Volume 35, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bamford, J.
    (2000) Question and answer sequencing in academic lectures. InM. Coulthard, J. Cotterill & F. Rock (Eds.), Dialogue analysis VII: Working with dialogue (pp.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. InJ. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp.123–145). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110933222.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110933222.123 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. (2018) Evaluative language in medical discourse: A contrastive study between English and Spanish university lectures. Languages in Contrast, 18(2), 155–174. 10.1075/lic.15018.bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15018.bel [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
    (2007) Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
    (2004) If you look at… lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 371–405. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bugarski, R.
    (2018) Govorite li zajednički? [Do you speak a mutual language?] Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cameron, D.
    (2001) Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, Y. Y.
    (2012) The use of questions by professors in lectures given in English: Influences of disciplinary cultures. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 103–116. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaudron, C., & Richards, J.
    (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127. 10.1093/applin/7.2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00044‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00044-4 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008) Interaction in academic lectures vs. written text materials: The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1216–1231. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Csomay, E.
    (2013) Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 369–388. 10.1093/applin/ams045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams045 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. 10.2167/beb464.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb464.0 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl, T.
    (2004) Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807–1825. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2005) Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: Directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1275–1293. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J. R.
    (1988) Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 91–102. 10.1016/0889‑4906(88)90027‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90027-0 [Google Scholar]
  20. Du Bois, J. W.
    (1991) Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1, 71–106. 10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi [Google Scholar]
  21. Farr, F.
    (2003) Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student–tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 67–85. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(02)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L.
    (1996) Lectures in a second language: Notes towards a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 2, 121–140. 10.1016/0889‑4906(96)00001‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(96)00001-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S.
    (1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 435–458. 10.1017/S0272263100014406
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fortanet, I.
    (2004) The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 45–66. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(03)00018‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00018-8 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InG. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  26. Johansson, S., & Hofland, K.
    (1994) Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. InU. Fries, G. Tottie & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and using English language corpora (pp.25–37). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. King, J. A.
    (2003) A conversation analytic/empirical pragmatic account of lecture discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Durham.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levin, H., & Gray, D.
    (1983) The lecturer’s ok. American Speech, 58(3), 195–200. 10.2307/455226
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455226 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lin, C.-Y.
    (2012) Modifiers in BASE and MICASE: A matter of academic cultures or lecturing styles?English for Specific Purposes, 31, 117–126. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mauranen, A.
    (1993) Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economic Texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22. 10.1016/0889‑4906(93)90024‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I [Google Scholar]
  31. Nordrum, L.
    (2015) [Review of the book Contrastive Discourse Analysis – Functional and Corpus Perspectives, byMaite Taboada, Susana Doval Suárez and Elsa González Álvarez (Eds.)]. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(3), 327–332. 10.1558/lhs.v10i3.29303
    https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v10i3.29303 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H.
    (2006) Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283–304. 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. 10.1177/1461445610376365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610376365 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. Rilling, S.
    (1996) Lexical phrases as organizational markers in academic lectures: A corpus- and computer-based approach to research and teaching. The ORTESOL Journal, 17, 19–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rounds, P.
    (1987a) Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 643–671. 10.2307/3586987
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586987 [Google Scholar]
  38. (1987b) Multifunctional personal pronoun use in educational setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13–29. 10.1016/0889‑4906(87)90072‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(87)90072-X [Google Scholar]
  39. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Savić, S.
    (1993) Diskurs analiza. [Discourse analysis.] Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schleef, E.
    (2008) ‘The lecturer’s ok’ revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62–84. 10.1215/00031283‑2008‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-003 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2009) A cross-cultural investigation of German and American academic style. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1104–1124. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Shaw, P.
    (2003) Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 343–357. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00050‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X [Google Scholar]
  45. Shaw, P., & Vassileva, I.
    (2009) Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 290–305. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  46. Suviniitty, J.
    (2010) Lecturers’ questions and student perception of lecture comprehension. Helsinki English Studies, 6, 44–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2012) Lectures in English as a lingua franca: Interactional features. PhD thesis. University of Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Thompson, S.
    (1998) Why ask questions in monologue? Language choice at work in scientific and linguistic talk. InS. Hunston (Ed.), Language at work (pp.137–150). Clevedon, England: University of Birmingham Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tsui, A.
    (1992) A functional description of questions. InM. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp.89–110). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Vassileva, I.
    (2001) Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00029‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 [Google Scholar]
  51. Yakhontova, T.
    (2002) ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’: The issue of cultural variation in research genres. InJ. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp.216–232). London: Longman.
    [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