A construct of cognitive discourse functions for

conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and

multilingual education1
Christiane Dalton-Puffer
Published Online: 2013-11-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011

Abstract

School-level learners who study curricular content in a language that is not their first require active
support in their development of academic language, ideally in conjunction with working on said content.
However, content teachers naturally orient towards the learning goals formulated for their respective
subjects, while language teachers do not routinely consider them. This situation could be resolved if a
zone of convergence between content and language pedagogies could be established. In this paper I
argue that cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) constitute such a zone of convergence as the cognitive
processes involving subject-specific facts, concepts and categories are verbalized in recurring and
patterned ways during the event of co-creating knowledge in the classroom. While numerous publications
make reference to such discourse functions, no coherent and theoretically explicit model of CDFs exists
to date. The main purpose of this paper is, therefore, to introduce such a model that is theoretically
explicit and conceptually anchored in both education and linguistics. Initial evidence for the empirical
grounding of the construct is presented and suggestions are made for the further elaboration,
consolidation and use of the CDF Construct introduced in this article.

Keywords: cognitive discourse functions,; academic language functions,; CLIL,; second-language

learners in the mainstream,; classroom discourse,; content pedagogies,; language
pedagogies,; academic language.

7 References

 Lyster, Roy. 1998. Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit error correction in relation to error
types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning48, 183–199.Google Scholar
 Thürmann, Eike & Johannes Helmut Vollmer. 2012. Schulsprache und sprachsensibler
Fachunterricht: Eine Checkliste mit Erläuterungen. In: Röhner, C. & Hövelbrinks B. (eds.) Fachbezogene
Sprachförderung in Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Weinheim: Juventa Beltz, 212–232.Google Scholar
 Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken
discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
 Ahrenholz, Bernt (ed.). 2010. Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Tübingen:
Narr.Google Scholar
 Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London:
Longman.Google Scholar
 Alvermann, Donna E., David G. O’Brien & Deborah R. Dillon. 1990. What teachers do when they
say they’re having discussions of content area reading assignments: A qualitative analysis. Reading
Research Quarterly 25(4). 296–322.Google Scholar
 Ammon, Ulrich. 1972. Dialekt, soziale Ungleichheit und Schule. Weinheim & Basel:
Beltz.Google Scholar
 Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl (eds.), Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank,
Richard, E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths & Merlin C. Wittrock. 2001. A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.Google Scholar
 Anstrom, K., P. DiCerbo, F. Butler, A. Katz, J. Millet & C. Rivera. 2010. A review of the literature
on academic language: Implications for K–12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: George
Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
 August, Diane & Timothy Shanahan (eds.). 2006. Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ,
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
 Badertscher, Hans & Thomas Bieri. 2009. Wissenserwerb im Content and Language Integrated
Learning. Bern, Stuttgart & Wien: Haupt.Google Scholar
 Bailey, Alison L. 2007. Introduction: Teaching and assessing students learning English in school.
In Alison L. Bailey (ed.), Language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
 Bailey, Alison L., & Frances A. Butler. 2003. An evidentiary framework for operationalizing
academic language for broad application to K-12 education: A design document. Los Angeles: CSE
Technical Report 611. University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards,
and Student Testing (CRESST). http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R611.pdf (accessed
20 February 2013).
 Bailey, Alison L., Frances A. Butler & Edynn Sato. 2007. Standards-to-standards linkage under
title III: Exploring common language demands in ELD and science standards. Applied Measurement in
Education 20(1). 53–78.Google Scholar
 Bailey, Alison L., Frances A. Butler, M. Borrego, Charmien LaFramenta & Christine Ong. 2002.
