REVIEWS

Complutense Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 2386-3935

http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/CJES.61074

Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (eds) (2017). Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI 10.1075/lllt.47

The proliferation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes

has fostered research on various dimensions of its implementation, such as teacher
education or learning outcomes. Against the backdrop of the vast number of studies
related to the teaching of content through a foreign language, the volume edited by
Llinares and Morton calls for reflection on the nature of the relation between Applied
Linguistics and CLIL, aiming at strengthening the scientific and empirical rationale of
the latter. CLIL has undergone a series of transformations which have made it evolve
from what was initially conceived in the 1990s into a rather different conceptualisation
(Meyer et al. 2015), and this volume contributes to the understanding of this diversity,
also in practice, from different perspectives within Applied Linguistics.
Not only does this book provide a comprehensive approach to the complex reali-
ty of CLIL from the perspective of Applied Linguistics, but it also embraces a coher-
ent line of reasoning and argument throughout the volume. Despite the numerous
chapters and the wide range of angles deployed, all the well-known and established
contributors refer to, support and contrast their findings with those in other chapters
within the book.
The book starts with an introductory chapter by the editors, Tom Morton and Ana
Llinares, in which they discuss whether CLIL should be conceptualised as a type of
programme or a pedagogical model. They contrast CLIL with Content-Based In-
struction (CBI), which also incorporates the teaching based on content whereas
CLIL refers to contexts where content is taught through an additional language. In
this regard, the authors make an interesting remark about the types of programmes:
“which are different or similar not because they are called CLIL or CBI but due to
geographical, political and methodological variables” (2). They go on to review
some on the main areas of research so far and those of growing interest. Drawing on
those areas, applied linguistic-based CLIL research is broadly classified by the au-
thors into four categories: Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Systemic Function-
al Linguistics (SFL), Discourse Analysis and Sociolinguistics. According to the edi-
tors, this classification is based on the “linguistic theories, models and findings they
were drawing on” (2-3). However, the editors admit that these categories may over-
lap, which is not considered a drawback. On the contrary, they argue for an interdis-
ciplinary approach within applied Linguistics since each area (with its own theories
and methods) can contribute to solving the problems detected in CLIL.
The rest of the book is divided into four areas according to the above-mentioned
categories into which CLIL research can be classified. Each section follows an iden-
tical structure: an introduction, which sets the main linguistic issues and concerns to
be addressed within the specific field of applied linguistics; and three chapters which
serve as illustrations of those issues.
Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294 287
288 Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294

The first of the four perspectives presented is Second Language Acquisition (SLA),
whose introductory chapter is written by Roy Lyster. He starts off with an anecdote
describing his frustrating experience with audio-lingual method instruction. This is
the point of departure in discussing why SLA can inform CLIL and other immersion
initiatives, focusing on a cognitive perspective. He posits that content-based ap-
proaches are successful because of their “capacity to enrich classroom discourse
through substantive content, which provides both a cognitive basis for language
learning and a motivational basis for purposeful communication” (21). However, he
also specifies the shortcomings of immersion programmes. In line with his so-called
‘counterbalanced approach’ (2007), Lyster argues that the lack of grammatical accu-
racy observed in French immersion had to do with the tendency to offer comprehen-
sible input (Krashen, 1985) exclusively, which was popular in the 1980s and in the
early conceptualisation of integration. For that reason, he appeals to skill-acquisition
theory so as to transform declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge through
scaffolding and social interaction. In order to implement his ‘counterbalanced ap-
proach’, he calls for both proactive and reactive activities for language awareness. He
concludes this introduction by suggesting a stronger connection between EFL and
CLIL as a means of providing language in EFL instruction to reinforce the integrated
lessons (see Nikula et al., 2016; Halbach, 2014; Coonan, 2012).
García Mayo and Besterrechea offer a good overview of SLA theories applied to
the CLIL context. They focus on the interactionist framework and review the Inter-
action Hypothesis (Long 1996) with the aim of illustrating how it has been researched
in CLIL. Moreover, the Output Hypothesis is acknowledged as another key construct
in the interactionist model since it allows learners to reflect on their own production.
Interestingly, the authors compare various studies addressing the issue of corrective
feedback which yielded contradictory results. Despite attributing these inconsisten-
cies to contextual variables, the potential impact of teacher education is barely men-
tioned. Finally, they establish the need for more in-depth studies on interaction in
CLIL across different educational levels.
The role of motivation is paramount in SLA. For that reason, Sylvén explores the
relation between motivation in CLIL and the role of language, which is an underex-
plored topic in the author’s opinion. She starts by providing an overview of motiva-
tion and SLA in general, with a special focus on Dörnyei (2009) and Ushioda (2014)
perspectives, who believe that motivation is strongly connected to individual context
and circumstances. She supports the belief that CLIL contributes to raising motiva-
tion compared to EFL, even though EFL methods have aimed at providing real and
meaningful content since the arrival of the Direct Method. She argues that content
serves as a ‘powerful motivator’ not only to learn the content but also the language
through which it is taught. After citing several studies contrasting the role of motiva-
tion in CLIL and its counterparts, Sylvén advocates for more longitudinal studies in
order to fully make sense of the impact of motivation in CLIL/non-CLIL instruction.
The author offers an interesting remark derived from one of her studies: learners
seem to feel more relaxed in CLIL than in EFL classes as they do not feel the pres-
sure to be correct. In other words, the focus on accuracy is perceived as something
negative. This finding goes hand in hand with Nikula’s observation (2005) that stu-
dents are treated as language learners in EFL but as language users in CLIL.
The final chapter on SLA, by Sobhy, is especially interesting since it addresses
pragmatics, probably one of the most under-researched areas of linguistics in CLIL.
Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294 289

