Lexical Transfer in the Written Production of a CLIL Group and a Non-CLIL Group

  1. Manzano Vázquez, Borja
Revista:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 14

Número: 2

Páginas: 57-76

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/J.166251 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: IJES: international journal of English studies

Resumen

Diferentes estudios sobre transferencia léxica en el contexto AICLE han revelado que los alumnos AICLE producen menos errores de transferencia léxica que sus compañeros en ILE. Trabajando sobre una muestra de 36 alumnos en 1ºESO, este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la producción de transferencia léxica en dos grupos de alumnos (AICLE e ILE) y determinar si la competencia lingüística es un factor determinante a la hora de predecir diferencias entre ambos grupos (Bruton, 2011a). Se utilizó el English Unlimited Placement Test para medir la competencia lingüística de los alumnos y una composición escrita en inglés para evaluar la producción de errores de transferencia léxica. Los resultados muestran que no hay una diferencia significativa entre ambos grupos en cuanto a competencia lingüística. Aquellos alumnos en ILE producen más errores de transferencia léxica que los alumnos AICLE, pero un análisis individual por participantes reveló que esta diferencia residía en los errores cometidos por tres alumnos en ILE

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2009). The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary use of CLIL and non-CLIL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp. 112-129).Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2010). An overview of variables affecting lexical transfer in writing: A review study. International Journal of Linguistics,2(1), 1-17.
  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2011). Lexical Errors and Accuracy in Foreign Language Writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Alonso Alonso, R. (2002). Transfer: Constraint, process, strategy or inert outcome? Cauce, 25, 85-101.
  • Bruton, A. (2011a). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics,32(2), 236-241.
  • Bruton, A. (2011b). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 1-10.
  • Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The Andalusian bilingual sections scheme: Evaluation and consultancy. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 36-46.
  • Celaya, M. L. (2006). La producción de estructuras sintácticas en Inglés lengua extranjera en contexto AICLE y regular: estudio descriptivo. Paper presented at XXIV AESLA Conference. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, March, 30 -April, 1.
  • Celaya, M. L. (2008). I study natusin English: Lexical transfer in CLIL and regular learners. In R. Monroy & A. Sánchez (Eds.), 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges(pp. 43-49). Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia.
  • Celaya, M. L. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). First languages and age in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 60-66.
  • Celaya, M. L. & Torras, M. R. (2001). L1 influence and EFL vocabulary. Do children rely more on L1 than adult learners? In M. FalcesSierra, M. M. Díaz Dueñas & J. M. Pérez Fernández (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe25th AEDEAN Conference (pp.1-14).Granada: Universidad de Granada.
  • Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third LanguageAcquisition: PsycholinguisticPerspectives(pp. 8-20),Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Costa, A. & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language,50(4), 491-511.
  • Coyle D. (2007). Content and language integratedl earning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies.The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
  • Coyle, D.,Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning.New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkman (Eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching(pp. 139-157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2009). Communicative competence and the CLIL lesson. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe(pp. 197-214).Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. and Nikula, T. (2006). Introduction. Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3), 4-7.
  • Deller, S. (2005). Teaching other subjects in English (CLIL).English!, 29-31. Retrieved from <http://www.emilangues.education.fr/files/par-rubriques/ish-2005s-teaching-other-subjects-in-english.pdf> (December 7, 2012)
  • Dewaele, J. M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics,19(4), 471-490.
  • European Commission(1995). White Paper on Education and Training. Retrieved from <http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/lb-en.pdf> (October 20, 2012)
  • Gost, C. & Celaya, M. L. (2005). Age and the use of L1 in EFL oral production. In M. L. Carrió Pastor (Eds.), Perspectivas Interdisciplinares de la Lingüística Aplicada(pp. 129-136). Valencia: Universitat Politècnica de València–AESLA, AsociaciónEspañola de Lingüística Aplicada.
  • James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman.
  • Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning,50(2), 245-309.
  • Jarvis, S. &Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge.
  • Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31-42.
  • Lasagabaster, D. & Doiz, A. (2003). Maturational constraints on foreign-language written production. In M. P. García Mayo &M. L. GarcíaLecumberri (Eds.), Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language(136-160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findingsfrom the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics,31(3), 418-442.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2011). On complexity in bilingual research: The causes, effects, and breadth of Content and Language Integrated Learning –A reply to Bruton (2011). Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 450-455.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., Moore, P. & Alfonso, Y. M. (2009). Bilingüismo y educación. Situación de la red de centros bilingües en Andalucía. [Bilingualism and Education. Situation of the network of bilingual schools in Andalusia]. Sevilla: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces. Retrieved from <http://www.soniacasal.es/docu-mentos/Actualidad39.pdf> (November 28, 2012).
  • Madrid, D. (2011). Monolingual and bilingual students’ competence in Social Sciences. In D. Madrid and S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education(pp. 195-222). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Madrid, D. & Hughes, S. (Eds.)(2011). Studies in Bilingual Education. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European Dimension. Actions, Trends, and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
  • Navés,T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe(pp. 22-40).Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Navés, T., Miralpeix, I., & Celaya, M. L. (2005). Who transfers more... and what? Crosslinguisticinfluence in relation to school grade and language dominance in EFL. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(2), 113-134.
  • Paradis, J. (2001). Are object omissions in Romance object clitic omissions? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,4(1), 36-37.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341.
  • Porte, G. K. (2002). Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical Approach to Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Poulisse, N. & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 36-57.
  • Ramos García, A. M. (2011). The cultural knowledge of monolingual and bilingual students. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education(pp. 223-235). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Ramos García, A. M., Ortega Martín, J. L. & Madrid, D. (2011). Bilingualism and competence in the mother tongue. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education(pp. 135-156). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Ringbom, H. (2001). Lexical transfer in L3 production. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: PsycholinguisticPerspectives(pp. 59-68).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Roa, J., Madrid, D. & Sanz, I. (2011). A bilingual education research project in monolingual areas. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education(pp. 107-133). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 23-44.
  • Villoria, J., Hughes, S. & Madrid, D. (2011). Learning English and learning through English. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education(pp. 157-194). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Wiesemes, R. (2009). Developing theories of practices in CLIL: CLIL as post-method pedagogies? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe(pp. 41-59).Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journalof Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7-28
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet