<p>Globalisation and international mobility in the 21st century has led to the internationalisation of the English language (Crystal, 2003). Research regarding linguistic gains at university levels is however extremely scarce. This study aims to address this gap of knowledge and provide some answers as to how much linguistic gain can be expected after one year of English medium instruction. Two groups of undergraduate students enrolled in different levels of English medium instruction (EMI) were given a pre and post-test over a 1 year period. Results were analysed statistically; significant gains were found only in the semi- immersion group in the grammatical domain; although, there was a trend for improvement as well as higher scores for full immersion students. It might be interpreted that in order for linguistic gains to be seen in adults there needs to be some focus on form and language guidance (Muñoz, 2007; Pérez-Vidal, 2007). Thus, an integrated content and language (ICLHE) approach is more effective than a solely content based EMI model for university level content courses, if linguistic gains are the desired outcomes of the programme.</p>

This study aims at describing and comparing the distribution of pragmatic marker (PM) use by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers and English native speakers (NSs). To do this, the effect of increased contact with English, via English-medium instruction (EMI), on the use of textual PMs in learner's oral communication was explored. A functional-pragmatic approach was taken to the analysis of PMs. Textual PMs were examined due to the high frequency of these markers in the EMI setting. Participants were second-year (N=23), and third-year (N=18) business undergraduates, and a NS control group (N=10). Data were collected through two oral tasks. Results indicate that the groups used PMs for causal, contrast and sequential functions at similar frequencies, and that the NSs used PMs significantly more often for continuation and elaboration functions and significantly less opening and closing functions compared to the EMI groups. The results suggest that EMI might facilitate the acquisition of some functions of PMs such as the use of causal, contrast, sequential and topic shift/digression markers whereas other PMs, such as elaboration markers, may take longer to acquire. Participation in a variety of contexts and explicit instruction might aid a more balanced use of textual PMs.

This study examines a semi and a full English-medium instruction (EMI) undergraduate program offered at a Catalan university in order to measure its effect on the students’ oral output. Specifically, it tackles the acquisition of pragmatic markers (PMs) by measuring four variables, the overall frequency of use, the variety of types, the use of textual PMs, and the use of interpersonal PMs. Oral data were collected via a monologue and an interaction task. The study is cross-sectional with 39 full-EMI and 33 semi-EMI participants in 2nd and 3rd year of study plus 10 native speakers. PM use was chosen for analysis due to the important role they play in communicative competence. Results show a significant increase in the overall frequency and variety of types of PMs used from year 2 to year 3. The full-EMI group used PMs at a significantly higher frequency and wider variety when compared to the semi-EMI group, neither group reached baseline levels for use of interpersonal PMs, and both groups displayed a higher use of textual PMs compared to the NSs.

No abstract