Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allison, D., & Tauroza, S.
    (1995) The effect of discourse organisation on lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 157–173. 10.1016/0889‑4906(95)00007‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(95)00007-E [Google Scholar]
  2. Alsop, S. & Nesi, H.
    (2014) The pragmatic annotation of a corpus of academic lectures. InN. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2006) University language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (Eds.) (1994) Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M.
    (2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9–48. 10.2307/3588359
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588359 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Biber, D., Csomay, E., Jones, J. K., & Keck, C.
    (2004) A corpus linguistic investigation of vocabulary-based discourse units in university registers. InU. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp.53–72). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004333772_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333772_005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., U. Connor, E. Csomay, J. K. Jones, C. Keck, & T. Upton
    (2007) Introduction to the identification and analysis of vocabulary based discourse units. InD. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. (pp.155–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  12. Csomay, E.
    (2002) Variation in academic lectures: interactivity and level of instruction. InR. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. (pp.203–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.9.14cso
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.9.14cso [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15(3), 243–274. 10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2006) Academic talk in American university classrooms: Crossing the boundaries of oral – literate discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 117–135. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2007) Vocabulary-based discourse units in university class sessions. InD. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton, Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp.213–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28.11cso
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28.11cso [Google Scholar]
  16. (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]
  17. Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M.
    (2011) A corpus-based study of lecture functions. Moderna Sprak, 105(2), 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dudley-Evans, T.
    (1994) Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. InJ. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp.146–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hearst, M. A.
    (1994) Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository texts (Technical Report 94/790). Berkeley, CA: Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California. 10.3115/981732.981734
    https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981734 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1997) TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 33–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoey, M.
    (2004) Lexical priming and the properties of text. InA. Partington, J. Morely, & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp.386–412). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Huebner, T.
    (Ed.) (1994) Sociolinguistic perspectives. Papers on language in society 1959–1994. Charles A. Ferguson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyland, K.
    (2006) Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. InK. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines. (pp.17–45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0446‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0446-2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hymes, D.
    (1962) The ethnography of speaking. InT. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp.13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1972) Toward ethnographies of communication. InP. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp.21–44). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1974) Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J.
    (1992) Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nesi, H.
    (2001) A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. InJ. 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]
  31. O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M., & Hoey, M.
    (2012) Exploring text-initial words, clusters and congrams. InE. Csomay (Ed.), Discourse and corpora. Special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 73–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. H.
    (1990) Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9(1), 33–47. 10.1016/0889‑4906(90)90027‑A
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90027-A [Google Scholar]
  33. Prince, E.
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Thompson, S.
    (2003) Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 5–20. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(02)00036‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X [Google Scholar]
  35. Thompson, P., & Nesi, H.
    (2001) The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus project. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 263–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Youmans, G.
    (1991) A new tool for discourse analysis: The Vocabulary Management Profile. Language, 67, 763–89. 10.2307/415076
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415076 [Google Scholar]
  37. Young, L.
    (1994) University lectures – macro-structure and micro-features. InJ. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp.159–176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [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