References of "Deroey, Katrien 50001679"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe representativeness of lecture listening coursebooks: language, lectures, research-informedness
Deroey, Katrien UL

in Journal of English for Academic Purposes (in press)

This paper examines 25 lecture listening coursebooks for their representativeness of ‘real’ lectures with a view to helping EAP practitioners make informed decisions about materials selection and ... [more ▼]

This paper examines 25 lecture listening coursebooks for their representativeness of ‘real’ lectures with a view to helping EAP practitioners make informed decisions about materials selection and development. The aspects of representativeness examined are language, lecture authenticity and research-informedness. For the analysis of language, signposts of important points in the coursebooks are compared with those retrieved from a corpus of 160 authentic lectures. The EAP lectures are analysed in terms of their source, delivery and length. The materials are also reviewed for their use of findings from research into listening comprehension and lecture discourse. Results suggest that current lecture listening materials often do not reflect the language and lectures students are likely encounter on their degree programmes. Moreover, materials are typically not (systematically) informed by listening and lecture discourse research. These findings highlight the need for EAP practitioners to approach published materials critically and supplement or modify them in ways that would better serve students. The paper concludes with recommendations on how this could be done. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 28 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailLuxembourgish English pronunciation: first forays
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2017, June 10)

Detailed reference viewed: 11 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailHow representative are EAP listening books of real lectures?
Deroey, Katrien UL

in Kemp, Jenny (Ed.) Proceedings of the 2015 BALEAP Conference. EAP in a rapidly changing landscape: Issues, challenges and solutions (2017)

Lecture listening and note-taking classes are a common component of EAP programmes and the list of listening course books is accordingly long. In deciding which of these to use, a key consideration is ... [more ▼]

Lecture listening and note-taking classes are a common component of EAP programmes and the list of listening course books is accordingly long. In deciding which of these to use, a key consideration is arguably whether it prepares students for lectures. In this regard, the availability of spoken academic corpora (e.g. BASE, MICASE, ELFA) and the research arising from these provides insights into lecture discourse that could be usefully integrated in such materials. However, as I will here show, the integration of corpus findings in EAP course books is surprisingly limited, raising the question of whether training based on such materials forms an adequate preparation for the demands of real lectures. I illustrate the gap between authentic lecture discourse and various current listening books by comparing the treatment of importance markers (e.g. the important point is; remember; I want to emphasize this) with their realisation in a lecture corpus. (Deroey and Taverniers 2012; Deroey 2013). Since these discourse organisational signals alert students to key points, being able to identify these markers may facilitate lecture comprehension and note-taking. Importance markers were retrieved from all 160 lectures of the British Academic Spoken English corpus using corpus-driven and corpus-based methods. The investigation revealed that while listening books typically highlight the importance of identifying the lecturer’s main points, students are either not or inadequately trained to recognise importance markers. Where examples of such markers are included, they are few and prototypical (e.g. the important point is). However, in the lecture corpus prototypical markers are relatively uncommon; instead less explicit, multifunctional markers such as ‘the thing is’ and ‘remember’ predominate. The findings suggest that much remains to be done to make lecture listening books more representative of real lectures. References Deroey, K. L. B. and Taverniers, M. 2012. “‘Just remember this’: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures”. English for Specific Purposes 31 (4): 221-233. Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 51-72. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 39 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMetadiscourse in lectures: the case of importance marking
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2016, November 19)

This paper surveys how relative importance is marked lexicogrammatically in lectures (cf. Deroey and Taverniers, 2012; Deroey, 2014; Deroey, 2015). Markers of (lesser) importance (e.g. the point is ... [more ▼]

This paper surveys how relative importance is marked lexicogrammatically in lectures (cf. Deroey and Taverniers, 2012; Deroey, 2014; Deroey, 2015). Markers of (lesser) importance (e.g. the point is, remember, anyway, briefly) are metadiscursive devices combining discourse organization with evaluation along a ‘parameter of importance or relevance’ (Thompson and Hunston, 2000: 24). Such marking can benefit lecture comprehension, note-taking and retention. Using corpus-driven and corpus-based methods, 40 lectures from the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus were first manually examined to identify candidate markers. Further instances of these and related markers were then retrieved from the whole corpus of 160 lectures using Corpus Query Language in Sketch Engine. A wide variety of markers were thus attested, the predominant ones of which are not the ones we would intuitively think of. Markers of important information were classified into lexicogrammatical patterns depending on the word class of their main lexeme. The multifunctional, semi-fixed expressions ‘the point is’ and ‘remember’ predominate over more stereotypical, explicit markers such as ‘the important point is’. Markers of lesser importance were classified according to how they achieved their effect. Most denote partial relevance (e.g. detail, in passing, briefly) rather than irrelevance (e.g. not pertinent, not matter, trash) and some markers appear pragmaticalized in certain contexts. As many markers required significant interpretation to achieve their importance marking effect, an understanding of the lecture genre as well as co-textual, visual, non-verbal and prosodic clues seem particularly important in identifying their precise status. This poses a challenge to quantification. Indeed, Hunston’s observation that ‘much evaluative meaning is not obviously identifiable, as it appears to depend on immediate context and on reader assumptions about value’ (2004: 157) is particularly pertinent here. Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012). ‘Ignore that'cause it's totally irrelevant’: marking lesser relevance in lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 2085-2099. Deroey, K. L. B. (2014). ‘Anyway, the point I'm making is’: Lexicogrammatical relevance marking in lectures. In L. Vandelanotte, D. Kristin, G. Caroline, & K. Ditte (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. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: OUP. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 42 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDesigning a multilingual course to support second and third language acquisition
Huemer, Birgit UL; Deroey, Katrien UL; Lejot, Eve UL

Scientific Conference (2016, September 02)

This paper reports on a multilingual course developed and taught at the University of Luxembourg Language Centre in 2015. The Language Centre offers academic language support in English, French and German ... [more ▼]

This paper reports on a multilingual course developed and taught at the University of Luxembourg Language Centre in 2015. The Language Centre offers academic language support in English, French and German across the universities three faculties, where most study programmes are bi- or trilingual. The question of how to use existing multilingual resources and support the acquisition of multilingual competences has become increasingly important due to the Bologna agreement and internationalisation strategies at many European universities. However, while research on third language acquisition (Cenoz, Hufeisen, Jessner 2001; Hufeisen, Neuner 2003; Jessner 2008) and multilingualism in higher education (Jessner 2008, Hu 2015; Rindler Schjerve, Vetter 2012) is a common theme, little has been published that could guide language teachers in the design of multilingual courses. Teaching methods such as Intercomprehension with GALANET (Degache 1997) or Eurocom (Meissner 2004; Hufeisen, Marx 2007; Klein 2007) and European projects like CARAP (Candelier 2007) and MAGICC document the need for new concepts in language education very well. Informed by the results of a university wide needs analysis of language competences at the University of Luxembourg, the Language Centre developed a trilingual presentation skills course (FR/EN/GE) for MA students to support second and third language acquisition. In this paper, we will present our course design, comment on the running of the course and present findings from our teaching and student course evaluations that can be used to inform the future teaching of multilingual courses. Our aim is to provide insights into how multilingual courses can be successfully designed and run. Candelier, M. et al. (2007). CARAP. Framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures. Graz: European Center of Modern Languages. Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds.). (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Degache, C. (1997). Développer l'intercompréhension dans l'espace linguistique roman: le programme Galatea/Socrates. Assises de l'enseignement du et en français, séminaire de Lyon: Aupelf-Uref. Hu, A. (2015). Internationalisierung und Mehrsprachigkeit: Universitäten als interkulturelle und mehrsprachige Diskursräume. In A. Küppers & P. Uyan-Sermeci & B. Pusch (eds.): Education in transnational spaces. Wiesbaden: 257-268. Hufeisen, B. & Neuner, G. (2003). Mehrsprachigkeitskonzept- Tertiärsprachenlernen – Deutsch nach Englisch. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Hufeisen, B. & Marx, N. (2007). How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations. In J.Ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (eds.): Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 307-321. Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. State-of-the-Art Article. In: Language Teaching 41/1, 15-56. Klein, H.-G. (2007). Où en sont les recherches sur l'eurocompréhension ? http://eurocomresearch.net/lit/Klein%20FR.htm: Université de Francfort/Main. Meißner, F-J. (2004). Transfer und Transferieren: Anleitungen zum Interkomprehensionsunterricht. In H.G. Klein & D. Rudtke (eds.): Neuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Intercomprehension. Aachen: Shaker, 39-66. Rindler Schjerve, R. & Vetter, E. (2012). European Multilingualism Current Perspectives and Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. MAGICC http://www.unil.ch/magicc/home.html GALANET, http://www.galanet.eu/ [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 68 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhat can EAP tutors do for EMI lecturers?
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2016, June 11)

