Language variation in university classrooms
A corpus-driven geographical perspective
Corpus-based university classroom discourse studies found differences in teaching as it relates to language use: discourse organization, levels of instruction and interactivity, and disciplinary differences in participant talk. These practices were primarily reported on US-based classrooms, while scholars with different foci looked at British university classrooms as well. However, a comparison of how discourse is organized in university classrooms in varying geographical contexts is still missing. The present study provides lexico-grammatical analyses of classroom discourse at a South-East Asian university as associations are made to the communicative and pedagogical functions in the discourse structure of lectures, and comparisons are made to a corpus of university classroom discourse from the US. Findings show differences in language use and associated discourse organizational patterns within three disciplinary areas (Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Engineering) as they are delivered in the two geographical contexts. Implications are discussed for register, disciplinary, and discourse structure studies.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 2.1The structure of university classroom discourse
- 2.2Corpus analyses of university classroom discourse structure
- 2.2.1Automatic segmentation of texts into smaller units for corpus studies
- 2.3A multi-dimensional analysis of North American university classroom discourse
- 2.3.1Situational characteristics of university classrooms (Phase 1)
- 2.3.2Dimensions of linguistic variation in university class sessions (Phases 2 and 3)
- 2.4Goal of this study
- 3.Analytical procedures
- 3.1Corpora
- 3.2Preparing the files for linguistic analyses
- 3.3Discourse units
- 3.4Multi-dimensional analysis of university classroom discourse
- 3.5Summary of analytical steps
- 4.Findings
- 4.1Humanities
- 4.2Natural sciences
- 4.3Engineering
- 5.Summary and conclusion
- 6.Implications and limitations
- Notes
-
References
References (37)
Allison, D., & Tauroza, S.
(
1995)
The effect of discourse organisation on lecture comprehension.
English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 157–173.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Alsop, S. & Nesi, H.
(
2014)
The pragmatic annotation of a corpus of academic lectures. In
N. Calzolari,
K. Choukri,
T. Declerck,
H. Loftsson,
B. Maegaard,
J. Mariani,
A. Moreno,
J. Odijk, &
S. Piperidis (Eds.),
Language resources evaluation conference proceedings (pp. 1560–1563). Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Basturkmen, H.
(
2007)
Signalling the relationship between ideas in academic speaking: From language description to pedagogy.
Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 22(2), 61–71.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D.
(
1988)
Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
(Eds.) (
1994)
Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(
2009)
Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M.
(
2002)
Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison.
TESOL Quarterly, 361, 9–48.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Cortes, V., Csomay, E., & Urzua, A.
(
2004)
Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus (
TOEFL Monograph series [MS-26]). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Csomay, E., Jones, J. K., & Keck, C.
(
2004)
A corpus linguistic investigation of vocabulary-based discourse units in university registers. In
U. Connor &
T. Upton (Eds.),
Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 53–72). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., U. Connor, E. Csomay, J. K. Jones, C. Keck, & T. Upton
Csomay, E.
(
2005)
Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective.
Linguistics and Education, 15(3), 243–274.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Csomay, E.
(
2006)
Academic talk in American university classrooms: Crossing the boundaries of oral – literate discourse.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 117–135.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Csomay, E.
(
2013)
Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse.
Applied Linguistics, 34(3): 369–388.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M.
(
2011)
A corpus-based study of lecture functions.
Moderna Sprak, 105(2), 1–22.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dudley-Evans, T.
(
1994)
Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In
J. Flowerdew (Ed.),
Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hearst, M. A.
(
1994)
Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository texts (
Technical Report 94/790
). Berkeley, CA: Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hearst, M. A.
(
1997)
TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages.
Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 33–64.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoey, M.
(
2004)
Lexical priming and the properties of text. In
A. Partington,
J. Morely, &
L. Haarman (Eds.),
Corpora and discourse (pp. 386–412). Bern: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoey, M.
(
2005)
Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huebner, T.
(Ed.) (
1994)
Sociolinguistic perspectives. Papers on language in society 1959–1994. Charles A. Ferguson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K.
(
2006)
Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In
K. Hyland &
M. Bondi (Eds.),
Academic discourse across disciplines. (pp. 17–45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hymes, D.
(
1962)
The ethnography of speaking. In
T. Gladwin &
W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.),
Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hymes, D.
(
1972)
Toward ethnographies of communication. In
P. P. Giglioli (Ed.),
Language and social context (pp. 21–44). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hymes, D.
(
1974)
Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J.
(
1992)
Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nesi, H.
(
2001)
A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In
J. Cotterill, &
A. E. Ife (Eds.),
Language across boundaries: Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics held at Anglia Polytechnic University (pp. 201–218). Cambridge,
September 2000.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M., & Hoey, M.
(
2012)
Exploring text-initial words, clusters and congrams. In
E. Csomay (Ed.),
Discourse and corpora. Special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 73–102.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. H.
(
1990)
Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension.
English for Specific Purposes, 9(1), 33–47.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, E.
(
1981)
Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In
P. Cole (Ed.),
Radical pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, S.
(
2003)
Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organization in academic lectures.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 5–20.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, P., & Nesi, H.
(
2001)
The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus project.
Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 263–264.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Youmans, G.
(
1991)
A new tool for discourse analysis: The Vocabulary Management Profile.
Language, 671, 763–89.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Young, L.
(
1994)
University lectures – macro-structure and micro-features. In
J. Flowerdew (Ed.),
Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Csomay, Eniko
2024.
Editor’s note.
International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice 4:1
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Wang, Wei
2024.
Lexical bundles in TED talks: Topical variations and pedagogical implications.
International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice 4:1
► pp. 93 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Yu, Xiaoli
2022.
A multi-dimensional analysis of English-medium massive open online courses (MOOCs) video lectures in China.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 55
► pp. 101079 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.