More specifically, Sobhy argues that “there is no certainty that the advantageous
CLIL learning environment really benefits students where pragmatic competence is
concerned” (68). In other words, she justifies the need to turn pragmatic competence
into a learning outcome. In trying to examine whether learners communicate appro-
priately, the author presents a study comparing CLIL and non-CLIL students’ use of
requests. The results seem to suggest that pragmatic competence does not correlate
with CLIL instruction but with “cumulative exposure to English in general” (85).
However, it should be taken into consideration the fact that the non-CLIL partici-
pants were high achievers and a bit older than those receiving instruction through the
foreign language.
The second section in the reviewed book focuses on Systemic Functional Lin-
guistics (SFL). Caroline Coffin starts the section off with a justification for why re-
search on CLIL should take advantage of this theory of language. Given SFL’s view
of language as central to knowledge construction, content and language should not
be regarded as two separate phenomena. Her stance aligns with recent conceptualis-
ations of integration in which language is central for conceptual development (Gier-
linger, 2017; Dalton-Puffer, 2016). That is why she points out that subject knowl-
edge enables learners to expand their linguistic repertoire, but she acknowledges that
more research is needed in this regard. She divides SFL research on CLIL into three
different strands, focusing on a) the relationship of language and disciplinary mean-
ing-making, b) the role of language in students’ learning and development and c)
content and language pedagogies derived from them.
The first of these three research strands is specifically addressed by McCabe and
Whittaker, who study genre and appraisal in History composition written by second-
ary students. In this case, the texts classified as high level by the teacher also show
more appraisal resources. The authors use this illustration to advocate for more lan-
guage awareness as a beneficial element to be included in CLIL pedagogy.
The editors have included one chapter of their own in this section, which is inter-
related with the previous one. Llinares and Morton study the register variable of
tenor (roles of participants) with a focus on how it is reflected and constructed
through speech functions in two contexts involving interaction, i.e. one-to-one inter-
views with the researcher and role-plays. In these contexts, field (topic) and mode
(channel of communication) remain the same, but tenor shifts from history knower
in the interview to character in the roleplay. This enables the researchers to explore
the differences in interactional moves and choices. From an empirical point of view,
Llinares and Morton argue for a comeback of role plays in research because of their
masking effect (learners feel more comfortable with the language when they are not
themselves). In this case, participants deploy higher interactional moves in role plays
as they make use of more speech functions such as challenging each other. Some of
their findings have quite clear pedagogical implications. On the one hand, the use of
basic language resources may be caused by the avoidance of complex syntactic
structures for assessment reasons. For that reason, the authors advocate for scaffold-
ing and support on the part of the interviewer, especially with lower-level students.
On the other hand, the authors warn that challenging moves (e.g. counters) do not
guarantee quality content, so teachers should not rely on linguistic performance in
this sense. Such an interesting remark should be considered for assessment purposes
and illustrates the type of practical issues which may arise when dealing with the
integration of content and language. Another final comment made by the authors
290 Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294

