Abstract This response to Pérez-Cañado’s (2017) disappointing defence of CLIL interests insists on the need for a clear definition of CLIL not only so that it can be characterised for comparative purposes, but also so that the fundamentals underlying it can be scrutinised, instead of the continued hedging of bets on a moving target, justified for its contextual flexibility. As an example, whether CLIL classes are accompanied by FL classes on the curriculum or not is not a minor issue, both practically and theoretically. In addition other questions are reconsidered such as the communicative nature of CLIL, especially when it comes to whether the content is likely to be more motivating, and the supposed egalitarianism of CLIL initiatives. Finally, two research issues are discussed. Firstly, an example demonstrates how it is perfectly legitimate to critique empirical CLIL research which argues apparently beneficial results from a ‘due to’ stance by countering it with ‘despite’ arguments, while leaving much of the flawed CLIL research aside. Secondly, there is a reiterated demand that disinterested research at a curricular level confront outcomes in both the FLs and the content covered in CLIL programmes for all the state-school students affected both directly or indirectly, and in comparable terms.

中文翻译：

---

不幸的是，关于CLIL的问题仍然没有过时：对Pérez-Cañado的答复

摘要对Pérez-Cañado（2017）令人失望的对CLIL利益的辩护的回应坚持认为，需要对CLIL进行清晰的定义，不仅可以对其进行表征以进行比较，而且可以对其进行仔细研究的基础不断对冲移动目标的押注，其上下文灵活性是合理的。例如，无论在理论上还是实践上，CLIL班级是否与FL班级相伴都不是一个小问题。此外，还重新考虑了其他问题，例如CLIL的交流性质，尤其是在内容是否可能更具激励性方面，以及CLIL计划的所谓平等主义。最后，讨论了两个研究问题。首先，一个例子说明了批判CLIL经验研究是完全合法的，它通过“尽管”的论点反驳了“由于”立场而产生的明显有益的结果，同时将许多有缺陷的CLIL研究放在了一边。其次，重申了要求，对于所有直接或间接受影响的州立学校学生，无论是在FL还是在CLIL计划所涵盖的内容上，对课程进行无私的研究都会面临成果，无论是直接的还是间接的以及可比的。