System 47 (2014) 64e72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/system

Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic languageproficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL

Francisco Lorenzo a, *, Leticia Rodríguez b

a Departamento de Filología y Traducci�on, Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla, Spainb Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 June 2013Received in revised form 10 July 2014Accepted 10 September 2014Available online

Keywords:BilingualismContent and language integrated learning(CLIL)Cognitive academic language proficiency(CALP)Historical literacyComplex syntax

* Corresponding author. Facultad de HumanidadeE-mail address: fjlorber@upo.es (F. Lorenzo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.0160346-251X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This paper sets out to trace the appearance and evolution of academic language structuresin a second language, in formal bilingual contexts. The setting of the study was a selectionof secondary schools where a content and language integrated approach (CLIL immersion-type programmes) was set up. A corpus was formed of 244 historical narratives, from 4schools, of subjects from 9th to 12th grade (age range 13e17 years). Analytical softwaretools such as Synlex (Lu, 2010) were used to consider the evolution of complex syntax andcohesion. The study concludes with observations pertaining to the growth of cognitiveacademic language proficiency (CALP) in content-driven learning settings, the non-lineardevelopment of the L2 system and the major metrics which undergo change over theperiod.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Language growth is a process that reaches into adulthood, and during which linguistic units -phrases, clauses and sen-tences- develop and communicative functions attain precision and sophistication. There are different well-known stages inthis continuum. During the pre-school years language is mostly a basic tool for communicative purposes in here-and-nowsettings (hence, basic interpersonal communicative skills, BICS) and as the school experience starts to mould language,language structures are more cognitively taxing and are used for academic purposes (hence, cognitive academic languageproficiency or CALP) (Cummins, 2001). The BICS/CALP distinction has been explored from different angles in linguistics: as afrontier between language in the home circle, as opposed to the language of schooling (Christie, 2012); as two sides oflanguage production serving different macro functions: social versus ideational language (Halliday & Hasan, 1989); and,finally, as a practical category for the study of language distribution across social layers (as in Bernstein's simplified andelaborated codes, 1990).

Within this framework, this paper explores the onset and expansion of cognitive academic language proficiency when anon-dominant language is partly used as a vehicle of communication in formal bilingual contexts, a process that maysometimes lead to uncompleted literacy or, if successful, to balanced biliteracy. Therefore, the study explores bilingual CALP,here operationalized as complex syntax and advanced cohesion, in academic prose and, more particularly, describes thegradual development of a specific aspect of L2 CALP, historical discourse, in students schooled in two languages in a formal

s, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Ctra. Utrera km.1, 41013 Sevilla, Spain.

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e72 65

bilingual setting, now also known as Content and Language Integrated Learning eCLIL- in Europe and other world latitudes.The ensuing literature review frames the research questions of the study.

2. L2 CALP in historical narratives

The acquisition of CALP structures is often characterized as the result of the structural regulation that emerges fromlearners' lifetime analysis of the distributional characteristics of the language input. The intricate distributional characteristicsof CALPewith complex cohesion relations- makes academic language a more taxing language type to process than here-and-now language. CALP advanced structures are bound to academic context types and in those contexts their presence increasessignificantly. (See the multidimensional study by Biber, Davies, Jones, & Tracy-Ventura, 2006 on register variation of differenttextual types based on the occurrences of different structures).

A privileged area inwhich to observe the development of CALP is narratives, a basic genre type starting as storytelling andpotentially culminating in historical discourse. Narratives evolve over time; the basic narrative description of the worldaround the individual at age five gives way, later in life, to accounts of the reality beyond the subject's present physicalexperience, a new ability to cognitively and symbolically represent the world (Tomassello, 2003:276). The textual structure ofnarratives change along the way and, in this transition, major structures like the verbal system, nominal groups and adverbialsubordination develop fully.

Verbal tenses in narratives evolve over time, starting with the sole occurrence of present tenses and gradually growing tosituate events, in more distant places, and in future and past time frames until consecutio temporum is totally controlled(Coffin, 2006a: 418). As regards nominals, complex reference appears at the age of eleven and at a later time, in adolescence,nominal groups include more defining relative clauses and prepositional phrases in an attempt to nominalize processes(Whittaker, Llinares, & McCabe, 2011: 347 mention examples from adolescents like “the queen said no to his proposition ofmarriage”). The sequence is then one of a gradual evolution from simple nominal forms, as they appear in casual conversation,to rates of 1 out of 7 words being nouns and 8 per cent of nominalized processes in research articles, a rate getting close tosaturation point (Rowley Jolivet, 2012: 151). (See also Asenci�on-Delaney& Collentine, 2011; Fang, Scheleppegrel& Cox, 2006).

