Dutch Passive Use in CLIL and Non-CLIL Learners: A Multimethod Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1702.01Keywords:
L2 acquisition, Dutch passive, L1 French, CLIL, mixed-methodsAbstract
This study examines the use of Dutch passive constructions by French-speaking L2 learners in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and non-CLIL educational settings. While prior research has documented CLIL benefits in areas such as vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Bayram et al., 2019) and listening comprehension (e.g., Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2018), its impact on the acquisition of more complex syntactic structures like the passive voice remains underexplored. Employing a mixed-methods design, this study triangulates spontaneous productions from the Multilingual Traditional Immersion and Native Corpus (MulTINCo) (Hiligsmann et al., 2021) with data from a controlled elicitation task. Results show that CLIL learners produce passive constructions more frequently than their non-CLIL peers but demonstrate lower morphosyntactic accuracy. Their production diverges from native patterns in agent expression, favoring medial agent placement, alongside a marked overreliance on zijn-passives and a notable absence of impersonal passives. These findings indicate that while CLIL instruction may enhance structural engagement and syntactic experimentation, it does not guarantee consistent target-like accuracy. The study underscores the importance of supplementing content-based exposure with explicit, form-focused instruction to facilitate the accurate acquisition of complex grammatical forms in CLIL contexts.
References
Agustin Llach, M. P., & Canga Alonso, A. (2016). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12090
Baten, K., & Cornillie, F. (2019). Elicited imitation as a window into developmental stages. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 3, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.56
Bayram, D., Öztürk, R. Ö., & Atay, D. (2019). Reading comprehension and vocabulary size of CLIL and non-CLIL students: A comparative study. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 2(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.639337
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112(2), 300–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013
Biber, D., Gray, B., Larsson, T., & Staples, S. (2024). Grammatical analysis is required to describe grammatical (and “syntactic”) complexity: A commentary on “Complexity and difficulty in second language acquisition: A theoretical and methodological overview.” Language Learning, 75. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12683
Cimermanová, I. (2020). Meta analysis of studies on the acquisition of receptive skills and vocabulary in CLIL. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2020-0003
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. Macmillan.
Cornelis, L., & Verhagen, A. (1995). Does Dutch really have a passive? In M. den Dikken & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995 (pp. 49–60). John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
De Schutter, G. (2006). Actieve en (volledig-) passieve constructies in de Nederlandse schrijftaal: Over de alchemie van semantiek en pragmatiek [Active and (fully) passive constructions in Dutch written language: On the alchemy of semantics and pragmatics]. Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 116(3), 331–355.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gilquin, G. (2007). To err is not all: What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.273
Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
Granger, S. (1997). Automated retrieval of passives from native and learner corpora: Precision and recall. Journal of English Linguistics, 25(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/007542429702500410
Guntur, M., Martuti, R., Hasmawaty, Purwati, D., Wijaya, H., & Zulfah. (2023). The impact of CLIL approach to enhancing university students’ speaking and creative thinking skills. Al Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(4), 5153–5167. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i4.3941
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar] (2nd, completely revised ed., 2 vols.). Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn. Retrieved December 15, 2025, from http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/index.html
Hiligsmann, P. (1997). Linguïstische aspecten en pedagogische implicaties van de tussentaal van Franstalige M.O.-leerders van het Nederlands [Linguistic aspects and pedagogical implications of the interlanguage of French-speaking secondary school learners of Dutch]. Droz.
Hiligsmann, P., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I., & Simonis, M. (2021). MulTINCo: Multilingual traditional, immersion, and native corpus. Université catholique de Louvain. Retrieved December 15, 2025, from https://corpora.uclouvain.be/ilc/multinco/
Hiligsmann, P., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I., & Simonis, M. (2017). Assessing content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium: Linguistic, cognitive, and educational perspectives. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 109, 1-24.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5–29.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
Jisa, H., Reilly, J. S., Verhoeven, L., Baruch, E., & Rosado, E. (2002). Passive voice constructions in written texts: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.03jis
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93–107.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Lee, J., Hong, S., & Jeon, E. (2025). Effects of CLIL on English language learners’ vocabulary acquisition and listening comprehension: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1583921. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1583921
Li, C., & Sui, M. (2025). The relationship between complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 English speech: Individual differences and dynamic patterns. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 501–532.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003
Lyster, R. (2016). Vers une approche intégrée en immersion [Towards an integrated approach in immersion]. Les Éditions CEC.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Neumanová, Z. (2025). An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the speech of EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.15946
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2018). The acquisition of L2 listening comprehension skills in primary and secondary education settings: A comparison between CLIL and non-CLIL student performance. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 56(2), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48832018000200013
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
Osborne, J. (2011). The role of complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 development: A multivariate analysis. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq052
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Walter de Gruyter.
Sijyeniyo, E., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet S. (n.d.). L2 Proficiency Modulates Structural Priming Effects of Dissimilar L2 Syntactic Structures [unpublished manuscript].
Van Belle, W., Van Langendonck, W., Lamiroy, B., Melis, L., Lahousse, K., & Van Goethem, K. (2011). Nederlandse grammatica voor Franstaligen [Dutch grammar for French speakers]. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Letteren. Retrieved December 15, 2025, from http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/project/ngf/
van Lieburg, R., Hartsuiker, R., & Bernolet, S. (2023). The production preferences and priming effects of Dutch passives in Arabic/Berber-Dutch and Turkish-Dutch heritage speakers. Bilingualism-language and Congnition, 26(4), 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000111
Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Xiao, R. (2007). What can SLA learn from contrastive corpus linguistics? The case of passive constructions in Chinese learner English. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v3i1.1593
Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
