VOLUMEN MONOGRÁFICO (2007), 27-38

THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF CLIL: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND

LANGUAGE CHANGE IN 21ST CENTURY EUROPE

FRANCISCO LORENZO
Universidad Pablo de Olavide

ABSTRACT. This paper focuses on the ways and the reasons that make CLIL a
unique approach in L2 teaching now. The main tenet of the article is that CLIL is not
just a new expression of educational bilingualism. The time when it has appeared, the
places where it has been adopted and the learning theory behind it turns CLIL into a
successful attempt at language and social change in 21st century Europe. The article
attempts to draw attention to the conception of language and language learning that
lies under the CLIL movement within the larger scope of 20th. c. theories of Second
Language Acquisition and Theoretical Linguistics. Finally, the article looks at CLIL as
a sociolinguistic venture: one that plans language change according to a clear ideology
of language that has been laid down for social change.
KEY WORDS: Language planning, European language policies, Content-based teaching, Bilingual Education.

1. INTRODUCTION
Changes in education as all attempts at social transformation are politically
dependent, language policy tells us. Immersion education was an attempt to promote
understanding in the charged debate of a linguistically divided Canada in the mid-sixties
(Blommaert 1999). Two way bilingual programs in the United States were partly a bid
to bring language diversity into schools in a diverse ethnical and cultural context (Brisk
1998; Faltis and Huddelsonn 1998). Both initiatives were fully responsive to the needs
perceived by society. Much in the same way, CLIL is something more than an
educational need. The European supranational state in the making since the mid
twentieth century has been built upon ideals like mobility, economic cohesion,
maintenance of cultural diversity and other principles that would be hard to make real
without efficient language learning schemes. It is in this regard that CLIL is a “European
solution to a European need” (Marsh 2002: 5).

27
 FRANCISCO LORENZO

As all approaches to language learning, CLIL has both overt and covert visions of
language. For CLIL, as for other contemporary movements such as Language Across the
Curriculum or Languages for Specific Purposes, discourse is the true dimension of
language use and sentence-bound linguistic theory is seen as limited in scope. Through
CLIL, the focus changes from language as a vehicle of culture to language as a means
of communication in academic settings. True communication prevails and with it
language programs that pursue cohesion, coherence and text completion as the natural
framework of language learning. That means that a functional systemic view of language
is fully compatible if not essential for CLIL language teaching programs.
A new vision of language called for a new vision of learning. CLIL is linked to
experiential views of second language acquisition and consequently a new methodology
of language teaching. In the nineties doubts had been cast on new methods being too
elusive tools as prisms to view classrooms and reflect on teaching quality. CLIL has
breathed new life into experiential methods like the task based approach and made them
more authentic. By combining meaningful activities and meaningful academic content,
authenticity has made itself present and students have found a reason to struggle with
new languages in the classroom.
What has been said above puts forward a vision of CLIL as an L2 approach that
grows out of a certain language epistemology: a vision of what language is and a vision
of how languages are learned. This should provide the foundations for a language change
of continental dimensions that rests ultimately upon an overall aim: shifting from a
monoglot to a multilingual ideology and sowing the seeds for a language change to
become real through education in Europe. The scope of the aspects mentioned –the
where (Europe), the what (language) and the how (learning)– will be seen in turn in the
following section.

2. EUROPE AS THEATRE OF OPERATION

Although relations between CLIL and bilingualism are intricate (see Muñoz, this
volume), CLIL is now a European label for bilingual education. It is hardly known
outside Europe and was hardly ever used –if at all– before the late nineties. However,
multilingual education has usually been present in the continent. Studies in the European
Sociology of Language show bilingual education as a permanent feature of educational
systems across the centuries (Braunnmüller and Ferraresi 2003; Burke 2004). Along the
20th c. Canadian, American and Israeli content-based programs using L2s and L3s as a
means of instruction had provided patterns for incorporating minority languages in
education (Cenoz and Jessner 2000; Cenoz and Genessee 2003). Another source for
multilingualism before CLIL came into existence was the multiple ad-hoc solutions for
efficient teaching of international languages in formal schooling that found inspiration
in bilingual education (see for an early and worthy instance, Scott-Tennent 1995; 1997).
For one reason or another, if not the norm, multilingual education has been rather

28
 THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF CLIL: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE CHANGE...

