نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه کوثر بجنورد

2 دانشگاه صنعتی اسفراین

چکیده

هدف از انجام این پژوهشِ پیکره­محور، بررسی چگونگی جداسازی مطلب ­های بااهمیت از کم­اهمیت در ارائه­ های علمی انگلیسی و فارسی است. مقاله حاضر کوشیده­است تا نشانگرهای مطالبِ­ بااهمیت را از نظر نقشی که در ارائه دارند، دسته­بندی نماید. به این منظور، از روش تحقیق ترکیبی بهره گرفته شده­است. به منظور یافتن نشانگرهای مطلب­های بااهمیت، 160 ارائه در پیکره بیس و 60 ارائه در پیکره فارسی سخن، موردبررسی قرار گرفت. سپس این نشانگرها از لحاظ نقشی که در ارائه داشتند، گروه­بندی شدند. یافته­ های پژوهش نشان داد در سخنرانی­های علمی، مجزا کردن مطلب­ های بااهمیت از کم­اهمیت- بدون درنظر گرفتن گونه زبانی انگلیسی یا فارسی، با تکیه بر پنج نقش کلامیِ «سازمان‌دهی کلام»، «تعامل با مخاطب»، «پوشش موضوع»، «وضعیت مطلب»، و «ارتباط با امتحان» انجام می­گیرد. علاوه بر این، جداسازی مطلب­های بااهمیت از کم‌اهمیت صرفاً با تکیه بر یک نقش کلامی صورت نمی­گیرد. افزون بر این، نشانگرهای نمایانندة موضوع، اهمیت مطلب را فقط به صورت ضمنی نشان می­دهند. همچنین، تعامل با مخاطب بیشترین فراوانی را در بین نشانگرهای اهمیت مطلب­ها در ارائه­ های انگلیسی و فارسی به خود اختصاص داده­است. به طور کلی، یافته­ های این مقاله نشان داد، برای مجزا کردن مطلب­ های بااهمیت از کم­اهمیت در ارا ئه­ های انگلیسی و فارسی باید کلام را به سوی مخاطب سوق داد. به ‌بیان روشن­تر، ارائه­ دهنده ­ها بیشتر تمایل دارند برای تأکید بر مطلب­ های بااهمیت با مخاطب تعامل ایجاد کنند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

English and Persian academic lectures: A corpus-driven investigation of distinguishing between important and unimportant information in SOKHAN and BASE corpora

نویسندگان [English]

  • Javad Zare 1
  • Zahra Kivanlo shahrestanaki 2

1 Faculty member Kosar university of Bojnord

2 Esfarayne University of Technology

چکیده [English]

1. Background
University students have to deal with a number of academic skills and literacies such as listening to academic lectures, taking notes, and writing academic essays. The students’ success in their academic work depends on their successful undertaking of these skills. Yet, many students find it difficult to cope with these literacies. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) students may run further into problem, as they lack the necessary skills to comprehend and produce a diverse range of complex academic discourses.
One of these skills, academic lecturing plays a significant role in academic education. The importance of lectures in academic education has made some scholars believe that comprehending lectures is of critical importance to the students’ academic success. Yet, understanding academic lectures is a considerable challenge for students in English-medium classes. Part of this difficulty has been attributed to “an overwhelming impression of speed and a lack of control over the speaker” (Lynch, 2011, p. 81). Additionally, academic lectures have “very dense informational packaging” (Lin, 2010, p. 1174). Lectures abound with important information. The dense distribution of information in lectures makes it difficult for the students to comprehend all the information presented throughout the lecture. Therefore, it is important for the students to be able to differentiate between important and unimportant information.
Expressions that help students differentiate between important and unimportant information are referred to as relevance/importance markers (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2007; Deroey& Taverniers, 2012; Hunston, 1994), ‘importance cues’ (Kiewra, 2002), ‘emphasizers’ (Siepmann, 2005), ‘selection cues’ (Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004), and ‘focusers’ (Simpson, 2004).
With these points in mind, an understanding of how important information is distinguished from unimportant information in academic lectures is of crucial importance. Nevertheless, very little is known about them. Except for a few studies that have specifically dealt with importance marking in English lectures (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004, 2007; Deroey, 2015; Deroey & Taverniers, 2012), what we know about this function is limited to studies that have found examples of importance markers (Biber, 2006; DeCarrico & Nattinger, 1988; Young, 1994; among others). Furthermore, it is now widely recognized that discourse structuring or organization devices facilitate the students’ comprehension, note-taking and recall of lectures (e.g., Olsen & Huckin, 1990).This study attempts to explore importance marking in English and Persian academic lectures.
 
2. Methodology
The study adopts an approach which is descriptive, contrastive, and corpus-driven. It aims at eliciting the importance markers from the English and Persian academic lectures. All the importance markers in the academic lectures were elicited from two corpora. Afterwards, the elicited importance markers from the Persian and English academic lectures were investigated functionally.
To be more exact, two corpora were used in this research to explore the un/importance markers: the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) Corpus and the Persian corpus of SOKHAN. The BASE corpus was developed at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, 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 (Nesi, 2012). The lecture section which is the basis for the analysis of this dissertation contains 1,186,290 words. The lectures 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 Persian corpus of SOKHAN was developed at the Science and Technology Park of North Khorasan, Iran under the directorship of Javad Zare and Zahra Keivanlou-Shahrestanaki. Corpus development was assisted by funding from the Technology University of Esfarayen and the Science and Technology Park of North Khorasan. SOKHAN consists of audio and video recordings, and the transcripts of 60 Persian academic lectures, totaling 480,526 words. The lectures of SOKHAN were recorded between 2010 and 2015. They are delivered mainly by the male native speakers of Persian lecturers. The lectures of SOKHAN evenly spread in the four disciplinary groups of engineering (es), humanities (hs), medicine (ms), and base sciences (bs).
3. Results and conclusion
The findings suggest that regardless of language, importance marking in the academic lectures is done via five discourse functions including audience engagement, discourse organization, subject status, topic treatment, and being related to exam. Besides, differentiating between the important points and the trivial ones is not necessarily done via only a single discourse function. Another finding of this research is that topic treatment markers of importance indicate importance only implicitly. It should be noted that audience engagement markers of importance were found to be the most frequently used markers in the academic lectures. Generally, marking importance in the English and Persian academic lectures mostly involves orienting the discourse to the audience. To put it differently, the presenters mostly tend to get engaged with the audience in order to indicate the important information.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Key words: important information
  • discourse function
  • corpus
  • corpus-based
  • English academic lecture
  • Persian academic lecture

زارع، جواد، اسلامی­راسخ، عباس و عزیزا... دباغی (پذیرفته­شده. آ). ««این نکته­ای که من می­خوام اینجا دقت کنید»: برجسته کردن نکات مهم در ارائه‌های علمی فارسی». زبان پژوهی.

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.

Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Björkman, B. (2011). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca in the international university: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 923–925.  doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.015

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.

Brown, G., & Bakhtar, M. (1988). Styles of lecturing: A study and its implications. Research Papers in Education, 3(2), 131–153. doi:10.1080/0267152880030204

Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127. doi:10.1093/applin/7.2.113

Conrad, S. (2004). Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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.

DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 91–102. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(88)90027-    0

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. (2012). Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 221–233.       doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001

Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication. A discourse-community view. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11–39). Berlin: Mouton de    Gruyter.

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.

Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329–   346. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0

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.

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

Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: an exploratory comparison of small-and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42–57. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.001

Lin, C. Y. (2010). '... that's actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in...': Functions and multifunctionality of modifiers in academic lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1173–1183. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.001

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T. & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research from theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Lynch, T. (1994). Training lecturers for international audiences. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp.  269–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, T. (2004). Study listening: a course in listening to lectures and note taking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research.  Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.001

McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and  university teachers. Lexington: Heath and Co.

Mulligan, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehension. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(3), 311–335. doi:10.1080/758484352

Nesi, H. (2001). A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In J. Cotterill,   & A. Ife (Eds.), Language across boundaries. BAAL, Vol. 16 (pp. 201–218). London:Continuum.

Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. H. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture   comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9(1), 33–47. doi:10.1016/0889- 4906(90)90027-A

Revell, A., & Wainwright, E. (2009). What makes lectures ‘unmissable’? Insights into teaching   excellence and active learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 209– 223. doi:10.1080/03098260802276771

Scott, M. (2015). WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.

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.

Sutherland, P., & Badger, R. (2004). Lecturers’ perceptions of lectures. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 277–289. doi:10.1080/0309877042000241751

Swales, J. M., & Burke, A. (2003). “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus      analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

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

Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 713–729. doi:10.2307/3586870

Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: student patterns and instructional strategies. The Journal of General Education, 51(3), 173–199. doi:10.1353/jge.2003.0006

Young, L. (1994). University lectures: Macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 159–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zare, J., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dabaghi, A. (In press). “The point I want you to have in mind”: Marking important points in Persian academic lectures. Zaban Pazhouhi.

Zare, J., & Tavakoli, M. (2017). The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 163-175. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1116342