Another CALP area in narratives is sentence-level adverbial subordination. Research has described a set developmentalorder of acquisition of adverbial clauses: time adverbial relationships are acquired first, followed by cause, result and purposerelationships. Next, hypotheticals and counterfactuals are used, and finally, concessives, the last adverbial clause to be pro-cessed correctly. Concessives are, therefore, at the end point of grammaticalization and as a major device for presentingcontrast in discourse, they are of particular relevance in academic historical discourse. (See Diessel, 2004; Kortmann, 1997:342 on the cognitive complexity of concessives).

The language developments reported so far concern the evolution of advanced language as a faculty, without specificconsideration of multilingualism. However, the literature on the nascence and development of L2 CALP shows similaritieswith the processes described above. L2 proficiency measures occur in parallel to an expansion of CALP registers: morecomplex T-units and more words per T-unit (Neff et al., 2004); an increase in sentence length (De Haan & Van Esch, 2005);and an evolution in clause-level features in complementation and adverbial subordination (Grant & Ginther, 2000). All thesefeatures of complexity in L2 discourse seem to occur only after L2 production is correct and fluent, which suggests that L2syntactic complexity comes after accuracy and fluency measures (Celaya & Nav�es, 2009). Evidence of L2 eL1 CALP inter-dependence is further confirmed by research noting a 0.93 correlation between L1 and L2 academic writing competence, afinding based on the similitude of strategies used and coherence levels in both languages (Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, &van Gelderen, 2009:78). Bidirectional L1eL2 transfer has also been found in coherence measures and in rhetorical structures,a factor that makes writing more effective and appropriate (on this, see Crossley & McNamara, 2009; Kormos, 2011).

Bilingual classrooms are acquisition-rich environments in which learners are necessarily engaged in the manipulation ofcomplex language. Bilingual research on classroom interaction confirms the occurrence of high levels of cognitive demandsthat have an impact on SLA (Dalton-Puffer, 2007): questions are mostly of a higher order type (e.g. How would you explain thereason…?, What data was used to evaluate…?), which results in students producing extended discourses, that is, longer textswhich are more cognitively demanding and more prone to errors (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). Similarly, students cannot draw onthe feedback they receive to revise their interlanguage and fix their grammar errors: CLIL settings draw most of the par-ticipants' attention to content, not language, which results in feedback being implicit, mostly provided through recasts, andcorrections passing unnoticed. (See more on interaction in bilingual or immersion settings in Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, & Smit,2010; Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012; Lyster, 2007; Nikula, 2002).

Bilingual discourse in formal settings presents distinctive features. Academic content in this situation is mainly referentialand students go to great lengths to reflect the academic information they possess (historical content in this case) even if thelanguage necessary is above their actual level. Paraphrasing or topic avoidance -two resources in L2 composition whenlanguage processing activity overruns existing cognitive capacity- are not accepted in bilingual contexts for the simple reasonthat teachers would interpret these strategies as sheer ignorance. Because of this, more language hypotheses are generatedand more monitoring of rhetorical structures and more pushed output occur, a language behaviour which over time cul-minates in more fluent, more complex and more accurate written production (Ellis & Yuan, 2004). SLA acceleration as re-ported in immersion studies may bemost probably related to this enhanced cognitive functioning (see Cammarata and Tedickfor acquisition rates in immersion studies as opposed to other educational schemes), Genesee (1987) for a classical account,and (Lorenzo, Casal, & Moore, 2010; Lorenzo, Moore, & Casal, 2011), for rate of acquisition in bilingual models). Bilingual

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e7266

discourse features should also be interpreted in the light of findings on complexity in written academic language (seeRobinson, 2007 on Cognition Hypothesis Model and the Limited Attention Analysis Model) and the inhibition of conceptualprocessing attention (Manch�on et al., 2009; Schoonen et al., 2009).

In the SLA literature and germane to bilingualism, language complexity is measured by two language constructs: syntacticcomplexity and lexical cohesion (Lu, 2010, 2011, 2012). Contemporary language software programmes help to operationalizeconstructs such as complex syntax or advanced cohesion by gauging the occurrence of selected structural types or co-reference systems. These tools will be used for the study and are discussed below.

3. Present study

This study considers L2 CALP expansion in History CLIL/immersion contexts. Historical literacy is a very attractive milieufor the research of academic language on account of the considerable cognitive and linguistic demands that the subjectimposes on students (Coffin, 2006b; Scheleppegrell & Colombi, 2002).

More precisely, the particular research questions are the following:

1) Which CALP structures change at different grades of bilingual instruction?2) How do bilingual learners produce CALP structures differently at different ages and grades?3) How do CALP structures (operationalized here as syntactic complexity and lexical cohesion metrics) interact in formal

bilingual contexts?