This talk aims to engender discussion about how EAP tutors can support non-native speaker lecturers in an EMI context. I will first review research on EMI lecture discourse, including my study about ... [more ▼]

This talk aims to engender discussion about how EAP tutors can support non-native speaker lecturers in an EMI context. I will first review research on EMI lecture discourse, including my study about discourse organizational signals in native and non-native lecturer speech (cf. Deroey, 2015). Next I will present the results of an extensive needs analysis into lecturers’ perceived needs for EMI support at the multilingual University of Luxembourg. The needs analysis, which was performed by the University Language Centre, encompassed a university-wide online questionnaire (N=400) and semi-structured interviews with academic course directors (N=25). Results revealed that most EMI lecturers felt their English is at CEF level C2 and hence they were not usually looking to improve their English. Nevertheless, quite a few wanted to improve their pronunciation and grammar and were interested in training to help them teach in a language that is not their mother tongue. Similarly, the course directors were more concerned with lecturers improving their English for research writing rather than for lecturing. Finally, I will provide examples of how European universities have tried to support their staff in teaching through the medium of English. With this talk I hope to paint an informative picture of the needs EMI lecturers may have and open up a discussion about issues surrounding the provision of adequate and appropriate support. Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 51-72. doi:10.1093/applin/amt029 [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 53 (2 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailMultilingualism at the University of Luxembourg: policy, practice and attitudes
Deroey, Katrien UL; Lejot, Eve UL; Huemer, Birgit UL

Scientific Conference (2015, July 31)

Multilingualism is a key feature of the identity and development strategy of the University of Luxembourg. This is reflected in its slogan: ‘University of Luxembourg. Multilingual, personalized ... [more ▼]

Multilingualism is a key feature of the identity and development strategy of the University of Luxembourg. This is reflected in its slogan: ‘University of Luxembourg. Multilingual, personalized, connected’. The University Language Centre was recently founded to support multilingual education and the growth of the university as a research institution. To establish the needs for language and communication support and inform language policy decisions, we conducted an extensive needs analysis among staff and students. This paper presents the findings of that investigation. The needs analysis consists of semi-structured interviews with study programme directors and online questionnaires for all staff and students. The interviews principally enquired after the following: language entry requirements for students and the means used to assess language skills; current language support provided in different study programmes; and the perceived need for academic, professional and general language support for staff and students. The online questionnaires collected data on students’ and staff’s self-assessed proficiency in the three main languages, and the perceived need for specific language and communication support across study programmes, disciplines and staff categories. The interviews with the programme directors revealed that language entry requirements vary greatly across study programmes and that applicants’ language skills have hitherto mainly been assessed in a non-standardised way. Interviewees mostly thought that for students academic writing support was paramount, while for their academic staff they did not usually feel any need for research- or teaching -related language support apart from proofreading. At the time of writing, the student and staff questionnaires are being administered. However, in our presentation we will be able to present and compare the findings of all three parts of the needs analysis so that we can highlight the perceived needs for language and communication support at this multilingual university as well as how these relate to its language policy. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 112 (12 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailWriting support in a multilingual context: what do staff and students need?
Lejot, Eve UL; Huemer, Birgit UL; Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2015, June)

This paper reports on an extensive analysis of language learning needs performed amongst staff and students at a multilingual university. Although needs analysis is a well established method to inform ... [more ▼]

This paper reports on an extensive analysis of language learning needs performed amongst staff and students at a multilingual university. Although needs analysis is a well established method to inform specific language teaching (Basturkmen 2010), few studies have analysed writing support needs in general (Kruse 2013, Kruse & Meyer & Everke Buchanan in press) or writing support needs in multilingual contexts (Huemer & Rheindorf & Wetschanow 2014). In this paper, we will focus on the needs for writing support in English, French, German and Luxembourgish across faculties at the University of Luxembourg, where most degree programmes are multilingual. In addition to the results for these two groups, we will discuss the (mis)match between staff and student perceptions of students’ needs. Results are from 24 semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires (staff n=559, students n=364) covering all faculties. Not surprisingly, academic staff and postdoctoral researchers report the greatest need for support in writing research genres, i.e. papers and proposals, chiefly in English. They also felt students mostly required instruction in writing assignments and dissertations in English. Students, however, would like support in writing assignments and dissertations in all four languages. Finally, when looking at the overall results for staff and students, it is striking that the need for general language training, especially conversational skills, in all four languages outstrips the reported need for academic language instruction. We will discuss how these results informed our course design across different programs and faculties. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 85 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailHow representative are EAP listening books of real lectures?
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2015, April 17)

