Reference in importance markers in academic lectures

Document Type : Research

Author

Kosar University of Bojnord

Abstract

Background
Comprehending English academic lectures is difficult for students whose mother tongue is not English. This difficulty is mostly due to the ephemeral nature of lectures and information overload. An understanding of how importance is signified in lectures might benefit lecture comprehension; to this end, this paper studies English academic lectures as a case study of reference in importance markers.
     Expressions that help students distinguish between important and unimportant information are referred to as ‘relevance markers’ (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2007; Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a; Hunston, 1994), ‘importance cues’ (Kiewra, 2002), ‘emphasizers’ (Siepmann, 2005), ‘selection cues’ (Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004), and ‘focusers’ (Simpson, 2004).
     According to Hunston (1994), relevance markers have four distinguishing features. First, they may be retrospective or prospective (p.199); this feature is related to the placement of the important information, no matter whether it is placed before or after the importance marker. Second, relevance markers overtly mark the relevance of preceding, or subsequent stretches of text (p.199); this feature is related to the use of evaluative language (e.g., important, unimportant) to mark importance. Third, relevance markers evaluate the discourse itself and are thus metadiscoursal (p. 199). Finally, they play an important role in organizing discourse (p. 199).
     Deroey (2015) has derived importance markers from 160 lectures of the BASE corpus and classified them in terms of participants` orientation and discourse. Deroey observed that importance markers pertaining to content, listener, speaker, or joint orientation followed the patterns of ‘MN v-link’, ‘V n/clause’, ‘1s pers pron V n/clause’, and ‘1p pers pron V n/clause’, respectively. Additionally, importance markers with prospective, retrospective, or combined orientation to highlighted discourse had the patterns of [‘V n/clause’ and ‘MN v-link’], [‘deic v-link ADJ’, ‘deic v-link MN’, and ‘deic v-link adj MN’], and [‘1s pers pron V n/clause’ and ‘deic v-link adj MN’], respectively. Deroey also found most markers to be directed towards either the content (e.g. the point is) or the listeners (e.g. you should remember). Few importance markers were observed to be oriented towards the speaker (e.g. I should stress) or the speaker and listeners jointly (e.g. I want you to notice). Moreover, Deroey found many content-oriented markers with secondary listener orientation (e.g., these are the things to take home).
     Partington (2014) examined importance marking at local and macro levels in TED talks. The corpus Partington based his study on comprised transcripts of 27 TED talks gathered in 2007- 2012 and was downloadable from the TED website. Generally, Partington found importance marking in TED talks to be of two types: endophoric and exophoric. Endophoric importance marking indicates that what the speaker is about to say (cataphoric marking)– or has just said (anaphoric marking)– is a key point in the development of his/her talk. Exophoric importance marking or ‘real-world oriented’ importance marking (Thompson & Hunston, 2000, p. 24) stresses how the topic the speaker is expounding on, or the work he/she is describing, has importance in real, extra-textual world (Thompson & Hunston, 2000). Partington found exophoric importance marking or ‘reference to real-world considerations’ to be the most common type of importance marking (p. 149).
 
Methodology
The analytical procedure of this study was a combination of corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. A corpus-driven approach was followed to retrieve importance markers and a discourse analytic approach was followed to investigate their reference.
     The corpus used in this investigation to derive importance markers was British Academic Spoken English (BASE) Corpus. The BASE corpus was developed at the Universities of Warwick and Reading in England under the directorship of Hilary Nesi and Paul Thompson. BASE comprises the audio and video recordings, and the transcripts of 160 English lectures and 39 seminars, totaling 1,644,942 words. The lecture section which is the basis for the analysis of this paper contains 1,186,290 words; they were recorded between 1998 and 2005. Lectures are equally distributed across four broad disciplinary groups, i.e. arts and humanities (ah), life and medical sciences (ls), physical sciences (ps), and social studies (ss).
     The transcripts of 160 English academic lectures of the BASE corpus, delivered by male and female lecturers, were investigated. 1,350 concordances of importance markers were extracted and analyzed in terms of reference—anaphoric, cataphoric, and shared.
 
Results and conclusion
The results showed that (1) both male and female lecturers tend to give cataphoric reference to importance markers in organizing discourse and subject status, than anaphoric one; (2) male and female lecturers use anaphoric and cataphoric importance marking equally in topic treatment markers of importance; (3) exam-related issue is necessarily done through anaphoric importance marking by both male and female lecturers; and (4) audience engagement markers are more cataphoric than anaphoric. By and large, the results showed that most importance markers are cataphoric in reference.

Keywords

References

Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: a taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 69–97.
Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp. 221–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse. London: Continuum.
Bondi, M. (2008). Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the            study of cross-disciplinary variation. In A. Ädel & R. Reppen (Eds.), Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings (pp. 31–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Buck, G. (1992). Listening comprehension: construct validity and trait characteristics. Language Learning, 42(3), 313–357.
           doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01339.x
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Audience-oriented relevance markers in business studies lectures. In G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini Bonelli (Eds.), Academic Discourse: Linguistic Insights into Evaluation (pp. 81–97). Bern: Peter Lang.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2007). The language of business studies lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
Deroey, K. L. B. (2014). “Anyway, the point I'm making is”: lexicogrammatical relevance marking in lectures. In V. Lieven, K. Davidse, C. Gentens & D. Kimps (Eds.), Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora (pp. 265–291). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36 (1), 51–72.
            doi:10.1093/applin/amt029
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2011). A corpus-based study of lecture functions. Moderna Språk, 105 (2), 1–22.
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012a). Just remember this: lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (4), 221–233. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012b). ‘Ignore that ‘cause it’s totally irrelevant’: Marking lesser relevance in lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (14), 2085–2099. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.001
Ellington, H. (2000). How to become an excellent tertiary-level teacher. Seven golden rules for university and college lecturers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24 (3), 311–321.
           doi:10.1080/030987700750022253
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: an overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Listening: Research Perspectives (pp. 7–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heino, A., Tervonen, E., & Tommola, J. (2002). Metadiscourse in academic conference presentations. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing (pp. 127–146). Bern: Peter Lang.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191–218). London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 125–143.
Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (4), 562–577.
            doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00208
Kiewra, K. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 71–80.
              doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_3
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The sketch engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1 (1), 7–36.
Partington, A. (2014). The marking of importance in ‘Enlightentainment’ talks. In M. Gotti & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), Corpus Analysis for Descriptive and Pedagogical Purposes (pp. 143–166). Bern: Peter Lang.
Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse markers across languages: a contrastive study of second-level    discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography. New York: Routledge.
Simpson, R. (2004). Stylistic features of academic speech: the role of formulaic expressions. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Suviniitty, J. (2010). Lecturers questions and student perception of lecture comprehension. Helsinki English Studies, 6, 44–57.
Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk the cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1), 34–54.
           doi:10.1177/00754240122005189
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: an introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures.  Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (1), 5–20.
           doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X
Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student note     taking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 447–461.
           doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001
Wirt, J., Choy, S., Greald, D., Provasnik, S., Rooney, P., & Watanabe, S. (2001). The condition of education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Zare, J., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dabaghi, A. (In press, A). “The point I want you to have in mind”: marking important points in Persian academic lectures. Zabanpazhouhi [in Persian].
Zare, J., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dabaghi, A. (In press, B). Marking unimportant information in Persian academic lectures: a taxonomy based on discourse functions. Language Related Research [in Persian].
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 10, Issue 29
February 2019
Pages 179-192

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics