English L2 connectives in academic bilingual discoursea longitudinal computerised analysis of a learner corpus

Referencias bibliográficas

• Achugar, M. & Carpenter, B. (2014). Tracking movement toward academic language in multilingual classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 60-71.
• Achugar, M. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Beyond connectors: The construction of cause in history textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 16(3), 298-318.
• Akiguet, S. & Piolat, A. (1996). Insertion of connectives by 9- to 11-year-old children in an argumentative text. Argumentation, 10, 253-270.
• Asención-Delaney, Y. & Collentine, Y. (2011). A multidimensional analysis of a written L2 Spanish corpus. Applied Linguistics, 32, 299-322.
• Beacco, J. D. (2010). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling necessary for teaching/learning history (end of obligatory education) [on line]. Retrieved from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Source2010_ForumGeneva/1_ LIS-History2010_en.pdf
• Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse Volume IV: Class, codes and control. London: Routledge.
• Biber, D. (1992). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities, 26(5/6), 331-345.
• Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Cain, K. & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429-441.
• Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35, 243-262.
• Christie, F. (2012). Language education: A functional perspective. Language learning monograph series. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Christie, F. & Maton, K. (2011). Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum.
• Coffin, C. (2006). ‘Reconstructing personal time as collective time: Learning the discourse of history.’ In R. Whittaker, M. O’Donnell & A. McCabe (Eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches (pp. 15-45). London: Continuum.
• Coffin, C. (2009). Historical discourse. London: Continuum.
• Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
• Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1236-1241). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115-135.
• Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K. & McNamara, D.S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1-16.
• Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., McNamara, D. S. & Graesser, A. (2011). Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 438-440). New York, NY: Springer.
• Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D. S. (2010a). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573-605.
• Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D. S. (2010b). The development of semantic relations in second language speakers: A case for Latent Semantic Analysis. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7, 55-74.
• Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education: Vol. 2. Literacy (pp. 71-83). New York: Springer.
• Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 233-252.
• Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Evola, J., Mamer, E. & Lentz, B. (1980). Discrete point versus global scoring for cohesive devices. In J. Oller Jr. & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 177-181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Freedman, A. & Pringle, I. (1980). Writing in the college years: Some indices of growth. College Composition and Communication, 31, 311-324.
• Gené-Gil, M., Juan-Garau, M. & Salazar-Noguera J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Learning Journal, 43, 286-303.
• Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Harwood, N. & Hadley, G. (2004). Demystifying institutional practices: Critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 355-377.
• Haswell, R. H. (1986). Change in undergraduate and post-graduate writing performance: Quantified findings (Technical Report). Retrieved from: ERIC database. (ED269780)
• Heine, L. (2014). Models of the bilingual lexicon and their theoretical implications for CLIL. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 225-237.
• Hornberger, N. (2004). The Continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2), 155-171.
• Jafarpur, A. (1991). Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System, 19, 459-465.
• Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
• King, M. & Rentel, V. (1979). Toward a theory of early writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 243-253.
• Llinares, A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Longo, B. (1994). Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41, 348-352.
• Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375-388.
• Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical Literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in L2 History Narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32-41.
• Lorenzo, F. & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Historical literacy in CLIL: Telling the past in a second language. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 55-72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• 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., 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, 100767.
• Lorenzo, F., Granados, A. & Rico, N. (2020). Equity in bilingual education: Socioeconomic status and content and language integrated learning in monolingual Southern Europe. Applied Linguistics, amaa037.
• Louwerse, M. (2000). From cohesion in text to coherence in comprehension. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
• Louwerse, M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315.
• Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496.
• Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 269-282.
• McCutchen, D. & Perfetti, C. A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 2(1–3), 113-140.
• McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., Cai, Z. & Graesser, A. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A. & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and Bilingual Education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1-26.
• Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical literacies: Learning to read and reason with historical texts and evidence. New York: Routledge.
• Ortega, L. & Byrnes, H. (Eds.). (2008). The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. New York: Routledge.
• Pérez, A., Lorenzo, F. & Pavón, V. (2016). European bilingual models beyond linguafranca: Key findings from CLIL French programs. Language Policy, 15(4), 485-504.
• Polio, C. & Yoon, H. J. (2018). The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 165-188.
• Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (1994). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Sanders, T. J. M. & Noordman L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60.
• Schleppegrell, M. J. & Colombi, M. C. (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages. Mawhaw: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents. Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
• Spoelman, M. & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532-553.
• Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
• Vollmer, H. J. (2006). Language across the curriculum. Brussels: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe.
• Wagner, S. (2011). Concessives and contrastives in student writing: L1, L2 and genre differences. In J. Schmied (Ed.), Academic Writing in Europe: Empirical Perspectives (pp. 23-49). Göttingen: Cuvillier.
• White, H. (2010). The fiction of narrative: Essays on History, Literature, and Theory, 1957- 2007. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Hae-Youn, K. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
• Yang, W. & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23, 31-48.
• Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.