Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This study explores the use of content-oriented questions in British and Montenegrin university lectures. It examines their formal realisation, their frequency and their contextual functions, as well as the differences and similarities related to these questions between British linguistics lectures taken from the standard British corpora, and a specially compiled corpus of Montenegrin linguistics lectures. Compared to previous studies on content-oriented questions, one modified and five new functions are revealed, alongside one new formal realisation. The main differences between the corpora include the greater frequency of content-oriented questions in the Montenegrin lectures and a new questioning realisation, found only in the Montenegrin corpus, which is potentially attributable to differences between academic cultures. The major similarities relate to the use of the four most common question forms, which perform the same contextual functions. This contrastive study thus provides insights into the additional communicative functions and forms of content-oriented questions in university lectures.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Bamford, Julia
    2000 “Question and Answer Sequencing in Academic Lectures.” InDialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill, and Frances Rock, 159–170. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110941265‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-013 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2005 “Interactivity in Academic Lectures: The Role of Questions and Answers.” InDialogue within Discourse Communities: Metadiscursive Perspectives on Academic Genres, ed. byJulia Bamford, and Marina Bondi, 123–145. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110933222.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110933222.123 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen
    1998Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johannson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bugarski, Ranko
    2018Govorite li zajednički [Do you speak a mutual language]? Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, Yu-Ying
    2012 “The Use of Questions by Professors in Lectures Given in English: Influences of Disciplinary Cultures.” English for Specific Purposes311: 103–116. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chuska, Kenneth R.
    1995Improving Classroom Questions. A Teacher’s Guide to Increasing Student Motivation, Participation and Higher-Level Thinking. Bloomington: Phi Beta Kappan Educational Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda
    2008 “Interaction in Academic Lectures vs. Written Text Materials: The Case of Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics401: 1216–1231. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Flowerdew, John, and Lindsay Miller
    1996 “Lectures in a Second Language: Notes towards a Cultural Grammar.” English for Specific Purposes21: 121–140. 10.1016/0889‑4906(96)00001‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(96)00001-4 [Google Scholar]
  10. Holmes, Janet, and Tina Chiles
    2010 “‘Is That Right?’ Questions and Questioning as Control Devices in the Workplace.” In“Why Do You Ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 187–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Johansson, Stig, and Knut Hofland
    1994 “Towards an English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus.” InCreating and Using English Language Corpora, ed. byUdo Fries, Gunnel Tottie, and Peter Schneider, 25–37. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. King, Julie A.
    2003 “A Conversation Analytic/Empirical Pragmatic Account of Lecture Discourse.” PhD Thesis, University of Durham.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lee, Joseph J.
    2009 “Size Matters: An Exploratory Comparison of Small- and Large-class University Lecture Introductions.” English for Specific Purposes281: 42–57. 10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lin, Chia-Yen
    2012 “Modifiers in BASE and MICASE: A Matter of Academic Cultures or Lecturing Styles?” English for Specific Purposes311: 117–126. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Mrazović, Pavica, and Zora Vukadinović
    1990Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za strance [A grammar of Serbo-Croatian for nonnative speakers]. Novi Sad: Dobra vest.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Piper, Predrag, Ivana Antonić, Vladislava Ružić, Sreto Tanasić, Ljudmila Popović, and Branko Tošović
    2005Sintaksa savremenog srpskog jezika [Syntax of contemporary Serbian]. Beograd: Beogradska knjiga.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Schleef, Erik
    2009 “A Cross-cultural Investigation of German and American Academic Style.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (6): 1104–1124. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica71: 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  20. Suviniitty, Jaana
    2010 “Lecturers’ Questions and Student Perception of Lecture Comprehension.” Helsinki English Studies61: 44–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2012 Lectures in English as a Lingua Franca: Interactional Features. PhD Thesis. University of Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Thompson, Susan
    1998 “Why Ask Questions in Monologue? Language Choice at Work in Scientific and Linguistic Talk.” InLanguage at Work, ed. bySusan Hunston, 137–150. Clevedon, England: University of Birmingham Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Vassileva Irena
    Vassileva Irena 2001 “Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing.” English for Specific Purposes20 (1): 83–102. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00029‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 [Google Scholar]
  24. Yakhontova, Tatyana
    2002 “‘Selling’ or ‘Telling’: The Issue of Cultural Variation in Research Genres.” InAcademic Discourse, ed. byJohn Flowerdew, 216–232. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Živković, Branka
    2015 “Funkcionalne strukture i njihovi lingvistički eksponenti u diskursu univerzitetskih predavanja [Functional Structures and their Linguistic Exponents in the Discourse of University Lectures].” PhD thesis, University of Montenegro: Faculty of Philology. eteze.ucg.ac.me/application/showtheses?thesesId=132
  26. 2021 “Interaktivnost predavanja iz lingvistike na Univerzitetu Crne Gore [Interactivity of Linguistics Lectures Delivered at the University of Montenegro]”. InPrimenjena lingvistika [Applied Linguistics], a special issue in honour of Radmila Šević, ed. byKsenija Šulović, 271–286. Serbia: Applied Linguistics Association of Serbia, Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Philology of the University of Belgrade.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error