3.1. Participants

The population consisted of secondary education students in bilingual settings, who had spent a minimum of five yearsreceiving up to forty per cent of their curriculum in English as an L2, in urban bilingual schools in a monolingual SouthernEuropean area, Western Andalusia, Spain. Practitioners involved in bilingual schemes -L2 history teachers, language teachers,language assistants- received precise information regarding the goals of the study. Heads of the schools and parents wereinformed and the research was approved at the school councils. Three middle and upper schools participated: Llanes HighSchool, Gonzalo Nazareno High School and Vel�azquez High School. All procedures were formerly piloted at Guzman yQuesada School. Although tests had been mostly understood, task instructions were simplified, and at the students’ requestmore time was allowed to complete the tasks.

The population, aged 13 through to 17, was distributed into four educational levels, from the equivalent of ninth grade totwelfth grade, the level immediately before they took the university entrance exam. L2 contact, as in other immersionmodels,had been provided throughout with ad hoc L2 materials, native language assistants, and qualified content and languageteachers. Although CLIL is a multivariant and multifaceted model, current research suggests that this approach increases L2learning (see Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2013 for a recent review on CLIL learning standards and for the similarities betweenCLIL and immersion models). Urged by European recommendations, CLIL programmes are growing exponentially and areslowly replacing traditional foreign language programmes within Europe and elsewhere.

The overall number of learners was 244. One group from each level, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade, wasrandomly selected from three bilingual schools. The overall number of students was equivalent across the grades, although inthe uppermost grades the numbers decreased. The reason for this reduction is that as the students moved up a grade, theywere dispersed into a larger number of speciality groups and these groups had fewer students. This is to say, the decrease wasdue to the technicalities of group formation in the educational system. The statistical analyses reported below were alsocarried out on a truncated sample of the population to ensure that the gradual sample decrease did not imply a selection ofthe most apt language learners. The sample decrease proved not to be a significant variable in results.

The study is cross-sectional. Data were elicited from students at four different school levels (from ninth grade to twelfthgrade) who had received similar bilingual tuition, with the obvious difference that learners at the uppermost grades hadbenefited from more years of bilingual teaching. We underline the fact that the study is not longitudinal, that is, it is not thesame group of subjects being tracked over a period of time but rather four sub-groups at different school levels (ninth, tenth,eleventh and twelfth grades) learning the language under similar bilingual conditions who were asked to complete the samenarrative task. The L2 competence differences reflected below show language differing in a qualitative and quantitativemanner at different points of secondary bilingual education. More precisely, the data show particular structures being usedmore intensely at different grade points and these differences having the shape of higher values at higher grades. Results arenot meant to be interpreted as resultative of any overt or covert cause, but as testimonial of particular CALP languagebehaviour at different points of multilingual academic life.

3.2. Materials

Students were asked to write a narrative of a historical event that had been part of their past core curriculum forcontemporary history in secondary education. The current interest of topics was also considered so that students could rely

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e72 67

on their incidental knowledge of the issues to verbalize content. One of the topics was September 11th and the other was theSpanish Transition to Democracy in the late 20th century. Students were given verbal prompts in the form of open-endedhistorical questions. These questions required them to a) narrate the events as they had happened; b) explain the causesand consequences that led to the historical events in question, and, c) take a personal stance on the facts reported. These threequestions correspond to three developmental stages in historical literacy: recording events, linking causes and results in thepast and evaluating historical actions (seeMartin, Maton,&Matruglio, 2010 for a review of school historical discourse). Visualprompts, with photographs of the historical events, were distributed to facilitate the composition and to contextualize thehistorical facts.

3.3. Procedure and method of analysis

For the analysis of complexity, a new language software tool was used, Synlex. As an instrument incorporating metrics forCALP, Synlex has provided accurate descriptions of SLA processes, both in oral and written skills (Lu, 2010, 2011, 2012). Thetool, not used for bilingual discourse study to date, incorporates an L2 syntactic complexity analyzer and a lexical complexityanalyzer. Its syntactic component analyses complexity measures, among them the mean length of sentence (MLS), meanlength of clause (MLC), clauses per sentence (C/S), verb phrases per T-unit (VP/T), dependent clauses per clause (DC/C), co-ordinate phrases per clause (CP/C), complex nominals per T-unit (CN/T), and complex nominals per clause (CN/C). The LexicalComplexity Analyzer automates the lexical complexity analysis of English texts using 25 different measures such as diversetype-token ratio measures, variation of different parts of speech, verb sophistication and lexical range. These measures aregrouped in a number of different dimensions such as lexical density, lexical sophistication, and lexical variation proposed inthe first and second language acquisition literature. More particularly, Synlex has been applied to monitor proficiency levelsand levels of attainment of learners of L2 English. The tool has never been used for analyzing bilingual schools and the authorsthought it could reveal aspects of academic language processing that are at the top of the agenda of bilingual research, whichis attempting now to describe integration of language and content (see ConCLIL project, as the institutional researchframework of the project) (Author cited).