Lecture listening and note-taking classes are a common component of EAP programmes and the list of listening course books is accordingly long. In deciding which of these to use, a key consideration is ... [more ▼]

Lecture listening and note-taking classes are a common component of EAP programmes and the list of listening course books is accordingly long. In deciding which of these to use, a key consideration is arguably whether it prepares students for lectures. In this regard, the availability of spoken academic corpora (e.g. BASE, MICASE, ELFA) and the research arising from these provides insights into lecture discourse that could be usefully integrated in such materials. However, as I will here show, the integration of corpus findings in EAP course books is surprisingly limited, raising the question of whether training based on such materials forms an adequate preparation for the demands of real lectures. I illustrate the gap between authentic lecture discourse and various current listening books by comparing the treatment of importance markers (e.g. the important point is; remember; I want to emphasize this) with their realisation in a lecture corpus. (Deroey and Taverniers 2012; Deroey 2013). Since these discourse organisational signals alert students to key points, being able to identify these markers may facilitate lecture comprehension and note-taking. Importance markers were retrieved from all 160 lectures of the British Academic Spoken English corpus using corpus-driven and corpus-based methods. The investigation revealed that while listening books typically highlight the importance of identifying the lecturer’s main points, students are either not or inadequately trained to recognise importance markers. Where examples of such markers are included, they are few and prototypical (e.g. the important point is). However, in the lecture corpus prototypical markers are relatively uncommon; instead less explicit, multifunctional markers such as ‘the thing is’ and ‘remember’ predominate. The findings suggest that much remains to be done to make lecture listening books more representative of real lectures. References Deroey, K. L. B. and Taverniers, M. 2012. “‘Just remember this’: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures”. English for Specific Purposes 31 (4): 221-233. Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 51-72. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 63 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailConfronting EAP textbooks with corpus evidence: the case of academic listening
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2014, July 17)

Confronting EAP textbooks with corpus evidence: the case of academic listening Katrien Deroey University of Luxembourg katrien.deroey@Ugent.be 1. Introduction In this paper I will discuss the extent to ... [more ▼]

Confronting EAP textbooks with corpus evidence: the case of academic listening Katrien Deroey University of Luxembourg katrien.deroey@Ugent.be 1. Introduction In this paper I will discuss the extent to which lecture listening textbooks reflect authentic lecture language. I will also demonstrate Sketch Engine, which allows you to easily retrieve target language from (academic) corpora, and FileMaker Pro, a database programme which I find extremely useful in processing concordances. The degree to which EAP materials correspond to the demands of real lectures is arguably an important factor in their ultimate usefulness. As Thompson (2003, p. 6) notes, ‘[f]or EAP practitioners, a key issue is how to provide as accurate as possible a model of lecture organisation and help their learners to develop the skills to interpret organising signals’. To assess how representative organisational cues in EAP books are(Cuenca and Bach 2007), I compare importance marking cues with those attested in the British Academic Spoken English corpus . 2. Corpus analysis Importance markers identified through an initial close reading of 40 BASE lectures were retrieved from all 160 BASE lectures using Sketch Engine and supplemented with further markers attested in their cotext and the BASE word list. Additional markers from previous lecture research were also searched (Deroey and Taverniers 2012). The investigation revealed a large variety of importance markers, the most common of which differ from those which usually appear in EAP materials. The markers were classified according to their orientation to either the participants or the content (‘interactive orientation’, Table 1) and their position relative to the highlighted point (Deroey 2013). Most are either content- or listener-oriented, and signal important points prospectively. The predominant markers by far were those of the type the point is and remember. These are potentially multifunctional and less explicit than their far less frequently used prototypical counterparts containing adjectives (e.g. the important point is) or a listener pronoun (you should note that). It can be argued that students should therefore be trained in interpreting these prevalent, multifunctional cues alongside being exposed to markers reflecting the variety that exists in real lectures. Interactive orientation N % Content 363 46.4 the point is sound waves don't really interact Listener 304 38.9 remember South Korea is still classified as a NIC Speaker 79 10.1 i want to emphasize this Joint 36 4.6 now let us note what Descartes is doing Table1: Interactive orientation of importance markers: examples and frequencies (N=782) 3. Corpus evidence versus EAP textbooks The EAP books I examined vary widely in their inclusion of importance markers and range of examples. Most include few and fairly prototypical importance markers (Lebauer 2010; Lynch 2004; Phillips 1999; Salehzadeh 2006; Sarosy and Sherak 2006), the origins of which are unclear. Three integrate research findings on lecture listening and/or include corpus data: Salehzadeh (2006), Kelly, Revell, and Nesi (2000) and Lynch (2004). Salehzadeh (2006) uses some lectures from MICASE. ‘Emphasis’ cues are said to generally occur before a point, which is borne out by my corpus data. However, examples are very few and mainly prototypical (e.g. the important thing here is…, what you don’t want to forget…) and it is unclear whether these are corpus-derived. Kelly, Revell, and Nesi (2000) relates listening skills to lecture excerpts from BASE. The chapter on distinguishing between more and less important information includes examples such as The key point is…What’s crucial… is…; A point worth noting is…; and That’s… the main point here. Examples are from the corpus but all contain adjectives and do not represent the predominant markers from this study. The lectures in Lynch (2004) seem to have been organised for the course. Interestingly, his categorisation of importance markers (p. 39) closely resembles the one based on corpus data in Deroey (2013). Lecturers stress points by ‘speaking about the subject matter itself’ (e.g. a basic point; the central problem is that…); ‘speaking to the audience’ (it’s important to bear in mind that…; remember that…, you shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that…); or by ‘speaking about themselves’ (I want to stress). Lynch’s list of importance markers is the largest and most varied. Nevertheless, it is mostly restricted to fairly prototypical examples and it is not clear what the list is based on. Conclusion In short, I feel that much remains to be done to ensure that corpus evidence informs lecture listening materials so that students are better prepared for the demands of their course lectures. In the case of importance markers textbooks should contain examples of a wider variety of importance markers, and practise the interpretation of prevalent, potentially multifunctional markers. References Deroey, K. L. B. and Taverniers, M. 2012. “‘Just remember this’: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures”. English for Specific Purposes 31 (4): 221-233. Deroey, K. L. B. published online 2013. “Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation”. Applied Linguistics. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt029 Kelly, T., Revell, R., and Nesi, H. 2000. Listening to lectures. Warwick: University of Warwick. Lebauer, R. 2010. Learn to Listen, Listen to Learn, Level 2: Academic Listening and Note-Taking (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman. Lynch, T. 2004. Study listening: A course in listening to lectures and note taking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, T. 1999. Skills in English listening: Level 3. Reading: Garnet Education. Salehzadeh, J. 2006. Academic listening strategies: A guide to understanding lectures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sarosy, P. and Sherak, K. 2006. Lecture ready 2: Strategies for academic listening, note-taking, and discussion. Oxford: OUP. Thompson, S. E. 2003. “Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (1): 5-20. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 47 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailCorpus-based materials design for EAP listening: the road less travelled
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2014, June 21)

To assess how representative discourse organisational cues in EAP listening books are, I compared importance marking cues with those I retrieved from the BASE lectures using corpus-based and corpus-driven ... [more ▼]

To assess how representative discourse organisational cues in EAP listening books are, I compared importance marking cues with those I retrieved from the BASE lectures using corpus-based and corpus-driven methods. The corpus investigation revealed a large variety of importance markers, the most common of which (e.g. the point is; remember; anyway; not talk about) differ from those which usually appear in EAP materials. More specifically, the predominant markers in the corpus were multifunctional and less explicit than their far less frequently used prototypical counterparts (e.g. the important point is; you should note; that’s an aside; that’s irrelevant) (cf. Deroey 2013; Deroey & Taverniers 2012a; Deroey & Taverniers 2012b). However, the EAP books I examined vary widely in their inclusion of importance markers and mostly provide fairly prototypical, explicit examples. Most are also not (obviously) based on corpus research. In short, much remains to be done to ensure that corpus evidence informs lecture listening materials so that students are better prepared for the demands of their course lectures. Deroey, K. L. B. (published online 2013). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt029 Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012a). ‘Just remember this’: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (4), 221-233. Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012b). ‘Ignore that ‘cause it’s totally irrelevant’: Marking lesser relevance in lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (14), 2085-2099. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 30 (0 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailUsing FileMaker Pro to get the most from your corpus data
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2014, June 21)

This presentation provides a basic introduction to the database programme FileMaker Pro. I will use examples from my research for which I used Corpus Query Language in Sketch Engine to retrieve importance ... [more ▼]

This presentation provides a basic introduction to the database programme FileMaker Pro. I will use examples from my research for which I used Corpus Query Language in Sketch Engine to retrieve importance markers from BASE lectures which I then stored and annotated with FileMaker Pro. Although this programme is mainly used by businesses and so probably less familiar to corpus researchers than, for example, Access, it offers many features which greatly facilitate and speed up the processing of corpus data for research or materials development. Corpus concordances can be imported into a FileMaker database, where you can give them multiple tags and quickly and easily generate quantified instances from your corpus using any tag or a combination of tags. For example, the programme allowed me to classify concordances of importance markers into lexicogrammatical patterns, interactive and textual orientation types, component parts (e.g. verbs, Subjects), discipline, study level, co-occurring discourse markers etc. In this way, it took only a few seconds to generate and quantify instances of importance markers which, for instance, have the pattern ‘V clause’, contain ‘remember’ and co-occur with the discourse marker ‘but’. The programme thus allows you to examine and quantify the same data in a variety of ways and to retrieve only those instances you are interested in. This has considerable potential for facilitating the retrieval of corpus evidence for materials design and research. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 35 (3 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailImportance marking in lectures by native and non-native speakers
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2014, June 20)

Importance marking in lectures by native and non-native speakers Importance marking organises lecture discourse by signalling key points (e.g. the point is; remember; that is important). Comparing how ... [more ▼]

Importance marking in lectures by native and non-native speakers Importance marking organises lecture discourse by signalling key points (e.g. the point is; remember; that is important). Comparing how this is achieved by native and non-native speakers of English sheds light on the generalisability of genre findings across users of the same language and can inform lecturer training and lecture comprehension courses. The markers were extracted from the British Academic Spoken English corpus and the Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings combining corpus-based and corpus-driven methods. They were quantified and classified for their ‘interactive orientation’ to the listeners (e.g. note), speaker (e.g. I want to emphasize) or content (e.g. the important point is) (Deroey, 2013). Identifying important points is arguably a key aspect of effective lecture delivery and comprehension and interactivity is also widely advocated. However, non-native speaker lecturers are reportedly less interactive and structure their discourse less explicitly and effectively. Comparing the interactive orientation, explicitness and frequency of importance marking in these corpora enhances our understanding of the lecture genre, its generic variation and the factors that may affect lecturing efficacy. Deroey, K. L. B. (2013). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt029 [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 50 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detail'Anyway, the point is': hoe signaleren docenten (minder) belangrijke informatie?
Deroey, Katrien UL

in Over Taal (2014), 53(1),

De internationalisering van het hoger onderwijs gaat vaak gepaard met de invoering van het Engels als onderwijstaal. Hoe effectief het doceren en leren in deze vreemde taal verloopt staat nog niet vast ... [more ▼]

De internationalisering van het hoger onderwijs gaat vaak gepaard met de invoering van het Engels als onderwijstaal. Hoe effectief het doceren en leren in deze vreemde taal verloopt staat nog niet vast. Wél is al gebleken dat zowel docenten als studenten hierbij problemen ondervinden. Een duidelijk gestructureerd college helpt studenten bij het begrijpen en notities nemen en compenseert deels de soms minder duidelijke communicatie door de docent. Een belangrijke soort structurele aanduidingen zijn verbale signalen van het relatief belang van bepaalde punten in het collegediscours. De taalkundige studie van authentieke colleges laat ons toe na te gaan hoe dit gebeurt. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 20 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detail‘Anyway, the point I'm making is’: Lexicogrammatical relevance marking in lectures
Deroey, Katrien UL

in Vandelanotte, Lieven; Davidse, Kristin; Gentens, Caroline (Eds.) et al Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora (2014)

Drawing on the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, this paper presents an overview of how lecturers mark important and less important discourse using verbal cues. Such relevance markers (e.g ... [more ▼]