Towards the characterization of academic language in upper elementary classrooms. Language Testing
Update 31. 45–52.Google Scholar
 Bailey, Alison L., Frances. A. Butler, Charmien LaFramenta, & Christine Ong. 2001. Towards the
characterization of academic language in upper elementary classrooms (Final Deliverable to
OERI/OBEMLA, Contract No. R305B960002). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
 Bailey, Alison. L. (ed.). 2007. The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the
test. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
 Baker, Colin. 1993. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.Google Scholar
 Barnes, Douglas. 1992 [1976]. From communication to curriculum, 2nd edn. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.Google Scholar
 Beacco, Jean-Claude, Daniel Coste, Piet-Hein van de Ven & Helmut Vollmer 2010. Language
and school subjects. Linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school curricula. Language Policy
Division. Directorate of Education and Languages, DGIV. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/LangEduc/BoxD2-OtherSub_en.asp#s1_1 (accessed
15 April 2013).
 Beacco, Jean-Claude. 2010. Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of
schooling necessary for learning/teaching history (end of obligatory education). An approach with
reference points. Language and school subjects: Linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school
curricula N° 1. Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and Languages, DGIV. Council of
Europe, Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/LangEduc/BoxD2-
OtherSub_en.asp (accessed15 April 2013).
 Beacco, Jean-Claude, Martin Sachse, Arild Thorbjørnsen & Werner Wiater. 2007. A descriptive
framework for communicative/linguistic competences involved in the teaching and learning of history.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Language Policy Division.Google Scholar
 Becker-Mrotzek, Michael, Karen Schramm, Eike Thürmann, Johannes H. Vollmer (eds.) 2013.
Sprache im Fach. Sprachlichkeit und fachliches Lernen. Münster etc.: Waxmann.Google Scholar
 Bernstein, Basil. 1971. Class, code and control: Volume  1 – Theoretical studies towards a
sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
 Bernstein, Basil. 1975. Class, code and control: Volume  3 – Towards a theory of educational
transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
 Bernstein, Basil. 1996. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor &
Francis.Google Scholar
 Bertschi-Kaufmann, Andrea & Cornelia Rosebrock (eds.). 2009. Literalität: Bildungsaufgabe und
Forschungsfeld. Weinheim, München: Juventa.Google Scholar
 Biggs, John & Catherine Tang. 2011. Teaching for quality learning at university, 4th edn. London:
Open University Press McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
 Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
 Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publications.Google Scholar
 Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Verlag von Gustav
Fischer: Jena.Google Scholar
 Bunch, George. 2006. “Academic English’’ in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens, expanding
access. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(4). 284–301.Google Scholar
 Bunch, George. 2009. “Going up there”: Challenges and opportunities for language minority
students during a mainstream classroom speech event (student presentation). Linguistics and
Education 20. 81–108.Google Scholar
 Chamot, Anna U. & J. M. O’Malley. 1994. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
 Christie, Frances, & Beverly Derewianka. 2008. School discourse: Learning to write across the
years of schooling. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
 Christie, Frances. 2002. Classroom discourse analysis. A functional perspective. London:
Continuum.Google Scholar
 Cline, Tony & Nora Frederickson. 1996. A model of curriculum-related assessment. In Tony Cline
& Nora Frederickson (eds.), Curriculum related assessment, Cummins and bilingual children, 2–22.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
 Coetzee-Lachmann, Debbie. 2007. Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual
geography learners: Analysing aspects of subject-specific written discourse. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Osnabrück. http://repositorium.uni-osnabrueck.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-
2009030617/2/E-Diss864_thesis.pdf
 Coffin, Caroline. 2006. Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London:
Continuum.Google Scholar
 Coyle, Do, Philip Hood & David Marsh. 2010. CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
 Coyle, Do. 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.Google Scholar
 Creese, Angela. 2002. The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language
and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly36(4). 597–616.Google Scholar
 Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
 Cummins, Jim & E. Y.-F. Man. 2007. Academic language: What is it and how do we acquire it?.
