Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 35:1 (2022) ► pp.65–99

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The use of questions posed by professors in English and Montenegrin academic lectures

A corpus-based study

ORCiD logo with link | University of Montenegro
Published online: 30 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.19058.ziv
Abstract
Although questions are considered as important linguistic devices employed by lecturers to communicate facts and ideas to students and facilitate the learning process, they have not been a topic of extensive research. With that in mind, this paper explores the types and functions of questions asked by British and Montenegrin lecturers. It examines similarities and differences between two corpora – standard British academic corpora and a specially created corpus of Montenegrin lectures. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used to conduct a contrastive analysis of lecturers’ questions. The results demonstrate that the differences in frequency, forms and functions of questions prevail over the similarities, which could be the impact of two different linguistic backgrounds and national academic cultures. The findings of this study could be useful in designing lecture-listening and note-taking courses for students in which they can get familiar with the forms and purpose of questions posed by professors. Research findings could be applied in training courses for novice lecturers and might also be useful to professors who give lectures to students with diverse linguistic backgrounds.
Resumen
El uso de las cuestiones planteadas por profesores en las ponencias universitarias inglesas y montenegrinas: Un estudio basado en corpus
Aunque cuestiones se consideran importantes recursos lingüísticos empleados por profesores para comunicar hechos e ideas a los estudiantes y facilitar el proceso de aprendizaje, no han sido el tema de investigaciones exhaustivas. Teniendo esto en cuenta, este papel explora los tipos y las funciones de cuestiones planteadas por profesores británicos y montenegrinos. El papel examina las similitudes y diferencias entre dos corpus: el corpus académico británico estándar y un corpus de las ponencias universitarias montenegrinas, formado especialmente para esta investigación. Para el análisis contrastivo de las cuestiones de profesores se ha utilizado tanto la metodología cuantitativa, como la cualitativa. Los resultados demuestran que las diferencias en frecuencia, formas y funciones de las cuestiones prevalecen sobre las similitudes, lo que podría ser el impacto de dos orígenes lingüísticos diferentes y culturas académicas nacionales. Los resultados del estudio podrían ser útiles para diseñar cursos de escuchar ponencias y cursos de tomar notas para estudiantes en los que puedan familiarizarse con las formas y el propósito de las cuestiones planteadas por profesores. Los hallazgos de la investigación podrían aplicarse en cursos de formación para profesores principiantes y también podrían ser útiles para profesores que imparten ponencias a estudiantes con diversos orígenes lingüísticos.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
    • 2.1Corpus
    • 2.2Analytical procedure
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Formal realisations of questions posed and answered by lecturers
      • 3.1.1Functions of formal realisations of the questions posed and answered by lecturers
        • 3.1.1.1Wh-questions
        • 3.1.1.2Tag questions and statement+word tag (okay, right, yeah, all right)
        • 3.1.1.3Yes/no questions
        • 3.1.1.4Multiple questions
        • 3.1.1.5Questions with a question word/phrase at the end
    • 3.2Formal realisations of questions initiating a student response
      • 3.2.1Functions of formal realisations of the questions initiating a student response
        • 3.2.1.1Wh-questions
        • 3.2.1.2Yes/no questions
        • 3.2.1.3Multiple questions
        • 3.2.1.4Directives
        • 3.2.1.5Statement + a pause
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (51)
References
Bamford, J. (2000). Question and answer sequencing in academic lectures. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill & F. Rock (Eds.), Dialogue analysis VII: Working with dialogue (pp. 159–170). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Interactivity in academic lectures: The role of questions and answers. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp. 123–145). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2008). Discourse markers within the university lecture genre: A contrastive study between Spanish and North-American lectures. Spain: Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at… lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bugarski, R. (2018). Govorite li zajednički? [Do you speak a mutual language?] Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Y. Y. (2012). The use of questions by professors in lectures given in English: Influences of disciplinary cultures. English for Specific Purposes, 311, 103–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chuska, K. R. (1995). Improving classroom questions. A teacher’s guide to increasing student motivation, participation and higher-level thinking. Bloomington: Phi Beta Kappan Educational Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 39–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Interaction in academic lectures vs. written text materials: The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 401, 1216–1231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csomay, E. (2013). Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 369–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dafouz, E., Núńez, B., & Sancho, C. (2007). Analysing stance in a CLIL university context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 647–662. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 361, 1807–1825. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2005). Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: Directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1275–1293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 91–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farr, F. (2003). Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student–tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 67–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1996). Lectures in a second language: Notes towards a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 121–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 435–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 45–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, S., & Hofland, K. (1994). Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. In U. Fries, G. Tottie & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and using English language corpora (pp. 25–37). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, J. A. (2003). A conversation analytic/empirical pragmatic account of lecture discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Durham.
Levin, H., & Gray, D. (1983). The lecturer’s ok. American Speech, 58(3), 195–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, C.-Y. (2012). Modifiers in BASE and MICASE: A matter of academic cultures or lecturing styles? English for Specific Purposes, 311, 117–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economic Texts. English for Specific Purposes, 121, 3–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nordrum, L. (2015). [Review of the book Contrastive Discourse Analysis – Functional and Corpus Perspectives, by Maite Taboada, Susana Doval Suárez and Elsa González Álvarez (Eds.)]. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(3), 327–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mrazović, P., & Vukadinović, Z. (1990). Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za strance. [A grammar of Serbo-Croatian for non-native speakers.] Novi Sad: Dobra vest.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Othman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 665–681. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piper, P., Antonić, I., Ružić, V., Tanasić, S., Popović, Lj., & Tošović, B. (2005). Sintaksa savremenog srpskog jezika. [Syntax of contemporary Serbian.] Beograd: Beogradska knjiga.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rilling, S. (1996). Lexical phrases as organizational markers in academic lectures: A corpus- and computer-based approach to research and teaching. The ORTESOL Journal, 171, 19–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rounds, P. (1987a). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 643–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987b). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in educational setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savić, S. (1993). Diskurs analiza. [Discourse analysis.] Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 71, 289–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleef, E. (2008). ‘The lecturer’s ok’ revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). A cross-cultural investigation of German and American academic style. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1104–1124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 343–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, P., & Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 290–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suviniitty, J. (2010). Lecturers’ questions and student perception of lecture comprehension. Helsinki English Studies, 61, 44–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Lectures in English as a lingua franca: Interactional features. PhD thesis. University of Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages.
Thompson, S. (1998). Why ask questions in monologue? Language choice at work in scientific and linguistic talk. In S. Hunston (Ed.), Language at work (pp. 137–150). Clevedon, England: University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsui, A. (1992). A functional description of questions. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 89–110). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yakhontova, T. (2002). ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’: The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 216–232). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue