Constructing Cognitive Discourse Functions in Secondary CLIL Classrooms in Spain

Abstract

In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts, the quality of learning academic content through the L2 and the effect it might have on the development of students’ academic language competence (both in the L2 and L1) are among the key concerns of the different stakeholders involved. To address this issue, this study adopts Dalton-Puffer’s (A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253, 2013) theoretical construct of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) to examine teachers’ use of subject-specific academic language, and more specifically teachers’ classification practices, in CLIL classrooms in Spain. The construct of CDFs combines linguistic and educational approaches to academic language and ‘links subject-specific cognitive learning goals with the linguistic representations they receive in classroom interaction’ (Dalton-Puffer, Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying and integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 29–54). Bristol and Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2016, p. 30). Classifying is essential for knowledge construction in any school discipline as they help learners move from specific to abstract (Mohan, Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986). However, empirical research on how CDFs are realised in CLIL classroom interaction is still in its beginnings. This chapter contributes to the on-going research by examining in detail one CLIL science teacher’s classifying practices when constructing scientific knowledge, from a multimodal conversation-analytic perspective (Jefferson, Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Retrieved from http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/liso_archives/Jefferson/Transcript.pdf, 2004; Mondada, Conventions for Multimodal Transcription. Basel: Romanisches Seminar der Universität, 2014).

Appendix: Transcription Conventions

For talk (Jefferson, 2004):

JAU	Speaker’s pseudonym.
(.)	Very brief, unmeasured (micro-) pause.
(1.5)	Measured pause.
=	‘Latching’ between utterances produced by the same speaker/different speakers.
over[lap] [overlap]	Start, and if relevant, end of the concurrent speech.
word	Speaker’s emphasis.
↑↓	A marked rise/fall in pitch, not necessarily a question/end of the utterance.
.	Falling intonation.
,	Low-rising intonation, suggesting continuation.
?	Rising intonation, not necessarily a question.
|	Speaker’s rhythmical emphasis.
cu-	A sharp cut-off.
:	Stretching of the preceding sound, more colons more stretching.
>fast< <slow>	Talk is produced noticeably quicker or slower than the surrounding talk.
(word)	Best guess at an unclear fragment.
word	Utterances produced in any other language that is not English.
italics	Translations into English of utterances produced in other languages.

For multimodality (Mondada, 2014):

Embodied actions relevant for the analysis are described in the line following the line containing utterance, in italics, and are synchronised with talk thanks to a series of landmarks:

JAU/jau	Participant accomplishing the action is identified. Capital letters are used when the action accomplished by the participant is verbal; the lower case is used of embodied actions.
∗ ∗	Delimitate descriptions of the teacher’s embodied actions.
% %	Delimitate descriptions of Jaume’s embodied actions.
∗ / %turns to ARN	The instant when embodied action of a particular participant starts within turn at talk.
∗ / % -->	Described embodied action of a particular participant continues across subsequent lines.
-->∗ / %	Described embodied action of a particular participant continues until the same symbol is reached.
#fig1.1	The exact place/instant where the screenshot within turn at the talk was taken.