which may encourage reflection is that secondary students still have problems when
dealing with the expression of essential semantic relations such as cause and effect
in their L2.
In the last chapter of this section, Forey and Polias also support the view that
CLIL would benefit from a systemized theory of language such as SFL since it pro-
vides a typological description of specific genres proper to each area of the curricu-
lum. Considering that the role of language would be at the centre, these authors insist
that “knowledge of the patterns in the specialised language of the specific subject
they are teaching is beneficial for all teachers” (146). The notion of register contin-
ues to be addressed in this chapter, which draws on previous research by Polias
(2016) on the shifts in the register continuum made by the teacher to facilitate learn-
ing. To illustrate this, two examples from two different educational contexts are dis-
cussed, focusing on multi-semiotic resources afforded by the teacher in order to
provide maximal input, scaffolding and access to meaning.
The third section is devoted to Discourse Analysis (DA). Dalton-Puffer offers a
clear introduction to guide an uninformed reader about the main aspects of DA to
take into consideration in the study of CLIL. This chapter establishes the pillars and
foci of this approach in CLIL. However, she insists that the two foci, namely the
processes of knowledge construction in/through the L2 and language use and its so-
cial-interactional aspects are interrelated dimensions. Within the second element,
she looks at the pivotal role of communicative competence and analyses its five di-
mensions (linguistic, discourse, strategic, intercultural and sociolinguistic). Dal-
ton-Puffer also acknowledges some limitations and areas for further studies, such as
the limiting conditions of classroom talk or the fact that the same type of lessons is
usually recorded, teacher-led whole-class interaction, because these are technically
easier to record. She also suggests the possibility of going beyond the analysis of
lessons to embrace the study of entire programmes.
Escobar and Walsh focus on classroom interactional competence (CIC) in order
to claim that a better understanding of classroom discourse can have a positive im-
pact on learning. The significance of interaction lies in its role as a tool mediating
and assisting learning. Pragmatics is presented as a key element of CIC and materi-
alised in, for instance, turn-taking and (polite) interruptions. The authors review rel-
evant studies related to CIC, which endorse the recent perspective of regarding
learners not as deficient users but as users who “deploy a range of interactional
competencies which need to be described and understood” (185). In establishing the
features of CIC, teachers are appointed to be responsible for creating a safe environ-
ment for students to interact and develop a positive self-image without being afraid
of being penalised. To support these assumptions, Escobar and Walsh present ex-
cerpts of teacher-class and learner-learner interaction. The latter excerpt shows how
only in peer work learners have the chance of carrying out certain interactional fea-
tures such as interrupting or challenging a contribution and demonstrates how partic-
ipants manage turn taking and are even able to self-correct. What is interesting here
is that, in line with the study presented in Llinares and Morton’s chapter, it is sug-
gested that symmetric roles provide richer opportunities than asymmetric roles.
The next chapter, written by Evnitskaya and Jakonen, emphasises the role of
multimodal conversation analysis to make sense of CLIL classroom interaction.
Firstly, an overview of its elements and research is offered. Then, the focus is nar-
rowed-down to CA-for-SLA and bilingual classrooms. The authors review some rel-
Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294 291

evant studies and findings, e.g. how teachers’ use of interactional and multimodal
strategies has an impact on the complexity of the interactional organisation and the
quality of subject-specific conversation (Escobar and Evnitskaya 2013). An analysis
of one science pedagogical activity is analysed to illustrate how various semiotic
resources are involved in meaning making; and consequently, to demonstrate the
benefits of multimodal CA approach to fully understand CLIL classroom interaction.
In the last chapter of this section, Pascual and Basse connect assessment for
learning approaches with Dalton-Puffer’s classification of academic questions in
CLIL (2007), specifically metacognitive questions, namely “those that make stu-
dents reflect on their point of view or way of thinking” (221). Adopting the stance
that learning takes place in interaction, metacognitive questions are here extended to
those triggering students’ reflections and self/peer assessment on the learning pro-
cess. Following Dalton-Puffer (2007), the authors show that metacognitive questions
such as “Can you tell me if you think you’d be able to do that?” are essential but
rarely used in CLIL. In order to explore the functions of these questions, the authors
analyse data collected from lessons whose teachers had been trained in AFL tech-
niques. The results show that metacognitive questions can contribute to reflections
on achievement, and to identifying areas for improvement and assessment criteria as
well as facilitate individual and peer-assessment and reflection on such a process.
The last part of the collected volume is concerned with sociolinguistic issues in
CLIL. This perspective is introduced by Jasone Cenoz, who reviews the situation of
teaching foreign languages across Europe. She also revisits the definition of CLIL,
presenting a distinction between weak and strong CLIL. She posits that there is no
difference between strong CLIL and Immersion programmes although she does not
make any explicit reference to the fact that the linguistic reality of both contexts may
differ. She remarks on the difficulties arising of the current context of international
evaluations, which makes CLIL challenging due to the increasing diversity of cours-
es according to the situation of each context. She also points out that one of the ad-
vantages of successful CLIL is the use of academic language, which is not a priority
in EFL, and stresses the need for research to evaluate academic content and not only
L2 outcomes. Drawing on all these factors, she proposes her model Continua of
Multilingual Education (2009) to identify and compare multilingual schools, a tool
designed precisely to deal with the diversity of multilingual education. At the basis
of this continua, we find the characteristics of the target language, the sociolinguistic
context and the educational context, which seem to be three determining factors for
the development and assessment of CLIL programmes. It is interesting to highlight
that within the educational context, this model takes into consideration the role of
EFL provision alongside CLIL and the extent to which it is separated, integrated or
regarded as a weak form of CLIL.
David Lasagabaster, in chapter 2 of this section, explores the role of the L1, re-
viewing the various stances in that regard; from the monolingual mindsets whose
main premise is that literacy in the TL can only be taught in that TL, to recent
code-switching tendencies which incorporate the L1 as a helpful tool for the devel-
opment of the L2. He adopts the term ‘translanguaging’ since this strategy refers to
“the multilingual students’ use of the whole linguistic and semiotic repertoire at their
disposal” (253), supporting his view with references to other studies (García & Li
2014). Following scholars such as Kubanyiova (2014), he considers the variable of
teacher beliefs as having an impact on instructional practices. Against this backdrop,
292 Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294

he presents a study in which he used discussion groups to find out whether teachers
think languages should be separated and when and why they use the L1. The results
show that there is no unanimity among the participants in the use of L1, which they
turn to for disciplinary issues, interlanguage comparisons and comprehension prob-
lems. Interestingly, Lasagabaster connects the results obtained here with previous
studies in order to show the strong correlations found on the same topic.
Then, Bonnet and Breidbach present a reflexive approach to teacher identity in
CLIL. In line with the diversity accounted for in the two previous chapters, these
scholars explain “the mixed picture of teachers’ competence in CLIL contexts”
(269). An overview of research findings in terms of teacher knowledge and identity
is offered, highlighting the shift triggered by CLIL concerning teacher identity,
which is understood by the authors as the explicit knowledge, their work context and
investment into their jobs. Using two cases taken from a corpus of 30 interviews with
teachers, the notion of Transformational Bildung and the interplay of the three con-
stituents of identity are discussed.
The last chapter, written by Dafouz and Smit, addresses the roles of English in
English-medium education (EME) in multilingual tertiary education from a sociolin-
guistic perspective. Given the growing process of internationalisation, together with
the expansion of EME at university settings, these scholars present the ROAD-MAP-
PING framework (Dafouz& Smit 2016) for English-medium education in multilin-
gual settings (EMEMUS), following a discursive approach. Of the six dimensions of
the framework (Roles of English, Academic Disciplines, language management,
Agents, Practices & Processes and Internationalization & Glocalization), only the
first one is explored here. Such roles of English are presented and illustrated with
extracts taken from interviews with stakeholders taking part in programmes both in
Spain and Austria. The extract show diversity of roles attributed to English (e.g. tool
for business or as a lingua franca). Moreover, the authors review different conceptu-
alisations addressing the roles of English, including the previously mentioned Con-
tinua of Multilingualism which Cenoz had referred to. Dafouz and Smit acknowl-
edge the complex reality of the sub-dimensions of the roles of English (societal,
institutional, pedagogical and communicational) and their interrelated factors.
Finally, the book closes with an afterword written by another relevant figure,
TarjaNikula. Complexity is reaffirmed as one of the main features of CLIL regard-
less of the Applied Linguistics perspective from which it is dealt with. This chapter
serves as a review of the aims of each of the four sections, classifying the different
issues arising throughout the volume into four main areas: the centrality of interac-
tion, the reconceptualisation of the role of language in CLIL, mindsets (beliefs, iden-
tities and motivation) and the role of English.
To sum up, this well-organised volume constitutes a review or CLIL research itself
as it incorporates a comprehensive overview of recent research and findings from
different perspectives within Applied Linguistics. Undoubtedly, one of the most dis-
tinctive features of this volume is that the vast majority of the chapters do not show
the results of a whole study in order to advocate the salience of SLA, SFL, DA and
Sociolinguistics. Instead, only a few excerpts or instances are discussed in detail to
illustrate and argue why each of these areas should have a say in the development and
evolution of CLIL programmes. Despite the solid and coherent structure of the vol-
ume, some authors acknowledge certain limitations and the fact that some contradic-
tory studies exist. Thus, another aspect which makes this volume particularly note-
Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294 293

worthy is the suggestions for much-needed further research. In conclusion, it is a

significant contribution which both experienced researchers and those who are not so
well acquainted with CLIL mechanisms will find valuable. Although one of the areas
for further research is clearly pragmatics, the potential reader will obtain both a broad
picture of the role of Applied Linguistics in CLIL as well as an in-depth analysis of
any perspective of their interest. As it encompasses both an overview of concluding
findings so far and a reflection on the point of departure for further research, Applied
Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL is definitely an inspiring reading for researchers
willing to put forward solutions to the complexities of CLIL implementation.

Marta Jaén Campos

Departamento de Estudios Ingleses, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
[email protected]

References

Arnau, Joaquim, ed (2013) Recovering Catalan through School: Challenges and Instruction-
al Approaches, 158-182. Bristol: Multilingual Matters &Institud’Estudis Catalans.
Breeze, Ruth; Llamas, Cristina; Martínez, Concepción & Carmen Tabernero, eds. (2014).
Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Cenoz, Jasone (2009). Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research from
an International Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Coonan, Carmen Mary (2012). The Foreign Language Curriculum and CLIL. Synergies
Italie 8:117-128.
Dafouz, Emma & Smit, Ute (2016). Towards a Dynamic Conceptual Framework for Eng-
lish-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings. Applied Linguistics, 37 (3):
397-415.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2016). Cognitive Discourse Functions (CDFs): Specifying an In-
tegrative Interdisciplinary Construct, in Nikula, Tarda; Dafouz, Emma; Moore, Pat & Ute
Smit, eds., 29-54
— (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Am-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Zoltan (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Dörnyei, Zoltan. & Ema Ush-
ioda, eds., 9-42.
Dörnyei, Zoltan & Ema Ushioda, eds. (2009). Motivation, Language, Identity and the L2
self. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Escobar, Cristina & Evnitskaya, Natalia (2013). Affording Students Opportunities for the
Integrated Learning of Content and Language. A Contrastive Study on Classroom Inter-
actional Strategies Deployed by two CLIL Teachers. In Arnau, Joaquim, ed., 158-182.
Halbach, Ana. (2014). Teaching (in) the Foreign Language in a CLIL Context: Towards a
New Approach, in Breeze, Ruth; Llamas, Cristina; Martínez, Concepción. & Carmen
Tabernero, eds. 1-14.
García, Ofelia & Li, Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.
London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Gierlinger, Erwan M. (2017) The Challenging Interplay of Content, Context, and Communi-
ty for CLIL Implementations and a Didactic Model to Cope with CLIL’s Hybrid Pedago-
gy. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal.3-1, DOI: 10.6294/Ea-
GLE.2017.0301.04
294 Reviews. Complut. j. Engl. stud. 26 2018: 287-294

Krashen, Stephen. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Long-
man.
Kubanyiova, Maggie. (2014). Motivating Language Teachers: Inspiring Vision. In Lasagab-
aster, David., Doiz, Aintzane & Juan Manuel Sierra, eds., 71-89.
Lasagabaster, David., Doiz, Aintzane & Juan Manuel Sierra, eds. (2014). Motivation and
Foreign Language Learning: From Theory to Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, Michael H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Ac-
quisition. In Ritchie, William C. & Bhatia, Tej K., eds., 413-468.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages through Content. A Counterbalanced
Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Meyer, Oliver; Coyle, Do; Halbach, Ana; Ting, Teresa; and Kevin Schuck (2015). Adopting
a Pluriliteracies Approach to Content and Language Integrated Learning: Developing
Learner Progression in Academic Knowledge-construction and Meaning-making through
an Additional Language. Language, Culture and Curriculum. Special CLIL Volume
2015.
Nikula, Tarda; Dafouz, Emma; Moore, Pat & Ute Smit, eds. (2016). Conceptualising Inte-
gration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, Tarda; Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Llinares; Ana & Francisco Lorenzo (2016). More
than Content and Language: The Complexity of Integration in CLIL and Multilingual
Education, in Nikula, Tarda; Dafouz, Emma; Moore, Pat & Ute Smit, eds., 1-28.
Nikula, Tarda. (2005). English as an Object and Tool of Study in the Classrooms: Interaction-
al Effects and Pragmatic Implications. Linguistics and Education, 16 (1): 27-58.
Polias, John (2016). Apprenticing Students into Science: Doing, Talking and Writing Scien-
tifically. Melbourne: Lexis Education.
Ritchie, William C. & Bhatia, Tej K., eds. (1996). Handbook of Second Language Acquisi-
tion. San Diego: Academic Press
Ushioda, Ema (2014). Motivation, Autonomy and Metacognition: Exploring their Interac-
tions. In Lasagabaster, David; Doiz, Aintzane & Juan Manuel Sierra, eds., 31-49.