Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multilingual Education
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multilingual Education
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Prologue
- Acknowledgement
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Content and Language Integrated Learning:
- 9 Enhancing Language Awareness through CLIL
- 10 Reinterpreting CLIL in ‘Monolingual’ Japan
- 11 CLIL-Related Benefits for General EFL Proficiency
- 12 Positioning CLIL in the Polish Context
- 13 Discourse in CLIL
- 14 Preparing Teachers for CLIL
- 15 CLIL
- 16 Looking Back to Move Ahead
- Part III Teaching Academic Subjects through English Medium Instruction
- Part IV Dual Language Learning, Immersion Programmes, and Learner Agency
- Part V Heritage Language Education
- Part VI Minority Language Education
- Part VII A Critical Look at Multilingual Pedagogies
- Index
- References
13 - Discourse in CLIL
from Part II - Content and Language Integrated Learning:
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 December 2025
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multilingual Education
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multilingual Education
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Prologue
- Acknowledgement
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Content and Language Integrated Learning:
- 9 Enhancing Language Awareness through CLIL
- 10 Reinterpreting CLIL in ‘Monolingual’ Japan
- 11 CLIL-Related Benefits for General EFL Proficiency
- 12 Positioning CLIL in the Polish Context
- 13 Discourse in CLIL
- 14 Preparing Teachers for CLIL
- 15 CLIL
- 16 Looking Back to Move Ahead
- Part III Teaching Academic Subjects through English Medium Instruction
- Part IV Dual Language Learning, Immersion Programmes, and Learner Agency
- Part V Heritage Language Education
- Part VI Minority Language Education
- Part VII A Critical Look at Multilingual Pedagogies
- Index
- References
Summary
Making meaning and displaying knowledge in educational context is intricately linked with specific discourse patterns. Children and teenagers learn to ‘do school’ by learning to speak, write, listen, and read within the parameters of their school subjects. This chapter addresses the specific case of discourse in CLIL classrooms, where through the addition of a foreign language, mostly English, to the classroom discourse, a bilingual and biliterate context is created. The chapter outlines the range of research into CLIL discourse with a focus on subject-specific discourse patterns as an exemplification of the content and language integration in CLIL.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multilingual Education , pp. 229 - 247Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aikawa, H., Fukasawa, E., & Hemmi, C. (2021). The role of the essential question in eliciting critical thinking in CLIL classes at a Japanese university. InHemmi, C. & Banegas, D. I. (eds.), International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basse, R., & Pascual Peña, I. (2020). Does AfL promote discussion in CLIL classrooms? Exploring AfL techniques and their effect on classroom communication. In de Boer, M. & Leontjev, D. (eds.), Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Springer, pp. 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2020). Language related episodes and pair dynamics in primary school CLIL learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 3, 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2018). Integration of content and language pedagogies: CDFs in the CLIL history classroom. CELT Matters 2, 19–28.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school contexts: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 16(4), 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A. (2013). ‘Zip your lips’ or ‘Keep quiet’: Main teachers’ and language assistants’ classroom discourse in CLIL settings. The Modern Language Journal 97(3), 655–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2006). Questions as strategies to encourage speaking in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. In Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills. Mouton-deGruyter, pp. 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters, pp. 29–54.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Discourse analysis and CLIL. In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (eds.), Applied linguistic perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins, pp. 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive Discourse Functions meet historical competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7(1), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics 27(2), 241–267.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2008). Content and Language Integrated Learning an Österreichs HTL Forschungsbericht. University of Vienna/BMWKK.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (eds.) (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms, 1st ed. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., & Llinares, A. (2022). CLIL in the 21st century: Retrospective and prospective challenges and opportunities. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Learning 10(2), 182–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). An analysis of the use of cognitive discourse functions in English-medium history teaching at university. English for Specific Purposes 62, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2012). European Union High-Level Group of Experts on Literacy. Final Report. European Commission. 1–104.Google Scholar
Evnitskaya, N. (2019). Constructing cognitive discourse functions in secondary CLIL classrooms in Spain. In Tsuchiya, K. & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education 25(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, O. (2012). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In Celic, C. & Seltzer, K. (eds.), Translanguaging. CUNY-NYSIEB, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System 54, 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J. (2019). Occupying a new space: Oral language skills within the disciplines in English-Medium Instruction. In Loranc-Paszylk, B. (ed.), Rethinking directions in language learning and teaching at university level. Research-Publishing.net, pp. 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., & Rieder-Bünemann, A. (2010). A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives by children with CLIL and non-CLIL instruction. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins, pp. 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2018). Negotiating political positions: Subject-specific oral language use in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21(3), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakonen, T. (2015). Handling knowledge: Using classroom materials to construct and interpret information requests. Journal of Pragmatics 89, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakonen, T. & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics 36(1), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L. & Kasper, G. (2018). Clarification requests as a method of pursuing understanding in CLIL physics lectures. Classroom Discourse 9(3), 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2018). Explaining Hooke’s law: Definitional practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics 39(5), 694–717.Google Scholar
Kontio, J., & Sylvén, L. K. (2015). Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language integrated learning. Language Learning Journal 43(3), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2013). ‘To have your cake and eat it too’: Bridging pedagogies and multiplying medium of instruction models. Seminar delivered at the Hong Kong Association of Applied Linguistics (HAAL) Annual General Meeting, 13 October, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J. E., & Lin, A. M. Y (2021). (Re)conceptualising ‘language’ in CLIL: Multimodality, translanguaging and transsemiotizing in CLIL. AILA Review 34(2), 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2021). What is an ecosystem? Defining science in primary school CLIL contexts. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3(2), 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education 29(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A. (2013). CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins, pp. 125–144.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., Lin, A. M. Y., & Liu, Y. (2023). Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1810203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education 37, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Ávila, I. (2019). The development of cognitive academic language proficiency in multilingual education: Evidence of a longitudinal study on the language of history. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education 24(1), 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, A., & Whittaker, R. (2017). Genre and appraisal in CLIL history texts: Developing the voice of the historian. In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins, pp. 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 14(5), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL. In Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters, pp. 211–234.Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education 16(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2010). Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins, pp. 104–124.Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System 54, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2017). ‘What’s the moment thingy?’ On the emergence of subject-specific knowledge in CLIL classroom interaction. In Langman, J. & Hansen-Thomas, H. (eds.), Discourse analytic perspectives on STEM education. Springer, pp. 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(2), 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (eds.) (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, I., & Basse, R. (2017). Assessment for learning in CLIL classroom discourse. In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, Vol. 47. John Benjamins, pp. 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieder-Bünemann, A., Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2022). ‘Who would have thought that I’d ever know that!’ Subject-specific vocabulary in CLIL student interactions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25(9), 3184–3198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J., and Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis. Routledge, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Smit, U., & Finker, T. (2022). Topicalizing language in CLIL teaching at technical colleges. English for Specific Purposes 68, 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagnin, L., & Ní Ríordáin, M. (2021). Building science through questions in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education 8(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uribe, A., & Prediger, S. (2021). Students’ multilingual repertoires-in-use for meaning-making: Contrasting case studies in three multilingual constellations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 62, 100820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, S. (2022). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research 15(3), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features.
We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is
not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions,
please contact
accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.