In Jim Cummins & Chris Davison (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, vol. 2,
797–810. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
 Cummins, Jim. 1992. Language proficiency, bilingualism and academic achievement. In Patricia
A. Richards-Amato & Marguerite A. Snow (eds.), The multicultural classroom. New York:
Longman.Google Scholar
 Cummins, Jim. 2000. Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
 D’Andrade, Roy. 1987. A folk model of the mind. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn
(eds.), Cultural models in language and thought, 112–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
 Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Julia Hüttner, Silvia Jexenflicker, Veronika Schindelegger & Ute Smit.
2008. Content and language integrated learning an Österreichs Höheren Technischen Lehranstalten.
Forschungsbericht. Vienna, Austria: Universität Wien & Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und
Kultur.Google Scholar
 Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2007a. Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
 Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2007b. Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In David
Marsh & Dieter Wolff (eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals, 201–210. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter
Lang.Google Scholar
 Davison, Chris & Alan Williams. 2001. Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In
Bernard Mohan, Constant Leung & Chris Davison (eds.), English as a second language in the
mainstream. Teaching, learning and identity, 51–70. Harlow etc.: Longman.Google Scholar
 Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion?. In
Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion.
Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, 43–66.
Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung .Google Scholar
 Ehlich, Konrad & Jochen Rehbein. 1979. Sprachliche Handlungsmuster. In H.-G. Soeffner
(ed.), Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften, 243–275. Stuttgart:
Metzler.Google Scholar
 Ehlich, Konrad & Jochen Rehbein. 1986. Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen
Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
 Ehlich, Konrad. 1991. Funktional-pragmatische Kommunikationsanalyse. In Dieter Flader
(ed.), Verbale Interaktion. Studien zur Empirie und Methodologie der Pragmatik, 127–143. Stuttgart:
Metzler.Google Scholar
 Ernst-Slavit, Gisela and Michele R. Mason. 2011. “Words that hold us up:” Teacher talk and
academic language in five upper elementary classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 22/4, 430–
440.Google Scholar
 Evnitskaya, Natalia. 2012. Talking science in a second language: The interactional co-
construction of dialogic explanations in the CLIL science classroom. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
 Gee, John Paul. 2008. Social linguistics and literacies. Ideology in discourses, 3rd edn. London &
New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
 Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. Introduction. A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In: Dirk Geeraerts
(ed.) Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 1–28. Berlin etc.: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
 Gentner, Dedre & Susan Golding-Meadow (eds.). 2003. Language in mind: Advances in the
study of language and thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
 Gibbons, Pauline. 1998. Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second
language. Language and Education 12(2). 99–118.Google Scholar
 Gibbons, Pauline. 2006.  Bridging discourses in ESL. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
 Gläser, Rosemarie. 1990. Fachtextsorten im Englischen. Tübingen: Gunther Narr
Verlag.Google Scholar
 Gogolin, Ingrid, Imke Lange, Ute Michel & Hans H. Reich (eds.). 2012. Herausforderung
Bildungssprache. Münster, New York: Waxmann-Verlag.Google Scholar
 Gogolin, Ingrid. 2008. Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster:
Waxmann.Google Scholar
 Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
 Gumperz, John & Stephen Levinson (eds.). 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge
University Press.Google Scholar
 Habermas, Jürgen 1971. Vorbereitende Bemerkung zur Kommunikativen Kompetenz. In Jürgen
Habermas & Niklas Luhman (eds.), Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, 102–141. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
 Halbach, Ana. 2012. Questions about basic interpersonal communication skills and cognitive
language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 33(5). 608–613.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
 Halldén, Ola. 1998. Personalization in historical descriptions and explanations. Learning and
Instruction 8(2). 131–139.Google Scholar
 Halliday, Michael A. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.