frequent in Europe. This being the case, there is nothing in CLIL that makes it brand-
new nor especially groundbreaking in the larger picture of multilingual education.
However, its scope and spread makes this approach noteworthy. It came as a fully
articulated response to the needs of the Council of Europe and the European Union.
Language policies in Europe are not old. On 15 April 1958 –some fifty years ago now–
the very first regulation of the Council of the European Community established French,
German, Italian and Dutch as the official languages. This level of multilingualism was
already labelled the language problem (Booker and North 2003: 109). Now, with 25
members that incorporate not only their respective state official languages but minority
and regional languages that try to find a place of their own and new domains of use in
education, the amount of languages has done nothing but escalate. Immigrant languages
have also claimed a right to be present at school (Extra and Yagmur 2004; Edwards 1998).
Multilingualism is seizing schools and the CLIL scheme has grown stronger as a solution.
CLIL as such is a broad concept, where languages of all sorts can be embraced. By using
them for the purpose of communication only, languages lose their overtones as culture-
bound artefacts, as expressions of some vision of the world or any other label Whorfian
folk theories one may want to attach to them. All languages are efficient as teaching tools
and all can fit into school schemes as languages of instruction, hence CLIL.
Incidentally CLIL also strives to be useful in some other way. The attested
inefficiency of language learning in many European contexts has been calling for an
overall solution. The demolinguistics of Europe have shown time and again that all
resources and school time invested in language learning have not delivered the goods in
many contexts. Eurobarometers (European Commission 2000; 2006) showed facts like
that less than half of students taking languages ended school with some competence and
–a less echoed conclusion– that if languages are not learnt at school, they are rarely
learnt later in life. That being the case, as an offshoot of bilingual teaching CLIL brought
better language education to the European arena.
It is against this backdrop that one can appreciate CLIL serving the purpose of the
new Europe in the making and for this reason it has had official support since its inception
as a new method. Council resolutions and official journal communications have swamped
European legislation since the early nineties (see for a selection of official statements,
Eurydice 2006). In them, CLIL is very often referred to as a response to multilingualism
at the same time that multilingualism is mentioned as being at the core of the European
project. To put it in the words of the recently appointed Commissioner Responsible for
Multilingualism, Orban (2007): “Multilingualism touches the very substance of European
identity, its values and challenges ahead: Integration, competitiveness, inclusiveness,
cohesion, mobility, transparency and democracy are intimately linked to multilingualism”.
What lies behind this proclamation is a number of key features that shape the
European ideology of languages. Insofar as CLIL stems from or at least is compatible
with such principles, CLIL is officially supported as the adequate approach to language
teaching. Via CLIL, it seems feasible to strengthen the three main pillars of European
language ideology:

29
 FRANCISCO LORENZO

– A European identity should surpass ethnical and national identities, traditionally

linked to national language use and national language competence. Accepted as
they are, these identities are thought insufficient for full participation in the
European scene. Multiple transnational identities are to be developed and this
should start with the accomplishment of the 1+2 principle, one stating that every
individual should add at least two new languages to their mother tongue. These
points have been clearly made both institutionally (Declaration of European
Identity of December 1973 in Copenhagen) and theoretically (Byram and Tost
1999; Lorenzo 2005). Multilingualism must be an early experience in life
providing a third socialization process that students go through at school
whereby they encounter different tongues in operation to the exclusion of no
languages and no participants.
– The ideal of a mutual search for understanding and a willingness to communicate
should preside over all European relations. Learners will try to make the most of
their partial language competences. Languages, even if not totally mastered, are
conduits for intercultural communication, a trait Europeans will have to develop
for full participation in Europe. The European craze for mobility demands that the
cooperative principle rules in all intercultural communication. If language learners
themselves, citizens will be more willing to surrender the privileges that using
one’s mother tongue brings in intercultural communication. Native speakers
should reject their roles as dominant speakers in communication and no
authenticity should be claimed nor language mystified on account of nativeness.
All these behaviours mean that attitudes to language learning and language use
should change and all archaising, reformist or xenophobic interpretations of
languages - the components of language purism - should go (see Lippi Green 1997;
Ager 2001). European leaders have always set their hopes on bilingual programs
building this mindset. The effects of bilingual schemes were thought to provide not
only the learning of other languages, but the inculcation of attitudes of mutual
understanding between the European nations historically at war. In fact, some of
the initial formulations of bilingual programs were conceived as a way to
overcome the breach between France and Germany following World War II.
– Although extreme language diversity can be costly to the point of being
economically impractical, zero language diversity policies are from an
economically standpoint similarly ill-advised. Studies in the Economy of
Language show that investment in language teaching involves a high rate of
return. Bilingual education, which usually amount to little more than an increase
of 5% of total education spending, is a wise move for economic reasons too.
European multilingualism is not just a way to ensure language diversity for
cultural reasons, it is a strategy that will produce important revenues, even more
if the Union envisages itself as a Knowledge Society (Grin 2002).

30
 THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF CLIL: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE CHANGE...

3. CLIL AND LINGUISTIC THEORY

Although institutional support has always been clear, one of the main strengths of
CLIL is that it has been a grassroots initiative. Innovation in education is normally
successful if top-down and bottom-up initiatives share the same goals in such a way that
teachers and decision makers coordinate their actions in the same direction (Markee
1997). If teachers cannot come to terms with decisions coming from above or find them
impractical, innovation is bound to fail. This does not seem to be the case with CLIL.
However, since many of the CLIL developments came from schools and actual
practitioners, doubts have arisen as to whether the CLIL approach was too pragmatic in
nature, a risk that could render the approach hollow from lack of theory.
Although some attempts have been made to link CLIL with linguistic theory, this
approach does not boast a theory of language of its own (see Van de Craen 2002). One,
however, could be clearly envisaged if considered side by side with another outcome of
the European Language initiatives emerging at the same time: the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). If both initiatives have had the backing
of institutions –the former as the recommended approach in compulsory language
education and the latter as the road-map of language learning, teaching and assessment–
the reason is that both of them share the same approach to what language and language
learning is.
This is less visible for CLIL, as it is normally the case that methods hardly ever
state their epistemology. However, when the CEFR had to take a stand on the general
view of language behind it, it put forward the following principles: language use is
action oriented and language users –including learners– social agents. More broadly
language was defined as follows (Council of Europe 2003:9):
Language use, embracing language learning, comprises actions performed by
persons who, as individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences,
both general and in particular communicative language competences. They draw
upon the competences at their disposal in various contexts under various conditions
and under various constraints to engage in language activities involving language
processes to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific domains
activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out their tasks
to be accomplished. The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the
reinforcement or modification of their competences.

Key aspects of language theory are to be found here: learners are agents and
therefore full members of the language community. They form a community of practice
in its own right. Communicative competences represent a layer that stands out from the
other linguistic levels. Furthermore, students’ lack of competence is not seen as an
absolute but as depending on constraints and contexts, i.e, students can do things through
their L2 however limited their L2 knowledge is, hence the can-do abilities lists.
Disinclined as the CEFR claims to be to choose among different methodological options,

31
 FRANCISCO LORENZO

language learning activities when mentioned are referred to as tasks, which might be
hinting if not clearly embracing a task-based approach. Last but no less crucial here is
that students interact with language as a means for text production and reception.
In short, the approach to language follows, in the most orthodox possible way, a
systemic functional approach to language, one that holds that language is a resource for
meaning rather than a system of rules (Halliday 1994). A whole tradition of linguistic
formalism collapses when confronted with this perspective on language, one which has
been going on for years but that had failed to be fully accepted in Europe. Much in the
same vein, the CLIL response to formalism is prompt and sharp: if explicit knowledge
of language rules is unnecessary for language acquisition, so are language experts. These
can be replaced by efficient language users who will stand in authority in the classroom
context for their expertise in subject area content.
The connection between SFL and CLIL (or content based teaching) is being
identified in a growing number of studies (Mohan and Beckett 2003; Mohan and Slater
2005; Dalton-Puffer and Nikula 2006a; Dalton-Puffer and Nikula 2006b). Among their
many contributions, they have revised classroom language to identify the following
main features:
– Classroom interaction in CLIL contexts is less concerned with well formedness
than with reconstructing meaning to the mutual satisfaction of speakers.
Language and content work in an intertwined manner, subject matters provide
food for thought and thoughts are instrumentalized through language –through
an L2.The role CLIL leaves for language– in the strictest Vygotskian tradition
–is to reflect on experience and to achieve understanding (see Jappinnen 2005).
The traditional debate in Applied Linguistics as to whether communication is the
cause or effect of L2 learning, has a clear answer in bilingual settings: it is
communicate to learn and not learn to communicate.
– Language items are not easily foreseeable in the CLIL classroom. Although
there are certain structures which are likely to come up for certain topics, these
are not sentence-bound elements but rather micro and macrofunctions consisting
of syntactic categories, stretches of discourse and rhetorical aspects. Studies
looking into the grammar of content-based approaches find that the language
items focused in content-based language courses pay only passing attention to
the morphology of the L2 or to the particular systems of the different parts of
speech (the auxiliary and negation system, the determiner system, the object
system, etc.) (Master 2000). It is on the syntactic and wider rhetorical levels that
structures are considered (fronting and adverbial phrases, embedded questions,
existential constructions, and so on). See however Muñoz (this volume) and
Pérez-Vidal (this volume).
– A language syllabus for CLIL classrooms will have to take as a reference, the
knowledge structures of academic contexts (hypothesizing, recasting, expressing
causes and effect, etc) and their discourse-semantic and lexicogrammatical