Results were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and were further imported into SPSS statistical analysis software. Once thedatabase was debugged, we performed a frequency analysis, comparing the proportions by z-test to confirm if the differencesin responses were statistically significant. In order to avoid skewed results, due to extremely low or high scores, the sameanalysis was performed but with a truncated sample in which extreme scores were removed. The results obtained from thissample ran parallel to those of the general sample considered and there were no statistical differences between both samples.Students were equally distributed in the ninth to twelfth grade, 55 per cent of the sample were females; the remaining 45 percent were males. Distribution, according to the given topics, was 50 per cent. The p-value was checked to see whether therelationship was statistically significant; “(***p-value <0.01; **p-value < 0.05; *p-value < 0.1)”. Effect size has also beenconsidered by using Hedge's g estimator, where g ¼ 0.20 small effect; g ¼ 0.50 medium effect; g ¼ 0.80 large effect (Cohen,1988).

To illustrate the differences at the end points of the course sequence surveyed (ninth and twelfth grade), see the twoexamples belowwhich give an idea of the overall change. The samples represent average language competence and advancedliteracy metrics and are intended to represent the pool of narratives in the corpus.

4. Results

The presentation of results will focus on the score differences of metrics per grade followed by the analysis of significantdistinctions in particular indexes. Also, Appendix 1 provides two actual samples from the starting and the concluding gradesin the study, ninth and twelfth, so readers can appreciate different students’ competence levels over the period surveyed.

4.1. Syntactic complexity across levels

An indication of the CALP level of learners at the beginning of the period studied can be obtained from amere presentationof maximum and minimum values of the syntactic structures used. To this effect, selected syntactic indexes are shown inTable 1, proving that some complex indexes were non-existent in some individuals’ language repertoires. Among them, somekey indexes such as dependent clauses (1a), complex T-units (1b) and coordinate phrases (1c) have no hits, as is shown by thezeros in the minimum column, hinting that those narratives were at pre-CALP level.

Table 1Syntactic complexity analyzer (minimumemaximum values).

SynCA descriptors 9th. gradeN 78

Mean St. Dev. Mode Minimum Maximum

Dependent clause (1a) 1a 8.38 5.08 7 0 30Complex T-unit (1b) 1b 6.23 3.78 5 0 29Coordinate phrase (1c) 1c 3.3 2.3 2 0 15Complex nominal (1d) 1d 21.43 9.1 18 3 66

Table 2Syntactic complexity analyzer (9the12th grade).

Syntactic complexity analyzer 9the10th grade 10the11th grade 11the12th grade

Mean dif. Effect size Mean dif. Effect size Mean dif. Effect size

Syntactic structures Word Count (2a) �28.229* �0.39 �20.639 �0.241 21.538 0.31Sentence (2b) �2.566*** �0.54 0.661 0.125 1.529* 0.38Verb phrase (2c) �5.036* �0.395 �1.437 �0.098 5.7* 0.506Clause (2d) �4.27* �0.388 �0.463 �0.038 5.149*** 0.555T-unit (2e) �2.311* �0.329 0.169 0.022 3.301*** 0.644Dependent clause (2f) �1.816* �0.363 �0.454 �0.079 0.922 0.182Complex T-unit (2g) �0.9 �0.227 �0.317 �0.071 0.911 0.258Coordinate phrase (2h) �0.193 �0.087 �0.254 �0.1 0.881* 0.373Complex nominal (2i) �1.537 �0.189 �3.868* �0.395 �0.441 �0.046

Syntactic Complexity indices Mean length of sentence (2j) 1.609 0.276 �3.056* �0.458 �0.928 �0.136Mean length of clause (2k) 0.329 0.186 �0.623* �0.434 �1.303*** �0.702Clause per sentence (2l) 0.139 0.185 �0.22 �0.256 0.232 0.283Verb phrase per T-unit (2m) �0.054 �0.089 �0.083 �0.131 �0.097 �0.16Dependent clause per clause (2n) �0.017 �0.133 0.001 0.008 �0.054* �0.465Dependent clause per T-unit (2o) �0.046 �0.119 �0.008 �0.022 �0.096 �0.251Complex nominal per T-unit (2p) 0.123 0.162 �0.231* �0.326 �0.539*** �0.724Complex nominal per clause (2q) 0.098 0.284 �0.125* �0.439 �0.292*** �0.856

***p-value < 0.01; **p-value < 0.05; *p-value < 0.1.

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e7268

Moving beyond individual samples, when syntactic indexes are compared across the four school levels, as in Table 2, cleardifferences in the textual properties of academic prose are observed. Results in ninth grade show that the major syntacticunits -clauses (2b) and sentences (2d)- are well established, which indicates the use of the building blocks of language atthese levels, and therefore the ability to articulate full historical statements. However, major distinctions also occur in theareas of nominalization, sentence subordination and verb tenses, as described below.

