Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 International Journal of English Studies IJES UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA http://revistas.um.es/ijes Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group BORJA MANZANO VÁZQUEZ* Universidad de Granada Received: 18/01/2013. Accepted: 29/05/2013. ABSTRACT Previous research on the difference in terms of lexical transfer between CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) and non-CLIL students has revealed that CLIL students produce fewer lexical transfer errors than non-CLIL students. This study aimed at comparing the lexical transfer production of two groups of students (CLIL and non-CLIL) and determining whether language proficiency was a key factor when predicting differences between both groups (Bruton, 2011a). The sample for the research consisted of 36 students in grade 7. Subjects’ language proficiency was assessed through the English Unlimited Placement Test, whereas their lexical transfer production was tested through a written composition in English. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in language proficiency between both groups and that the difference in lexical transfer lied in the influence exerted by a few participants on the results. KEYWORDS: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), language proficiency, lexical transfer (borrowings, lexical inventions, calques). 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. PALABRAS CLAVE: AICLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenido y Lengua Extranjera), Inglés como Lengua Extranjera (ILE), competencia lingüística, transferencia léxica (préstamos, invenciones léxicas, calcos). _____________________ *Address for correspondence: Borja Manzano Vázquez. Departamento de Filologías Inglesa y Alemana, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Granada, Spain. E-mail: bmanzano2[email protected] Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 58 1. INTRODUCTION Research in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) is currently experiencing a renewed interest in language transfer due to the increasing implementation of CLIL programmes in educational contexts. This revival is mainly caused by recent findings which have proved a decreased influence of lexical transfer in those students who are immersed in CLIL programmes (Agustín Llach, 2009; Celaya, 2008; Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010), that is, programmes in which the curricular content is taught and learned through the medium of a foreign language (Dalton-Puffer, 2011), in this particular case, English. The main purpose of this study is to contribute to previous research on lexical transfer by comparing the written production of a CLIL and non-CLIL group of students in Andalusia1 (Spain), where CLIL has been used for several years. In doing so, we will also address the debate created in this region about the benefits of CLIL between Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010, 2011) and Bruton (2011a, 2011b). While Lorenzo and his colleagues highlight the significant foreign language score differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups, Bruton claims that the outstanding reported benefits of CLIL methodology are rooted in various factors favouring CLIL students such as their higher language proficiency. In this sense we want to determine whether language proficiency is a crucial factor in the possible differences in lexical transfer we could find between the CLIL and non-CLIL students of our study. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. CLIL Nowadays CLIL methodology is gaining more and more ground in European educational systems as a direct response to the recognized need for plurilingual competence in our present-day society (European Commission, 1995), but what are the pedagogic implications of CLIL in foreign language learning? 2.1.1. What is CLIL? Rationale and benefits of CLIL Since its coinage in 1994 at the University of Jyväskylä (Finland), the term CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has been increasingly taking on greater relevance in the field of foreign language education (Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2006; Deller, 2005; Marsh, 2002; Pérez Cañado, 2012) and has been widely used to refer to “situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language” (Marsh, 2002:2). Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 59 Most of the definitions provided on CLIL remark the fact that CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach since its major focus is on a continuum of both language and content, without an implied preference for either (Coyle, 2007). CLIL has its roots in bilingual education, that is to say, immersion programmes in Canada and content-based instruction (CBI) in USA, which have been in operation for decades. According to Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 6), however, “what separates CLIL from some established approaches such as content-based language learning, or forms of bilingual education, is the planned pedagogic integration of contextualized content, cognition, communication, and culture into teaching and learning practice”. Thus CLIL contexts are described in the literature as “significant learning environments” (Lorenzo et al., 2010: 427) or “immersion-like, input-rich environments for language acquisition” (Dalton-Puffer, 2009: 198). The main rationale behind the implementation of CLIL methodology has been summarised in these following four points (Navés, 2009: 25): 1. CLIL creates conditions for naturalistic language learning by reproducing the way in which first languages are acquired. 2. CLIL provides a purpose for language use in classroom. 3. CLIL has a positive effect on language learning by putting the emphasis on meaning rather than form. 4. CLIL increases the amount of exposure to the target language. The growing relevance of CLIL lies in the positive results yielded in the studies carried out measuring its impact on students’ foreign language learning. The specialised literature dealing with CLIL research has identified that CLIL proves to be beneficial to students in both language and content outcomes by contributing to raising learner achievement in the foreign language not only for good students, but also for those students with less languagelearning aptitude (Wiesemes, 2009). CLIL teaching also contributes to raising students’ motivation and confidence in the target language while decreasing their anxiety (Pérez Cañado, 2012). Moreover, CLIL enables students to develop better speaking skills (DaltonPuffer, 2008), improve receptive and productive vocabulary (Dalton-Puffer, 2011) and decrease L1 transfer (Agustín Llach, 2009). Nonetheless, there are certain language competence aspects which tend to remain unaffected in CLIL such as syntax, writing, informal language, pronunciation, and pragmatics (Lasagabaster, 2008). 2.1.2. CLIL in Andalusia CLIL was first implemented in Andalusia in 2005 when the Andalusian regional government launched the Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo (Plurilingualism Promotion Plan), whose main aim is to foster a multilingual society in order to adhere to European policy on Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 60 plurilingualism (the 1+2 principle, European Commission, 1995). Research conducted on CLIL in this community has mainly taken place in Seville (Casal & Moore, 2009; Lorenzo et al., 2010; Lorenzo, Casal, Moore & Alfonso, 2009) and Granada (Madrid, 2011; Ramos García, 2011; Ramos García, Ortega Martín & Madrid, 2011; Roa, Madrid & Sanz, 2011; Villoria, Hughes & Madrid, 2011). Casal and More (2009) and Lorenzo et al. (2009) undertook a large-scale evaluation and consultancy project designed to provide an overview of the implementation of CLIL in 61 schools (both primary and secondary schools) of Andalusia regarding school organization, effects on learners’ competence development and level of satisfaction in parents, teachers and learners. The project made clear the supremacy of CLIL in terms of both linguistic outcomes and competence levels, as CLIL students outperformed their mainstream peers, and evinced the positive reception this new teaching method had had among the participants. Similar positive results in favour of CLIL were obtained in the different studies carried out in the large-scale project led by Madrid (Madrid & Hughes, 2011) in Granada. This project compared CLIL and non-CLIL students in regard to L1 competence, subject-content knowledge, cultural knowledge, and foreign language competence. The sample used for these studies consisted of students at the end of their primary education (grade 6) and compulsory secondary education (grade 10) who belonged to different school contexts: public, private and semiprivate schools2. The condition of being a public, private and semiprivate school is in our opinion an important variable in the project for this could entail important differences among participants lying in, for instance, private English classes or time spent in Englishspeaking countries. Based on the premise that students enrolled in a CLIL programme are exposed to their L1 less than students in a monolingual programme, Ramos García et al. (2011) investigated the effects of CLIL on L1 competence. After comparing the results obtained by CLIL and non-CLIL students in a test evaluating their competence in Spanish, Ramos García and her colleagues concluded that CLIL methodology was not detrimental to students’ linguistic competence in their mother tongue. Madrid (2011), for example, focused on the effects of CLIL methodology on subject-content learning (Social Sciences) and observed that bilingual students obtained similar or sometimes higher levels of achievement in the subject than monolinguals. In the same project Ramos García (2011) measured the effects of CLIL on cultural aspects related to the foreign language finding out that the cultural knowledge of bilingual students was higher than monolingual students as demonstrated in the cultural test employed in the study. However, we cannot completely attribute this cultural knowledge to the CLIL methodology since, as the author acknowledges, the cultural knowledge (films, writers, customs, traditions, etc.) associated to a language “is not exclusively acquired by means of that language” (p. 235). Students could have a wide knowledge about English and American culture to answer questions such as Who is the President of the United States?, without this Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 61 being the direct result of CLIL teaching. Finally, Villoria et al. (2011) researched the effects of CLIL on L2 competence and, for this purpose, they designed an English test and an interview to measure the students’ competence in the four skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking). The authors found out significant differences in the general level of English both in primary and secondary education between bilingual and monolingual students in favour of the bilingual groups. Their results indicated that performance levels in the four skills were much higher in CLIL students in comparison to non-CLIL students, where the former significantly outperformed the latter in all skills. In spite of all the positive findings reported, the benefits of CLIL methodology have come into question. Several years after the implementation of the Plurilingualism Promotion Plan, Lorenzo et al. (2010) carried out a study to evaluate the benefits obtained so far in the CLIL programmes developed in the region of Andalusia in which they found out significant gains in favour of CLIL and astounding foreign language score differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups regarding language competence: “when the results of the linguistic evaluation had been compiled, it emerged that the CLIL learners were clearly outperforming their mainstream peers. Global average scores were 62.1 per cent for the bilingual groups in comparison with 38 per cent for the control groups” (Lorenzo et al., 2010: 426). Nevertheless, Bruton (2011a, 2011b) has recently questioned those figures in his review of different studies conducted on CLIL, thereby contributing to the controversy created around the benefits of CLIL teaching. In response to the findings by Lorenzo et al. (2010), he states that: “If the supposed language gain scores of the Lorenzo et al. (2010) results are to be believed, CLIL can result in quite spectacular relative FL learning gains, more than 20 per cent points over non-CLIL comparison groups, in a very short time, one and a half academic years” (Bruton, 2011a: 236). In this respect Bruton argues that their study as any study undertaken in CLIL has “serious limitations”. According to Bruton, there are normally certain factors in the context of CLIL research which definitely tip the scales in favour of CLIL students, for instance, they belong to a higher socio-economic status, they may well take extra English classes outside school, they are more motivated in the foreign language, and, more importantly, they tend to be of higher proficiency in the target language than their nonCLIL counterparts. For that reason, one of the objectives of this study is to research whether there is a significant difference in language proficiency between CLIL and non-CLIL students as Bruton (2011a) remarks, and whether language proficiency could be a decisive factor affecting the other variable of our study: the degree of lexical transfer produced by the students. 2.2. L1 Transfer The issue of language transfer has occupied researchers in the field of SLA for a long time and, as Alonso Alonso (2002: 86) states, it continues being the “tough nut to crack”. Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 62 Language transfer, as defined by Jarvis (2000: 252), is the result of “L1 influence which refers to any instance of learner data where a statistically significant correlation [...] is shown to exist between some feature of learners’ IL (interlanguage) performance and their L1 background”. L1 transfer has been studied under the influence of different factors such as language dominance (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Navés, Miralpeix & Celaya, 2005; Paradis, 2001), psychotypology3 (Cenoz, 2001; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2003), age (Celaya & Torras, 2001; Gost & Celaya, 2005; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2003; Navés et al., 2005), or level of proficiency (Cenoz, 2001; Navés et al., 2005; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994; Sanz, 2000; Woodall, 2002). Regarding the target language, research addressing this issue has shown that not all areas of language are equally prone to transfer. SLA studies carried out on language transfer have concluded that the area of the target language which tends to show an overwhelming predominance of L1 influence is lexis or vocabulary (Agustín Llach, 2010), generally known as lexical transfer. 2.2.1. Lexical transfer Lexical transfer is defined as “the influence of word knowledge in one language on a person’s knowledge or use of words in another language” (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008: 72). This type of transfer represents a picture of learners’ interlanguage and is a necessary and inevitable feature of foreign language learning (Agustín Llach, 2011: 66). Discussions on the topic have identified two types of lexical transfer in vocabulary: transfer of form and transfer of meaning (Ringbom, 2001). Transfer of form consists of borrowings and lexical inventions. Borrowings (also known as ‘complete language shift’) are defined as L1 words that are not tailored to the target language but simply inserted into L2 syntax (James, 1998), for example, *my sister is cocinera (English cook)4; whereas lexical inventions (or ‘relexification’) are, according to Dewaele (1998), lexemes which are morphophonologically adapted to the target language but which do not exist in that language such as *my favourite equip is Real Madrid (Spanish equipo, English team), *my city has over 60.000 habitants (Spanish habitantes, English inhabitants), or *my family is unic (Spanish única, English unique). Ringbom (2001) argues that borrowings and lexical inventions are the result of different types of L1 influence. A borrowing stems from a type of influence which works independently of the L2 system, while a lexical invention (or coinage for Ringbom) requires a higher degree of command of the L2. The third transfer-based error which belongs to the area of transfer of meaning is the calque or ‘literal translation’. This influence takes place when the learner literally translates a word or expression from the L1 into the L2, for instance, *my favourite subject is education physics (literal translation from Spanish educación física, English physical education) or *one building has four plants (Spanish planta, English floor). Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 63 2.2.2. Previous studies on lexical transfer in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts Nowadays lexical transfer is receiving increasing attention in bilingual settings such as the Basque Country or Catalonia5 (Spain), contexts in which CLIL has been progressively adopted to incorporate English as a third language. The main reason for this interest relies on the premise that one of the benefits of this teaching method is the decrease in L1 transfer observed in the written production of CLIL students (Agustín Llach, 2009; Celaya, 2008; Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). Recent studies comparing both approaches, i.e. CLIL teaching and regular foreign language classroom contexts, have posited that considerable differences exist in lexical transfer between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in favour of CLIL learners. In Catalonia, for example, Celaya (2008) compared the lexical transfer produced by two groups of CLIL learners in grade 5 and 7 with their non-CLIL peers and found that nonCLIL students use borrowings more frequently than CLIL students. In the case of lexical inventions, she obtained similar percentages for both groups. However, the analysis of the lexical transfer errors made by Celaya (2008) was limited to differences in raw numbers and percentages between both groups, without conducting statistical analysis to state whether those differences were significant or not. Similar findings were obtained by Celaya and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010) in a recent research undertaken in both bilingual contexts (Catalonia and the Basque Country) and by Agustín Llach (2009) in the Basque Country and La Rioja6. Celaya and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010) compared two groups of CLIL and non-CLIL students in grade 7 and 10 with regard to the production of borrowings and lexical inventions in a written composition. In this study, they found that non-CLIL learners produce more borrowings than CLIL learners, whereas the difference in lexical inventions is slight between both groups. As happened with Celaya (2008), Celaya and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010) did not perform any statistical analysis, reporting differences in raw numbers and percentages. Agustín Llach (2009) examined the lexical transfer errors produced by two groups of CLIL and non-CLIL female students in grade 6. Her findings also confirmed that non-CLIL learners transfer from their L1 more frequently than their CLIL counterparts when measured in three different categories: borrowings, lexical inventions, and calques. Thus, when describing the L1 transfer made by CLIL learners Agustín Llach (2009) observed that they tend to rely more on calques, secondly on lexical inventions, and finally on borrowings. Unlike Celaya (2008) and Celaya and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010), Agustín Llach conducted statistical analyses to determine any significant difference in the results obtained. These analyses confirmed that the difference in lexical transfer errors between both groups was significant. In terms of type of lexical transfer error, the difference was significant for borrowings, but not for lexical inventions and calques. Researchers on lexical transfer in the context of CLIL research have argued that these positive findings in favour of CLIL methodology lie in the fact that CLIL learners have a wider range of vocabulary in the target language (Celaya, 2006) and they are exposed to larger amounts of language, so they are expected to develop higher levels of language Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 64 proficiency and consequently to be less influenced by their mother tongue when writing in English (Agustín Llach, 2009). The main purpose of the present study is to investigate the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL students in terms of lexical transfer production in Andalusia, where we have identified a lack of research on this area. 