Cited by 76Second Language Learning and TeachingMultilingual Education and PolicyEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Speaking English in Finnish content‐based classrooms

NIKULA, TARJA·2007·World Englishes

Abstract

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is a term widely used in Europe to refer to different forms of content based education, often conducted in English. Earlier research on CLIL has tended to focus on matters of language learning or content mastery rather than on details of classroom interaction. This paper investigates how English is used in Finnish biology and physics CLIL classrooms. Classrooms are approached from a discourse‐pragmatic perspective which involves close attention to social and interpersonal aspects of language use as it unfolds in authentic settings. The findings suggest that CLIL students claim ownership of English by the way they confidently use it as a resource for the construction of classroom activities. Students' code switching practices are another indication that they ascribe to an identity as users rather than as learners of English. Instead of using Finnish when their skills in English fail them, students use the L1 for affective functions; and the way in which they slip in and out of English and Finnish indicates that they view the classroom as a bilingual space. The findings thus point towards emerging bilingualism among the students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-971x.2007.00502.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The paper's illustrative extracts suggest that bilingual practices abound in CLIL classroom discourse and serve a variety of purposes ranging from orienting to learning of content and language to ensuring the flow of interaction or simply indicating that learners treat the space as bilingual.

    “Our illustrative extracts suggest, and as we have also shown elsewhere (Moore and Nikula 2016), bilingual practices abound in CLIL classroom discourse and serve a variety of purposes ranging from orienting to learning of content and language to ensuring the flow of interaction or simply indicating that the learners treat the space as bilingual (Nikula 2007).”

    From Exploring translanguaging in CLIL (2019) · cites this paper as Nikula 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
NIKULA, T.
Affiliations
University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Corresponding author
NIKULA, TARJA
Venue
World Englishes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-05
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
206-223
ISSN
  • 0883-2919 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-971X
OpenAlex
W2080881054
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
46.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
World Englishes (publishedVersion)
Funders
Academy of Finland
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
CLIL, English-medium instruction, classroom interaction, code-switching, student identity, bilingualism, discourse pragmatics, language ownership

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review