First, the data show constant higher scores at higher grade levels in complex nominals (2i), with high significance levels in11th grade and still more advanced scores in 12th grade. It is noteworthy that complex nominal is the only syntactic structuremeasure presenting consistent higher scores at each grade, hinting a gradual evolution over the years, a trend even moreemphasized when complex nominal occurrences are expressed as a quotient, as in complex nominals per T-unit (2p) andcomplex nominals per clause (2q). Nominalization has been seen as a borderline that marks linguistic adulthood, a feature ofexpository language and scientific discourse, and this structure seems to reach its full extent in late adolescence. Notwith-standing the reasons for these ascending differences, the fact is that the particular linguistic demands that school disciplinesplace on students put learners in a position whereby they have to reformulate complex, abstract or otherwise scientificlanguage (Christie, 2012).

Sentence embeddedness presents visible differences in two measures showing higher scores in the higher grades:dependent clause per T-unit (2o) and dependent clause per clause in (2n), with this last index reaching statistical significancein the last year, 12th grade. This indicates consistent ascending differences in each higher level in subordination scores, astructural type more present in more elaborated narrative genres such as historical recounts (Coffin, 2006b).

If nominalization and adverbial subordination make themselves more present in the uppermost grades, the remainingthird textual feature discussed in the introduction, verb tense types, can also be explored with the data at hand. As notedabove, a larger repertoire of verbal tenses in narratives provides advanced resources for themanagement of time in discourse,in such a way that events can be placed in more distant and complex past time frames. Indices such as verb-phrase per T-unit(2m), the only verbal index in Table 2 which considers the verbal texture of the narratives, present consistent higher levels ateach higher grade. Although these differences are not significant, when this quantitative variation is interpreted, togetherwith the information from Table 3, the new values hint new insights. All lexical verb indexes in Table 3 have higher scores inparallel with the verbal syntactic variation reported. This is the case with verb variation (3m) estarting in 10th grade-,reaching very significant levels and high effect sizes and squared verb variation (3n). Although the evolution happens in therealm of lexis, more varied verbs imply changes in the text grammar, since the connection between verb variation, transitivityand the expression of historical discourse functions, causality for example, is well documented in systemic linguistics(Christie, 2012; Coffin, 2006b). All indices taken together confirm that, at higher levels, everything is more syntacticallycomplex, and more syntactic complexity requires more mechanisms of cohesion and coherence.

The different behaviour of the three linguistic features of nominalization, sentence subordination and verb tense reper-toire, mirrors results from other metrics; from 11th grade on, the mean length of sentences (2j) and in particular, the meanlength of a clause (2k). In this respect, Ortega (2003) commented that differences by one word per clause and over twowordsper T-unit marked between-proficiency levels in ESL.

Another noteworthy aspect is that of the exact language unit most affected. Results show changes occur more within thephrase (complex nominal per clause, 2q), than within the clause (clause per sentence, 2l). The use of higher order languageunits such as sentences and clauses presents more similar values than phrases (2b and 2d). This means that languagecomplexity occurs mostly within the phrase structure, most particularly within noun phrases, as already predicted. Systemic

Table 3Lexical complexity analyzer (9the12th grade).

Lexical complexity analyzer 9the10th grade 10the11th grade 11the12th grade

Mean dif. Effect size Mean dif. Effect size Mean dif. Effect size

Lexical density Lexical density (3a) �0.005 �0.136 0.001 0.021 0.002 0.05Lexical sophistication Lexical sophistication (3b) 0.004 0.03 0.055*** 0.51 �0.046*** �0.514Lexical variation NDW Number of different words (3c) �14.843*** �0.539 �7.376 �0.222 �4.267 �0.136

Number of different words first 50 words (3d) �1.566* �0.437 1.301* 0.355 �3.194*** �0.836Number of different words expected random 50 (3e) �1.606*** �0.731 0.617* 0.319 �1.26*** �0.669Number of different words expected sequence 50 (3f) �1.431*** �0.592 0.043 0.021 �1.428*** �0.655

