S., Ikeda, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 2: Practice and applications (in Japanese). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, J. (2011). Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2704–2715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 13–44). Seatle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llinares, A., & Romero-Trillo, J. (2008). Discourse markers and the pragmatics of native and non-native teachers in a CLIL corpus. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 191–204). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The role of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Maria Frigols, J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in Bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: A comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 531–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16(1), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Variational pragmatics (pp. 69–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in Corpus Assisted-Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poncini, G. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saft, S. (2007). Conversation analysis and the study of Aizuchi: The organization of argument in Japanese faculty meetings. In Yumiko Ohara (Ed.), Nihongo disukousu no tayouna apurouchi (Various approaches in Japanese discouse) (pp. 38–70). Tokyo: Heibonsha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasajima, S. (2011). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning (in Japanese). Tokyo: Sanshusha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (2013). WordSmith tools. Version 6.0.. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée Review, 25, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D., & Wallat, S. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2008). What is corpus linguistics? What the data says. The International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English Journal, 32, 179–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L., & Tsuchiya, K. (2007). What makes English group discussion relevant in Monolingual classes? In B. Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2007 Aberdeen conference selections. Aberdeen: IATEFL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, K. (2013a). Behaviours in ELF: Analysing interruption sequences in discussions in an EAP course. Waseda Working Papers in ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), 2, 59–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, K. (2013b). Listenership behaviours in intercultural encounters: A time-aligned multimodal corpus analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, K. (2014). Why bother switching to ELF?: Analysing code-switching in a group discussion in a CLIL class at university in Japan. Waseda Working Papers in ELF, 3, 140–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, K. (2015). Analyzing Interruption Sequences in ELF Discussions. In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualisation, Research and Pedagogic Implications (pp. 90–110). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, K., & Handford, M. (2014). A corpus-driven analysis of repair in a professional ELF meeting: Not ‘letting it pass’. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S., Morton, T., & O’Keeffe, A. (2011). Analysing university spoken interaction: A CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16, 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, Y. (2013). Profiling lexical features of teacher talk in CLIL courses: The case of a higher education EAP programme in Japan. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M., & Izumi, S. (2011). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 1: Principles and methodologies (in Japanese). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalen, J., Zimmerman, D. H., & Marilyn, W. (1988). When words fail: A single case analysis. Social Problems, 35(4), 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. (2014). Interaction and codability: A multi-layered analytical approach to discourse markers in teacher’s spoken discourse. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp. 291–313). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) No. 26870599.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Education Centre, Tokai University, 4-1-1 Kitakaname, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, 2591292, Japan

    Keiko Tsuchiya

Authors
  1. Keiko Tsuchiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keiko Tsuchiya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Filología Inglesa/Facultad de Filosofía, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Jesús Romero-Trillo

Appendix: Annotation Conventions

Appendix: Annotation Conventions

Conventions

Symbol

Explanation

Extralinguistic information

<$E > …</$E >

This includes laughter, coughs and transcribers’ comments

Unintelligible Speech

<$G?>

Unintelligible speech is marked with these brackets

Guess

<$H > …</$H>

Where the accuracy of the transcription is uncertain, the sequence of words in question is placed between these two angle brackets

Interrupted sentence

+

When an utterance is interrupted by another speaker, this is indicated by using a + sign at the end of interrupted utterance and at the point where the speaker resumes his or her utterance

Unfinished sentence

=

Unfinished sentences of any type are indicated with = sign at the end of unfinished utterances

  1. Adolphs (2008: 137–138)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tsuchiya, K. (2016). Focusing on Content or Language?: Comparing Paired Conversations in CLIL and EFL Classrooms, Using a Corpus. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41733-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41733-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41732-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41733-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation