Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective

Abstract The primary goal of this study is to identify intra-textual linguistic variation in university classroom talk, applying corpus-based techniques to the analysis. First, based on the automatically identified vocabulary patterns in classroom talk a large number of class sessions are segmented into smaller units of analysis. Second, the co-occurring patterns of a range of linguistic features are identified in these units applying multi-dimensional analytical techniques. Relying on these patterns, three dimensions of linguistic variation are identified in university classroom talk: (1) Contextual, directive orientation versus Conceptual, informative focus; (2) Personalized framing versus Lack of personalized framing; (3) Interactive dialogue versus Teacher monologue. Finally, taking these dimensions, session initial differences in the discourse patterns in six disciplines and three instructional levels are discussed.

[1]  Eniko Csomay,et al.  11. Variation in academic lectures: Interactivity and level of instruction , 2002 .

[2]  D. Biber,et al.  Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English , 1999 .

[3]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Using corpora to explore linguistic variation , 2002 .

[4]  L. Young.  Academic Listening: University lectures – macro-structure and micro-features , 1995 .

[5]  Geoffrey Thornton,et al.  Language in use , 1973 .

[6]  Gordon Wells,et al.  Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom , 1993 .

[7]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English , 2002 .

[8]  Marti A. Hearst.  Text Tiling: Segmenting Text into Multi-paragraph Subtopic Passages , 1997, CL.

[9]  Michael Hoey,et al.  Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis , 2000 .

[10]  Susan Thompson,et al.  Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures , 2003 .

[11]  J. Searle.  A classification of illocutionary acts , 1976, Language in Society.

[12]  Susan Conrad,et al.  Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison , 2002 .

[13]  Rita C. Simpson,et al.  A CORPUS-BASED STUDY OF IDIOMS IN ACADEMIC SPEECH , 2003 .

[14]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[15]  Martin Bygate,et al.  Units of Oral Expression and Language Learning in Small Group Interaction , 1988 .

[16]  Hongyin Tao,et al.  Turn Initiators in Spoken English: A Corpus-Based Approach to Interaction and Grammar , 2003 .

[17]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation. , 1990 .

[18]  Willem Meijs,et al.  Language and computers : studies in practical linguistics , 1998 .

[19]  Marti A. Hearst.  Multi-Paragraph Segmentation Expository Text , 1994, ACL.

[20]  K. Hyland,et al.  Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. , 2002 .

[21]  Stefan Frazier.  A Corpus Analysis of Would‐Clauses Without Adjacent If‐Clauses , 2003 .

[22]  Susan Conrad,et al.  A student grammar of spoken and written English. , 2002 .

[23]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[24]  Susan Conrad,et al.  Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use , 1998 .

[25]  Craig Chaudron,et al.  Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teaching and Learning. , 1988 .

[26]  Douglas Biber,et al.  On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis , 1992 .

[27]  Charles F. Meyer.  Apposition in contemporary English: List of figures , 1992 .

[28]  C. Cazden.  Language in the Classroom , 1986, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[29]  M. Coulthard,et al.  Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis , 1992 .

[30]  H. Mehan,et al.  Learning Lessons, Social Organization in the Classroom , 1979 .

[31]  D. Biber,et al.  If you look at …: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks , 2004 .

[32]  S Aarts,et al.  The verb in contemporary English: theory and description , 1997 .

[33]  Charles F. Meyer,et al.  Corpus analysis : language structure and language use , 2003 .

[34]  Fiona Farr,et al.  Engaged Listenership in Spoken Academic Discourse: The Case of Student-Tutor Meetings. , 2003 .

[35]  Michael Mccarthy.  3. Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation , 2002 .

[36]  Deborah Poole,et al.  Linguistic Connections Between Co-Occurring Speech and Writing in a Classroom Literacy Event , 2003 .

[37]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an analysis of discourse , 1977 .

[38]  Tony Dudley-Evans.  Academic Listening: Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications , 1995 .

[39]  Carole Edelsky,et al.  A Discourse on Academic Discourse , 2002 .

[40]  Inmaculada Fortanet,et al.  The use of 'we' in university lectures: reference and function , 2004 .

[41]  Mary J. Schleppegrell.  Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling , 2001 .

[42]  Michael H. Long,et al.  Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition , 1985 .

[43]  John M. Swales,et al.  Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings , 1993 .

[44]  Courtney B. Cazden,et al.  Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Second Edition. , 2001 .

[45]  Susan Conrad,et al.  Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies , 2001 .

[46]  John Flowerdew,et al.  Academic Listening: Research Perspectives , 1995 .

[47]  Hanh thi Nguyen,et al.  Modes of Meaning in High School Science , 2002 .

[48]  Ulla Connor,et al.  Applied corpus linguistics : a multidimensional perspective , 2004 .

[49]  Douglas Biber,et al.  A Corpus Linguistic Investigation of Vocabulary-based Discourse Units in University Registers , 2004 .