Type token ratio Type/Token ratio (3g) �0.006 �0.079 0.016 0.203 �0.056*** �0.942Mean segmental Type/Token ratio 50 (3h) �0.026*** �0.525 0.011 0.257 �0.039*** �0.936Corrected Type/Token ratio (3i) �0.374*** �0.585 �0.101 �0.152 �0.443*** �0.633Root Type/Token ratio (3j) �0.53*** �0.586 �0.143 �0.151 �0.625*** �0.632Bilogarithmic Type/Token ratio (3k) �0.005 �0.184 0.002 0.108 �0.018*** �1.006UberIndex (3l) �1.34* �0.404 0.436 0.141 �3.189*** �1.057

Verb diversity Verb variation-I (3m) 0.013 0.095 �0.027 �0.211 �0.066*** �0.614Squared Verb variation-I (3n) �1.593* �0.359 �1.37 �0.275 �0.081 �0.015Corrected Verb variation-I (3p) �0.193* �0.386 �0.123 �0.241 �0.01 �0.018

Lexical word diversity Lexical word variation (3q) �0.005 �0.046 �0.009 �0.106 �0.074*** �1.025Verb variation-II (3r) �0.009 �0.179 0.008 0.181 0.001 0.017Noun variation (3s) �0.001 �0.008 �0.004 �0.038 �0.093*** �1.16Adjective variation (3t) �0.002 �0.074 �0.016* �0.463 �0.018* �0.461Adverb variation (3u) 0.003 0.184 �0.008*** �0.508 0.001 0.081Modifiervariation (3v) 0.001 0.021 �0.023*** �0.594 �0.018* �0.425

***p-value < 0.01; **p-value < 0.05; *p-value < 0.1.

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e72 69

functional linguistics has made it clear that in order to develop an argument, learners need to operate within the clauseboundaries. By means of clause internal markers or lexical items expressing functions such as causality or time, languageusers can move pieces of information to different clause positions, hence achieving the ‘grammar metaphor’ (Christie, 2012;Llinares et al., 2012). The use of asyndetic resources to express complex meanings, rather than using conjunctions, charac-terizes high ability users of either L1 or L2.

4.2. Lexical cohesion across levels

Variation in complex syntax was moderate compared to the acute contrasts in the lexical domain, again regularlypresenting higher values over the grades (see Table 3). Although some measures, such as lexical density (3a) and lexicalsophistication (3b), show similar levelse these two clusters have been poormeasures of increase in L2 competence (Lu, 2012)e the rest of the dimensions varied consistently. Lexical variation, type-token ratio, verb diversity and lexical word diversitymeasures will be discussed below.

As regards lexical variation, the index counting the total number of different words shows a steadily higher number everygrade, with a total difference of almost one fourth in the four year period, from 93.9 to 120.4. This coincides with a similarvariation in the expected sequence of the first 50 words, over the four years. The rest of the lexical variation indices confirmthis trend, mostly reaching statistical significance in the uppermost grade (see 3e and 3f). All of this, taken together, confirmsthat lexical values present higher contrasts than syntactic metrics. It must be remembered that learning took place inimmersion-like settings marked by lexical input esubject terminology and other lexical bundles- rather than grammar-focused input. Formal L2 learning, such as focus on forms, was not prioritized and sometimes neglected altogether.

The second and third set of lexical indexes -type-token ratio and lexical markers- perform in the same way. Type-tokenratios, the indexes measuring functional vocabulary, present ascending contrast in 10th and 12th grade, with clear peaksagain in the uppermost year. In turn, lexical changes affect all parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs andmodifiers.Verbs show consistent higher levels in a linear fashion, in both diversity and variation. Adjectives and modifiers also presentsignificant alterations, with higher values in length measures and complex nominals. The same trend holds for lexical wordvariation, reaching significance levels in the uppermost level.

Lexical maturity, as it appears in the upper grades, is not only related to lexical accuracy, lexical frequency, and lexicaldiversity, it also predicts cohesion. As has been pointed out, “the study of the greater part of cohesion is the study of patternsof lexis in text” (Mahlberg, 2006: 240). If, as the literature maintains, cohesion, as determined by patterns in lexis, explainsninety per cent of the variance in the quality ratings of written productions, then higher values in lexical variation, type-tokenratio and lexical word diversity, as reported in the most advanced school levels, seem to imply better overall languagecompetence (more on cohesion in writing in McNamara, Louwerse, McCarthy, & Graesser, 2010).

5. Discussion

Before discussing these results in-depth, the research questions of the study will be answered briefly.