32
 THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF CLIL: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE CHANGE...

components. This means that conversational L2, which forms the basis for
mainstream functional courses, even in academic contexts, is thought to be
secondary. The academic language is the language to be learnt. Language
learning is bound to environments and classrooms as academic environments
determine that the language most likely to be learnt is of an academic nature. The
old debate between BICS and CALP rages here again. (see for a recent proposal
of academic language functions around which CLIL language syllabi could be
formed, Dalton-Puffer and Tikula 2006b)

4. CLIL AND LANGUAGE LEARNING THEORY

The theory that explicit language teaching is redundant and immaterial for
language learning calls for a theory of language acquisition that will presumably differ
from traditional focus on forms trends.
Language processing in bilingual settings has established that a distinguishing
feature unique to L2 acquisition in immersion education –CLIL included– is language
inhibition (Bialystok 2005; Gassner and Maillar 2006). By this, what is meant is a total
forgetting of language as a code and engagement in language use for the sake of having
things done with language, that is, for its instrumental use. Oblivious to the fact that the
language in use is constrained by their limited language resources, students struggle to
get their messages across. Their engagement in the communicative act is total,
participation high and communication more likely to be achieved. Such behaviours,
which are not unknown to cognitive psychology, have been used in language acquisition
studies to describe learners’ commitment in language use: attention is always on task,
more effort is deployed, there is an increase of persistence if difficulties arise and as a
result there is in-depth language processing. All these behaviours are known as flow - a
psycholinguistic umbrella category that encompasses cognitive features like high
activity levels with conative elements like positive attitudes to the language and strong
motivation (see Csikszentmihalyi 1996, for the original formulation and Schumann
1998, for an application to L2 learning).
This language processing mode is more typical in CLIL and other
(semi)immersion contexts than otherwise. Although descriptive studies abound, an
instance could help illustrate such language behaviour. A student in third grade aged
eight in a CLIL environment in the Spanish Educational System with less than a quarter
of his school time in English produced the following written utterances in school tasks
– In response to a question on how to keep eyesight and skin healthy in a Science
lesson on Healthy Living, the student wrote: “We should a daily bath and use
sunscreen. We shouldn’t spend to much time watching TV”.
– Months later, on the occasion of Father’s Day, the student wrote the following
dedication on the reverse of a cardboard bookmark that the English Arts and

33
 FRANCISCO LORENZO

Craft teacher had tasked students to produce and present their parents with: “This
for you because you have been a child and feeled the same that me now”.
The examples are no doubt faulty if judgement rests on accuracy only. In fact, such
is the level of accuracy inconsistency that the child appears to have intentionally broken
all the rules as they appear in language syllabi. In just one single line the student has
produced faulty copula + adverb structures, irregular verb forms and comparative
linkers. This happens in sheer contrast to the feeling of communicative completeness
that readers gain from the utterance produced.
The example above meant to exemplify that a CLIL theory of language learning
has to make sense of apparent imbalances in language competence: students can be
communicatively competent and grammatically inaccurate at one and the same time.
The answer is that a theory of L2 acquisition in CLIL contexts cannot be cognitive alone
but has to be social in nature. As seen above, language behaviour oozes sociolinguistic
normalcy: there is full attention to meaning and the disregard for form that characterizes
language use in non instructional settings (Preston 1989). Other typical features of
discourse interaction in authentic settings - fighting for talking time, overlappings - are
also featured in CLIL and other similar acquisition-rich environments (Dornyei 2001;
Leung 2005). It is this achievement behaviour that over time makes grammar grow.
Longitudinal immersion studies report that content-based teaching develops L2
grammar accuracy in all skills (production and reception) as measured by different test
types (cloze, composition and oral production tests) (Zuengler and Brinton 1997; Rodgers
2006). That being the case, a sociolinguistic theory of L2 acquisition in CLIL contexts
would rest on the following principles:
– Language forms can only be learnt within a powerful functional mapping.
Content and language learning are so closely intertwined that no line can be
drawn between content learning and language development. Subject area content
provides the cognitive schemata through which language makes sense. No
content learning, no language growth. (Zuengler and Brinton 1997).
– CLIL also takes a strong stand on the focus on form /focus on meaning debate
in SLA. Unsurprisingly, CLIL is almost exclusively focus on meaning oriented.
It is not that meaning goes first with respect to form learning, it is that without
meaning orientation a linguistic scaffolding interaction is impossible. For this
reason, form orientated language practice should be present in the slightest
possible form. Learning is basically incidental and although language awareness
is essential for the proper integration of language and content, typical language
awareness activities have little bearing with accuracy. No language practice is to
appear and no assessment is based on error only (Stoller 2004; Lorenzo 2007).
– A sociolinguistic theory of second language acquisition holds that it is message
delivery that triggers language use in natural settings. Attention to form is normally
related to power relations always present in language (see Kramsch 2002). CLIL
empowers students to use L2, face L2 difficulties and overcome them through

34
 THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF CLIL: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE CHANGE...

meaning negotiation. Finetuning L2 input will be necessary for success in

language use but this does not demand attention to forms - much in the same way
as it does not exist in motherese or any other natural language use environment
(Lorenzo forthcoming). A new insight that CLIL brings to the grammar as power
debate is that in second language classrooms focus on forms may have not as its
raison d’etre being a better instrumental element for L2 learning.

5. CONCLUSION
Bilingual education is not a disinterested attempt at educational renovation. Apart
from the technicalities it no doubt implies like curricular change, new teaching
procedures, different task types, it is ultimately ingrained in the values and aspirations
that society sets for itself. CLIL is bilingual education at a time when teaching through
one single language is seen as second rate education. CLIL has provided the
methodological turn required, bringing new expectations to language policies that asked
for responses. In a way, CLIL at the turn of the century may be compared to the
communicative revolution in language teaching in the 1970’s. If the European initiative
that resulted in Wilkin’s Notional Syllabuses brought life to language education, the
CLIL move may bring authenticity by using languages for the instrumental uses they are
most appreciated for in an academic context: learning subject area content. This is in
exact alignment with a new European language ideology: one that highlights the
instrumental values of tongues as a means to succeed in intercultural communication
even with partial language competences, and to develop multiple identities.

REFERENCES
Ager, D. 2001. Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Bialystok, E. 2005. Consequences of Bilingualism for Cognitive Development. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Blommaert, J., ed. 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisk, M. E. 1998. Bilingual Education. From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Braunnmüller, K. and G. Ferraresi, eds. 2003. Aspects of Multilingualism in European
Language History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Booker, C. and R. North. 2005. The Great Deception: Can the EU Survive? London:
Continuum.
Burke, P. 2004. Language and Communication in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. and M. Tost, eds., 1999. Social Identity and European Dimension. Graz:
European Center for Modern Languages.

35
 FRANCISCO LORENZO

Cenoz, J. and F. Genesee, eds. 2001. Trends in Bilingual Acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Cenoz, J. and U. Jessner, eds. 2000 English in Europe. The Acquisition of a Third
Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. 2003. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dalton-Puffer, C. and T. Nikula. 2006. “Pragmatics and Content-based Instruction:
Teacher and Student Directives in Finnish and Austrian Classrooms”. Applied
Linguistics 27: 244-266.
Dalton-Puffer, C. and T. Nikula, eds. 2006. Current Research on CLIL. Views 15.
European Commission. 2000. Eurobarometer 54.2 LAN: Special Survey on Languages.
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commisssion. 2006. Eurobarometer. Europeans and their languages.
Brussels: European Commission.
Eurydice. 2006. Content and Language at Schools in Europe. Brussels: European
Commission.
Edwards, V. 1998. The Power of Babel: Teaching and Learning in Multilingual
Classrooms. London: Trentham Books.
Extra, G. and K. Yagmur, eds. 2004. Urban Multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant
Minority Languages at Home and School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Faltis, C. H. and S. J. Hudelson. 1998. Bilingual Education in Elementary and
Secondary School Communities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gassner, D. and D. Maillar. 2006. “Spoken competence in CLIL”. Current Research on
CLIL. Eds. C. Dalton-Puffer and T. Nikula. Views, 15, Special Number. 15-23.
Grin, F. 2002. Using Language Economics and Education Economics in Language
Education Policy. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Council of Europe.
Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Jäppinen, A. 2005. “Thinking and Content Learning of Mathematics and Science as
Cognitional Development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL):
Teaching Through a Foreign Language in Finland”. Language and Education, 19:
147-169.
Kramsch, C. 2002. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological
Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Leung, C. 2005. “Language and content in bilingual education” Linguistics and
Education, 16: 238-252.
Lippi-Green, R. 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination
in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Lorenzo, F. 2005. “Políticas lingüísticas europeas: Claves de la planificación y apren-
dizaje de lenguas en la UE”. Cultura y Educación 17: 253-263.

36
 THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF CLIL: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE CHANGE...

Lorenzo, F. 2006. “The interface of language and content in CLIL Courses. Implications
for curriculum organization in a European context”. Diverse contexts - Converging
Goals: CLIL in Europe. Eds. D. Marsh and D. Wolff. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 261-271.
Lorenzo, F. 2007. “An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content-based
courses”. Language and Education 21: 502-513.
Lorenzo, F. (forthcoming). “Instructional discourse in bilingual settings . An emprirical
study of linguistic adjustments in Content and Language Integrated Learning”.
Language Learning Journal.
Markee, N. 1997. Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marsh, D. 2002. Content and Language Integrated Learning. The European Dimension.
Jyvaskyla: University of Jyväskyla Press.
Marsh, D. and D. Wolff. 2006. Diverse contexts - Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang
Master, P. 2000. “Grammar in content-based instruction”. Content-based college ESL
instruction. Ed. L. F. Kasper Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 93-106.
Mohan, B. and G. Beckett. 2003. “A Functional Approach to Research on Content-
Based Language Learning: Recasts in Causal Explanations”. The Modern
Language Journal 87: 421-432.
Mohan, B and T. Slater. 2005. “A functional perspective on the critical ‘theory/practice’
relation in teaching language and science”. Linguistics and Education 16: 151-172.
Orban, L. 2007. “Issues relating to interpreting and translation” Speech made at the 4th
Meeting of the High Level Group on Multiligualism. Brussels, 2 February 2007.
Preston, D. 1989. Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Rodgers, D. M. 2006. “Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian
content-based instruction”. Modern Language Journal 90: 373-386.
Scott-Tennent, C. 1995. “Estudio empírico de procesos de lengua extranjera mediante
contenidos (no lingüísticos) en la Enseñanza Secundaria”. Revista Española de
Lingüística Aplicada 10: 251-261.
Scott-Tennent, C. 1997. “Bases psicológicas y lingüísticas para la adquisición de lenguas
extranjeras mediante el estudio de contenidos no lingüísticos en la ESO”. Estudios
de Lingüística Aplicada. Eds. J. L. Otal, I. Fortanet and V. Codina. Castellón:
Universidad Jaume I. 153-158.
Schumann, J. H. 1998. The Neurobiology of Affect in Language. Language Learning 48
Supplement 1.
Stoller, F. L. 2004. “Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning”.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 261-283.
Van de Craen, P. 2002. “Content- and language-integrated learning, culture of education
and learning theories”. Reflections on Language and Language Learning. Eds. M.
Bax and Z. Jan-Wouter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209-220.

37
 FRANCISCO LORENZO

Zuengler, J. and D. M. Brinton. 1997. “Linguistic form, pragmatic function: Relevant

research from content-based instruction”. The content-based classroom:
Perspectives on integrating language and content. Eds. M. A. Snow and D. M.
Brinton. White Plains: Longman. 263-273.

38