Critical perspectives on literacy and education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
 Halliday, Michael A.K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional
grammar, 3rd edn. London, UK: Arnold.Google Scholar
 Halliday, Michael A.K. 2006. Studies in Chinese Language. (edited by Jonathan J. Webster. The
seventh volume of a series of the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday). London/New York:
Continuum.Google Scholar
 Halliday, Michael A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London:
Arnold.Google Scholar
 Halliday, Michael A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward
Arnold.Google Scholar
 Halliday, Michael A.K. 1993. Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and
Education 5. 93–116.Google Scholar
 Heine, Lena. forthc. 2014. Models of the bilingual lexicon and their theoretical implications for
CLIL. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Tarja Nikula (eds.). Language Learning Journal 42(3) [Special
Issue].Google Scholar
 Hoffmann, Lothar. 1988. Vom Fachwort zum Fachtext. Beiträge zur angewandten Linguistik.
Tübingen: Gunther Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
 Holland, Dorothy & Naomi Quinn. 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Hornberger, Nancy. 1989. Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research 59(3). 271–
296.Google Scholar
 Hornberger, Nancy. 2001. Educational linguistics as a field: A view from Penn’s program on the
occasion of its 25th anniversary. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 17(1&2). 1–
26.Google Scholar
 Hult, Francis. 2008. The history and development of educational linguistics. In Bernard Spolsky &
Francis Hult (eds.), Handbook of Educational Linguistics, 10–24. Malden, Mass., & Oxford:
Blackwell.Google Scholar
 Hüttner, Julia, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Ute Smit. 2013. The power of beliefs: Lay theories and
their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 16(3). 267--284.Google Scholar
 Hymes, Dell 1972. On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes
(eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
 Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
 Hymes, Dell. 1992. The concept of communicative competence revisited. In M. Pütz (ed.), Thirty
years of linguistic evolution: Studies in honour of Rene Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 31–
57. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
 Jakobson, Roman. 1980. Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In Roman Jakobson. The
framework of language., 81–92. Ann Arbor: Michigan Studies in the Humanities.Google Scholar
 Johns, Ann M. 1997. Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Kidd, Richard. 1996. Teaching academic language functions at the secondary level. Canadian
Modern Language Review 52. 285–307.Google Scholar
 Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit
und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgebrauch. Romanistisches
Jahrbuch 36. 15–43.Google Scholar
 Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2007. Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für
germanistische Linguistik 35. 346–375.Google Scholar
 Kramer-Dahl, Anneliese, Peter Teo & Alexander Chia. 2007. Supporting knowledge construction
and literate talk in secondary social studies. Linguistics and Education 18. 167–199.Google Scholar
 Krathwohl, David, Benjamin S. Bloom, & B.B. Masia. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives:
Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay CoGoogle Scholar
 Krathwohl, David. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice 41(4),
212–218.Google Scholar
 Lackner, Martin. 2012. The use of subject-related discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL
history classes. Vienna: University of Vienna MA thesis.Google Scholar
 Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143--
188.Google Scholar
 Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
 Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.Google Scholar
 Leung, Constant. 1996. Context, content and language. In Tony Cline & Nora Frederickson
(eds.), Curriculum related assessment, Cummins and bilingual children, 26–40. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.Google Scholar
 Linneweber-Lammerskitten, Helmut. 2010. Items for a description of linguistic competence in the
language of schooling necessary for learning/teaching mathematics (in secondary education). An
approach with reference points. Language and school subjects: Linguistic dimensions of knowledge
building in school curricula N° 4. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and
Languages, DGIV. Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/LangEduc/BoxD2-
OtherSub_en.asp (accessed15 April 2013).
 Llinares, Ana & Tom Morton. 2010. Historical explanations as situated practice in content and
language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse 1(1). 46–65.Google Scholar
 Lochtmann, Katja. 2007. Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen
Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Ute Smit (eds.), Empirical
perspectives on CLIL classrooms, 119–138. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.Google Scholar
 Lose, Jana. 2007. The language of scientific discourse: Ergebnisse einer empirisch-deskriptiven
Interaktionsanalyse zur Verwendung fachbezogener Diskursfunktionen im bilingualen Biologieunterricht.
In Daniela Caspari, Wolfgang Hallet, Anke Wegner & Wolfgang Zydatiß (eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht
macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung, 97–107. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
 Lyster, Roy & Leila Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19. 37–66.Google Scholar
 Lyster, Roy. 1998. Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit error correction in relation to error
types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning48. 183–199.Google Scholar
 Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced
approach. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
 Mård-Miettinen, Karita. 2008. Lärarens roll i elevernas grupparbete [Teachers’ role in student
groupwork]. In Mona Enell-Nilsson & Tiina Männikkö (eds.) VAKKI Symposium XXVIII “Language and
Diversity”. University of Vaasa. http://www.vakki.net/publications/2008/VAKKI2008_Mard-
Miettinen.pdf (29 January 2013).
 Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse. Meaning beyond the clause.
London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
 Martin, James R. 1993. Genre and literacy – modeling context in educational linguistics. In
William Grabe (ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (Issues in second language teaching and
learning), 141–172. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Martin, James R. 2002. Writing history: Construing time and value in discourses of the past. In
Cecilia Colombi & Mary Schleppegrell (eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second
Languages, 87–118. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
 Mehisto, Peeter, David Marsh & Maria Jesus Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLIL.  Content and
Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: MacMillan.Google Scholar
 Mercer, Neil & Karen Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A
sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
 Mercer, Neil & Lyn Dawes. 2008. The value of exploratory talk. In Neil Mercer & Steve
Hodgkinson (eds.), Exploring Talk in School, Chapter 4. London: Sage.Google Scholar
 Mercer, Neil. 2000. Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London:
Routledge.Google Scholar
 Mohan, Bernard, Constant Leung & Chris Davison (eds.). 2001. English as a Second Language
in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
 Mohan, Bernard. 1986. Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.Google Scholar
 Morton, Tom. 2010. Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL:
The example of secondary history. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds.), Language
use and language learning in CLIL classrooms, 81–104. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
 Nation, I.S. Paul. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Google Scholar
 Nuyts, Jan & Eric Pedersen (eds.). 1997. Language and conceptualization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 OECD. 2004. Lifelong Learning Policy Brief. http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-
school/29478789.pdf (accessed 24 July 2013)
 Oevermann, Ulrich. 1972. Sprache und soziale Herkunft. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse
schichtenspezifischer Sozialisationsprozesse und ihrer Bedeutung für den Schulerfolg. Frankfurt am
Main: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
 Pieper, Irene. 2010. Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling
necessary for learning/teaching literature (end of compulsory education) An approach with reference
points. Language and school subjects: Linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school curricula N°
3. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and Languages, DGIV. Council of
Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/LangEduc/BoxD2-OtherSub_en.asp (accessed15 April 2013)
 Portmann-Tselikas, Paul R. & Sabine Schmölzer-Eibinger. 2008. Textkompetenz Fremdsprache
Deutsch. Zeitschrift für die Praxis des Deutschunterrichts 39. 5–16.Google Scholar
 Rehbein, Jochen. 1977. Komplexes Handeln. Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache.
Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
 Rehbein, Jochen. 1984. Beschreiben, Berichten und Erzählen. In Konrad Ehlich, Erzählen in der
Schule, 87–124. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
 Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of
categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573–605.Google Scholar
 Schleppegrell, Mary & Catherine L. O’Hallaron. 2011. Teaching academic language in L2
secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 3–18.Google Scholar
 Schleppegrell, Mary & Luciana C. de Oliveira. 2006. An integrated language and content
approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes5(4). 254–268.Google Scholar
 Schleppegrell, Mary. 2001. Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and
Education 12(4). 431–459.Google Scholar
 Schleppegrell, Mary. 2004. The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New
York: Routledge.Google Scholar
 Schmidt, Wilhelm (ed.). 1981. Funktional-kommunikative Sprachbeschreibung. Leipzig:
Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
 Schmölzer-Eibinger, Sabine. 2008. Lernen in der Zweitsprache. Grundlagen und Verfahren der
Förderung von Textkompetenz in mehrsprachigen Klassen.Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
 Schuitemaker-King, Jennifer. 2012. Teachers’ strategies in providing opportunities for second
language development. Groningen: University of Groningen PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
 Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Short, Deborah. 1994. Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and
social studies. TESOL Quarterly 28(3). 581–608.Google Scholar
 Skinnari, Kristiina. In progress. The professional identities of CLIL teachers in four European
contexts. (working title). CONCLIL Project. University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
 Smit, Ute. 2010. CLIL in an English as a lingua franca classroom: On explaining terms
interactively. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit (eds.), Language use and language
learning in CLIL classrooms, 259–277. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
 Suhor, Charles. 1984. Thinking skills in English and across the curriculum. ERIC Digest. ERIC
Clearing House on Reading and Communication Skills. Urbana IL, ERIC No.ED 250 693.Google Scholar
 Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
 Thürmann, Eike & Johannes Helmut Vollmer. 2013. Schulsprache und sprachsensibler
Fachunterricht: Eine Checkliste mit Erläuterungen. In Charlotte Röhner & Britta Hövelbrinks
(eds.), Fachbezogene Sprachförderung in Deutsch als Zweitsprache, 212–232. Weinheim: Juventa
Beltz.Google Scholar
 Trimble, Louis. 1985. English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Uccelli, Paola & Catherine Snow. 2008. A research agenda for educational linguistics. In
Bernhard Spolsky & Francis Hult (eds.), Handbook of Educational Linguistics, 626–642. Malden, Mass., &
Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
 Unsworth, Len (ed.). 2000. Researching language in schools and communities. Functional
Linguistic perspectives. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
 Veel, Robert & Caroline Coffin. 1996. Learning to think like an historian: The language of
secondary school history. In Hasan Ryqaiya & Geoff Williams (eds.). Literacy in society. Applied
Linguistics and Language Study, 191–231. London: Longman.Google Scholar
 Vollmer, Helmut Johannes. 2011. Schulsprachliche Kompetenzen: zentrale
Diskursfunktionen. http://www.home.uni-osnabrueck.de/hvollmer/VollmerDF-Kurzdefinitionen.pdf (access
ed 20 February 2013).
 Vollmer, Johannes Helmut 2010. Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language
of schooling necessary for learning/teaching sciences (at the end of compulsory education) An approach
with reference points. Language and school subjects: Linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in
school curricula N° 2. Document prepared for the Policy Forum The right of learners to quality and equity
in education – The role of linguistic and intercultural competences Geneva, Switzerland, 2–4 November.
Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and Languages, DGIV. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/LangEduc/BoxD2-OtherSub_en.asp (accessed15 April
2013)
 Vollmer, Johannes Helmut. 2012. Fachliche Diskursfähigkeit bei bilingualen und monolingualen
Geographielernern. In Horst Bayerhuber, Ute Harms, Bernhard Muszynski, Bernd Ralle, Martin
Rothgangel, Lutz-Helmut Schön, Helmut J. Vollmer & Hans-Georg Weigand (eds.), Formate
Fachdidaktischer Forschung, 85–107. Münster: WaxmannGoogle Scholar
 Wallace, Catherine. 2002. Local literacies and global literacy. In David Block & Deborah Cameron
(eds.), Globalization and language teaching, 101–114. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
 Walqui, Aida & Leo van Lier. 2010. Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English
language learners. San Francisco: WestEd.Google Scholar
 Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Wells, Gordon. 2009. The meaning makers: Learning to talk and talking to learn, 2nd edn. Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
 Widdowson, Henry G. 1983. Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
 Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations.Google Scholar
 Zwiers, Jeff. 2008. Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms,
grades 5–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Teacher.Google Scholar
 Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 2010. Parameter einer bilingualen Diaktik für das integrierte Sach-
Sprachlernen im Fachunterricht: die CLIL Perspektive. In Bernt Ahrenholz (ed.), Fachunterricht und
Deutsch als Zweitsprache, 133–152. Tuebingen: Narr.Google Scholar