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Based on the literature review, this study aims at giving an answer to the following research questions: I. Is there a difference in the number of lexical transfer errors (i.e. borrowings, lexical inventions and calques) between CLIL and non-CLIL students? II. Is level of proficiency in the target language a key factor influencing the difference in L1-influenced lexical errors between CLIL and non-CLIL students? 4. METHOD 4.1. Participants The total sample for the study consisted of 36 students (see Table 1) with 18 students in the CLIL group and other 18 students in the non-CLIL group. Both groups of students were aged 12.3, were in grade 7 (1st year of Compulsory Secondary Education) and attended the same secondary school in Andalusia. All subjects started learning English in grade 3 (3rd year of Primary Education), but due to the different teaching methods they had followed the two groups of students differed in the amount of exposure to the target language they had had. While the CLIL group, enrolled in CLIL programmes since grade 5 (5th year of Primary Education), had received 873 hours of instruction in English by the time of data collection, the non-CLIL group had had a total of 755 hours. In the CLIL group, apart from the weekly four hours of English class, learners received instruction of Science and Maths in English, and they also had an English lecturer one hour per week. None of the participants received extra English classes outside school at the time of data collection. Number of students Age Grade Hours of instruction CLIL group 18 12.3 7 873 Non-CLIL group 18 12.3 7 755 Table 1. Participants’ age, grade and hours of instruction in English Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 65 4.2. Instruments and procedure The data for the research were collected during regular classes. In class 1, a background questionnaire was given to students to collect data about personal information such as their age, their age of onset of second language learning, their motivation, and their own perception of their vocabulary in English (see Appendix 1). Students were reassured that this information was only to be known by the researcher and for that reason they were urged to fill in the questionnaire with total sincerity. Once they had completed the questionnaire, students were asked to write a composition in English about the topic given (‘Talk about yourself’, Appendix 2, similar to that used by Celaya, 2008; Celaya & Torras, 2001) and, for this purpose, they were given some guidance on the points they should deal with when writing, for instance, their family, their hobbies, their friends, their hometown or anything else they considered worth mentioning. The aim of this composition was to measure students’ lexical transfer production regarding borrowings, lexical inventions, and calques. Both groups of students had a maximum of 20 minutes to write about 60-80 words on the topic given and they were not allowed to ask questions or use dictionaries. Two days later we proceeded to administer the English Unlimited Placement Test7 (henceforth EUPT) to students, so that we could determine whether they had the same or different proficiency in the target language. This placement test contains 120 written multiple-choice questions, 20 at each level from Starter to Advanced (covering CEF levels A1 to C1). Here there are two examples of questions taken from the test: 16. Last night I _________ to the cinema. A) went B) did go C) was 27. Do you sell stamps? Yes, we do. How _________ do you want? A) any B) many C) much In this case, as we were dealing with seventh graders who were beginning their secondary education and, consequently, were thought to have a low command of English, subjects only had to complete the first 40 items of the test, which cover the levels going from Starter to Elementary (A1-A2). In order to measure their actual language proficiency, students were asked to leave those questions they did not know unanswered, preventing them from answering at random. For all cases (i.e. background questionnaire, written composition and placement test), students were given clear instructions in Spanish on what they had to do and how, thus ensuring that no misunderstanding would affect the data collection. Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 72 needs to address this issue in order to find further evidence that the difference between CLIL and non-CLIL students regarding lexical transfer is a direct consequence of the different type of language instruction received (i.e. CLIL vs. EFL) and not the result of the influence exerted by a few participants on the results. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Manuel Jiménez Raya and Dr. Cristóbal Lozano Pozo for their helpful insights and comments on this paper. NOTES 1. This region extends across the south of Spain with a population of over 8 million inhabitants. 2. See Roa et al. (2011) for more details on the distribution of participants into different groups according to their educational stage and school context. 3. According to Kellerman (1977, quoted in Agustín Llach, 2009: 113), learners tend to transfer those structures or lexical items they think to be transferable because of their similarity with structures in the target language. 4. The examples provided are taken from our data. These data have not been edited. 5. The Basque Country is a region situated in the north of Spain where Spanish and Basque are coofficial languages. Catalonia is in the north-east of Spain and the two co-official languages spoken in this community are Spanish and Catalan. In contrast to the Basque Country and Catalonia, Andalusia is a monolingual community. 6. La Rioja is a monolingual community in the north of Spain. It borders the Basque Country to the north. 7. Available at: <http://www.cambridge.org/gb/elt/catalogue/subject/project/custom/item6039738/ English-Unlimited-Placement-test/?site_locale=en_GB¤tSubjectID=382378> REFERENCES 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, 85101. 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. Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 73 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 natus in 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. Falces Sierra, M. M. Díaz Dueñas & J. M. Pérez Fernández (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th 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 Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (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 integrated learning: 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-inenglish.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, Asociación Española 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. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language (136-160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 74 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, 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? Crosslinguistic influence 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: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (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. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7-28. Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 75 APPENDIX 1: BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE Fill in this questionnaire: 1. Name:___________ (Write down only your initials) 2. Age: ____________ 3. Sex: _____________ 4. Mother tongue: ____________________ 5. When did you start studying English?: ________________ 6. Do you take extra English classes outside school?: ______________. If your answer is ‘yes’, how many hours a week do you take?: _______________ 7. Do you feel motivated to learn English?: Yes No 8. How would you define your vocabulary in English? (Choose one option) Excellent Good Fair Poor APPENDIX 2: WRITTEN COMPOSITION IN ENGLISH Name: ______________ (Write down only your initials) Time: 20 minutes Number of words: 60-80 words Write a composition in English on the following topic: ‘Talk about yourself’. Here there are some points you should comment on: -Describe yourself (i.e. physically, emotionally, etc.) -Your hobbies -Your family -Your friends -Your school, your hometown, etc. -And anything else you consider worth mentioning Borja Manzano Vázquez © Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 14 (2), 2014, pp. 57-76 Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 1989-6131 76 APPENDIX 3: DATA FROM CLIL AND NON-CLIL STUDENTS Students Group Borrowings Lexical inventions Calques Total number of lexical transfer errors Language proficiency in EUPT ADP CLIL 0 0 0 0 14 AFG CLIL 1 0 0 1 21 APP CLIL 0 0 0 0 21 CMV CLIL 0 0 0 0 20 CPM CLIL 0 0 0 0 17 DCZ CLIL 0 0 1 1 34 DHO CLIL 0 1 0 1 24 EMQ CLIL 0 1 1 2 33 GA CLIL 1 1 1 3 16 IMGG CLIL 1 0 0 1 20 JACM CLIL 0 1 1 2 17 LBA CLIL 0 0 1 1 23 MCJ CLIL 0 0 1 1 16 MGC CLIL 0 1 0 1 25 MRI CLIL 0 0 1 1 15 NMR CLIL 0 0 1 1 19 PCM CLIL 0 1 1 2 27 PRA CLIL 0 0 2 2 23 AFA Non-CLIL 0 1 0 1 16 AJS Non-CLIL 0 2 0 2 17 ALB Non-CLIL 0 1 0 1 21 EMM Non-CLIL 0 1 0 1 20 JMMF Non-CLIL 1 0 0 1 27 JRE Non-CLIL 0 1 1 2 19 LAP Non-CLIL 0 0 0 0 19 MAP Non-CLIL 1 1 0 2 21 MIC Non-CLIL 3 2 1 6 14 MRC Non-CLIL 0 1 1 2 22 NAG Non-CLIL 0 1 0 1 15 PAP Non-CLIL 0 2 0 2 15 PCM Non-CLIL 0 0 0 0 14 REG Non-CLIL 0 0 1 1 30 RLD Non-CLIL 5 0 1 6 17 SGM Non-CLIL 0 0 0 0 21 SSL Non-CLIL 1 1 0 2 18 VOG Non-CLIL 3 2 0 5 15