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e7270

-Question 1: Regarding how lexical and syntactic complexity (CALP) behaves at different points of instruction in bilingual,formal contexts, results showed clear differences in two key sets of metrics: those related to the length of the language units(clauses and sentences) and those concerning complex nominalization. Sevenmetrics in these categories are referred to in theliterature (Ortega, 2003) as indices cutting across levels in overall L2 proficiency, which may suggest parallels and corre-spondences between bilingual settings language growth and overall L2 competence levels.

-Question 2: Regarding the direction of changes in complex syntax and lexical cohesion in CLIL settings, one can concludefrom the data presented above that changes are continuous but unstable, with higher peaks reaching significance levels in theuppermost course. Also, as mentioned above, metrics show little or no evidence of some CALP indices at starting levels.

-Question 3: Regarding the interaction between lexical cohesion and syntactic complexity development, one can say, inlight of these results, that lexical cohesion takes place before syntactic complexity measures reach significance levels. This factdeserves further attention below.

CLIL or immersion settings are known to foster the restructuring of students' interlanguage. In the receptive skills, learnersare forced to process academic language, the content of which is considered to be of prime importance for subject contentlearning. In production skills, this content needs to be shaped into complex grammatical and rhetorical structures. This is thelinguistic environment that witnesses the changes reported, which taken together amount to a consolidation of CALP over theyears in terms of syntactic and lexical complexity and variation. As regards syntax, the data have shown steady alterations inthree major metrics: length ratios; dependent clauses; and verb diversity, and, three structural types: nominalization; sen-tence subordination and verb tenses. In parallel, there are consistent higher values of all lexical indices affecting every part ofspeech. Modifiers and adverbs first appear halfway through the period but differences in nominals are still more noteworthy.The results seem to support the idea that nominalization is the fundamental process of academic language development.

The appearance of lexical growth in some dimensions, at early stages, is not matched by a parallel evolution of syntacticindices, which only blossoms, as indicated by statistical significance levels, during the final year. Notwithstanding the causesfor these results (maturational levels, particular linguistic demands that may arise in that level because of disciplinary pres-sures), it seems clear that lexical complexity occurs before syntactic complexity. Lexicality seems to pave the way for advancedsyntactic structures. It appears from the results that lexical clusters become richer with adjectives, adverbs andmodifiers and,at a later stage, these clusters (perhaps prefabricated) become procedural. This would involve the idea of causality in thedevelopment of complex structures. Although in no way a definite conclusion from this data, it reminds us of the so-calledbottleneck hypotheses in vogue as an overall account of bilingual growth. Slabakova (2008) uses this theory to hypothesisethat semantics grow before morphology, since cognitive resources process more meaningful lexical units before morphemes.

This study did not address the discourse properties of the samples and how they evolved, a task that will be undertaken inthe future. However, it must be clear that the changing linguistic features may mean a change in the discursive nature of thetext produced, that is, these developing features that change over time will enable different communicative functions anddifferent discursive dimensions. Tracing the evolution of syntactic complexity is not performed for its sake alone, but also forthe sake of communicative appropriateness and advanced subject-matter functions. In historical discourse, advanced func-tions such as the expression of irrealis discourse or counterfactuals e how the present would be different if history had takena different course e depend on complex syntax, and without the necessary structures the historical content cannot beverbalized (see more on register differences and verb variation in past events reports in Biber et al., 2006).

In this regard, the links between complex structures and discourse functions in narratives are clear. Nominalization freezesevents and sets them out of time, enabling a very convenient encapsulation of historical facts in discourse. Subordinateclauses facilitate multiple factorial explanations and make readers aware of the roundabout cause and effect relations be-tween past events. A rich verb tense repertoire facilitates the construction of a chronology and key historical discursivefunctions. Passivization puts the agent in focus, or out of focus, in historical facts. Subjunctives of the third conditional typeenable language users to present alternate histories. This is not unknown to historians who have even thought of theirdiscipline as some sort of linguistic fabrication, also known as the linguistic turn in historiography.

6. Conclusions

This study investigated the onset and expansion of written L2 CALP in a situation in which students had enough time toplan a narrative on a historical topic. Learners in the lowest grades in a CLIL setting produced an amalgamated language,characterized by a lack of dependent clauses, t-units and coordinate phrases. The study describes how this language skill isconsolidated in higher grades, bearing witness to the acquisition of historical literacy. CLIL contexts in these grades andsettings enhance, permit or at least do not interferee concluding causal results will only come from longitudinal studies nowunderway- the complex, discursive, academic functions, as expressed in narratives. Insofar as structural complexity in nar-ratives is transferable to other discourse types, the study offers a partial rendering to be completed by future research on howCALP may be related to biliteracy.

Acknowledgements

“This article waswritten under the auspices of the ConCLIL project (http://conclil.jyu.fi/) funded by the Academy of Finland(Prof. Dr. Tarja Nikula, director).We alsowant to express our gratitude toManolo Caballero (IES Vel�azquez), Lola Aceituno (IESLlanes) and Almudena Vi�eitez (IES Gonzalo Nazareno) for their invaluable assistance in the gathering of data”.

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e72 71

Appendix I

Samples

(9th GRADE) The Spanish royal family started after the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. He gave to Juan Carlos I of Borb�onthe power after the dictator died. The king got married with a Greek woman called Sofía and they got three children. Elena.Felipe and Cristina. Elena is the oldest but Felipe will be the king of Spain after Don Juan Carlos I die.

The monarchy after the dictatorship of Franco has not done to much because in Spain we have a parliamentary monarchyso we have a president of government that has the real power of the country. One exception of that was the coup. The kingspoke with Tejero. He wanted to take the power of Spain but the king stopped him.

The role of the monarchy has not been to much. The king only represent our country in the reunions of countries. Recentlythe royal family has deteriorated its image because the husband of Cristina is been judged for steal money and the king had anaccident hunting elephants in Africa. He had to apologize after that.

(12th GRADE) Right after the death of Franco, a process to launch a new political system started to take place in Spaindirectly helped by the nowadays Spanish king Juan Carlos I. He had an important role when stopping all opposition to de-mocracy, specially in the “coup d'�etat” by Tejero. This is probably the reason why monarchy was widely accepted by theSpanish population at that time. Thanks to his actions 36 years ago, we can now enjoy a democracy and everything it bringswith it (equality rights to respect and above all, freedom).

The problem now is that after this transition-to-democracy process, the monarchical system has become too old-fashioned to stay the same. The recent protests (almost one per day) are just one more proof that monarchy is coming toan end.

Besides the general discontent of the population due to the high unemployment rates and the low income an averagefamily gets, the royal family is destroying his image with corrupt new members (and covering old ones), elephant-hunterfamily men, private schools for their children and summer holidays in expensive places.

References

Asenci�on-Delaney, Y., & Collentine, Y. (2011). A multidimensional analysis of a written L2 Spanish corpus. Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 299e322.Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J. K., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1(1),

1e37.Celaya, M. L., & Nav�es, T. (2009). Written production in English as a foreign language: age-related differences and associated factors. In R. Manch�on (Ed.),

Learning, teaching and researching writing in foreign language learning contexts (pp. 130e155). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/

amt011. Advance access, 1e26.Christie, F. (2012). Language education: A functional perspective. Language learning monograph series. Wiley-Blackwell.Coffin, C. (2006a). Learning the language of school history: the role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413e429.Coffin, C. (2006b). Historical discourse. London: Continuum.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18,

119e135.Cummins, J. (2001). An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins. In C. Baker, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.De Haan, P., & Van Esch, K. (2005). The development of writing in English and Spanish as foreign languages. Assessing Writing, 10, 100e116.Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 26, 59e84.Fang, Z., Scheleppegrel, M., & Cox, B. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling. Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research,

38(3), 247e273.Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge, MA.: Newbury House Publications.Grant, L., & Ginther, L. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2),

123e145.Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2),

148e161.Kortmann, B. (1997). Adverbial subordination. A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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), 418e442.Lorenzo, F., Moore, P., & Casal, S. (2011). On complexity in bilingual research: the causes, effects, and breadth of content and language integrated learning: a

reply to Bruton (2011). Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 450e455.Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474e496.Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly,

45(1), 36e62.Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners' oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190e208.Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Mahlberg, M. (2006). Lexical cohesion. Corpus linguistics theory and its application in English language teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,

11(3), 227e247.

F. Lorenzo, L. Rodríguez / System 47 (2014) 64e7272

Manch�on, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing. Implicationsfor theory. In R. M. Manch�on (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and researching (pp. 102e129). Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Martin, J. R., Maton, K., & Matruglio, E. (2010). Historical cosmologies: epistemology and axiology in Australian secondary school history discourse. Signos,43(4), 433e463.

McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47,292e330.

Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Díez, M., Prieto, R., & Chaudron, C. (2004). Contrastive discourse analysis: argumentative text in English y Spanish. In C. Moder (Ed.),Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 267e286). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nikula, T. (2002). Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: a look at EFL and content-based classrooms. Pragmatics, 12(4), 447e468.Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics,

24(4), 492e518.Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of

task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193e213.Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2012). Oralising text slides in scientific conference presentations: a multimodal corpus analysis. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas, & E.

Rowley-Jolivet (Eds.), Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP. Issues and applications (pp. 135e167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Scheleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages. Mawhaw: Lawrence Erlbaum.Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: the linguistic and cognitive

demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manch�on (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and researching writing in foreign language contexts (pp. 77e101).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Tomassello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343e362.