Drawing on the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, this paper presents an overview of how lecturers mark important and less important discourse using verbal cues. Such relevance markers (e.g. the point is, remember, that is important, essentially) and markers of lesser relevance (e.g. anyway, a little bit, not go into, not write down) combine discourse organisation with evaluation and can help students discern the relative importance of points, thus aiding comprehension, note-taking and retention. However, until the research reported here was undertaken little was known about this metadiscursive feature of lecture discourse and markers found in the existing literature and EAP materials were rather few and typically not based on corpus linguistic evidence. Combining corpus-based and corpus-driven methods, the research started from a close reading of 40 lectures to identify candidate markers. These were next retrieved from the whole corpus and in the case of relevance markers supplemented with other approaches yielding further markers. Relevance markers were mainly classified into lexicogrammatical verb, noun, adjective and adverb patterns, while the markers of lesser relevance were classified pragmatically as indications of message status, topic treatment, lecturer knowledge, assessment, and attention and note-taking directives. This account of relevance marking is valuable for EAP practitioners, will interest lecturer trainers, and provides input for experimental research on lecture listening, note-taking and lecture effectiveness. Furthermore, the paper offers insights into the use of discourse markers such as “the thing is”, “anyway”, “I don’t know” and “et cetera” and illuminates the understudied linguistic phenomenon of relevance marking. Finally, it illustrates the importance of corpus linguistic research and touches upon some difficulties pertaining to assigning discourse functions based on an examination of transcripts only. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 63 (6 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailAnyway, the point I’m making is: relevance marking in lectures
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2013, July 23)

Drawing on the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) lecture corpus, this paper presents an overview of how important and less important discourse is marked lexicogrammatically (cf. Deroey and Taverniers ... [more ▼]

Drawing on the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) lecture corpus, this paper presents an overview of how important and less important discourse is marked lexicogrammatically (cf. Deroey and Taverniers 2012a; Deroey and Taverniers 2012b). Such markers of (lesser) relevance (e.g. anyway, the point is) are metadiscursive devices which combine discourse organization with evaluation along a ‘parameter of importance or relevance’ (Thompson and Hunston, 2000: 24). Relevance marking can help students discern the relative importance of points and so may aid comprehension, note-taking and retention. However, until recently very little was known about this feature of lecture discourse and the few markers that can be found in educational literature and most English for Academic Purposes (EAP) listening materials seem based on intuitions rather than corpus linguistic evidence. Both studies are based on a close reading of 40 lectures to identify candidate markers which were then retrieved from the whole corpus of 160 lectures using Sketch Engine. In addition, for the study on relevance markers results were supplemented by items from the BASE word list and previous lecture research (Swales and Burke 2003; Crawford Camiciottoli 2004); markers discovered in the co-text of concordances were also added, as were words derived from or synonymous with all lexemes found through the above procedures. Interestingly, the manual analysis of 40 lectures yielded the vast majority of all markers. The research on relevance markers revealed a wide variety of markers, the most frequent of which are not amongst those which may intuitively come to mind or which are typically included in EAP materials. The markers could be classified into different lexicogrammatical patterns based mostly on nouns (e.g. the important point is, the thing is), verbs (e.g. remember, let me just emphasise) and adjectives (e.g. it is important to note, this is absolutely crucial). Adverb patterns are extremely rare (e.g. importantly), as are expressions referring to assessment (e.g. it is something that you can be examined on). The verb pattern ‘V clause’ (e.g. remember slavery had already been legally abolished) and the noun pattern ‘MN v-link’, a metalinguistic noun with a link verb (e.g. the point is) are the predominant types of relevance markers. Markers of lesser relevance were classified into five broad types according to how they signal lesser relevance: (i) message status markers assign a negative value in terms of relevance to part of the lecture message (e.g. not pertinent, joke) or signal transitions between more and less relevant discourse (e.g. anyway); (ii) topic treatment markers (e.g. briefly, not look at, for a moment) indicate limited discourse or time is devoted to a topic; (iii) lecturer knowledge markers (e.g. not know, not remember) suggest the lecturer has imprecise or partial knowledge about the topic; (iv) assessment markers (e.g. not examine, not learn) indicate what information will not be examined; and (v) attention- and note-taking markers (e.g. ignore, not copy down) direct students not to pay attention to or take notes of what is presented. Most denote partial relevance (e.g. detail, in passing, briefly) rather than irrelevance (e.g. not matter, trash) and some markers appear pragmaticalized in certain contexts. For instance, markers denoting limited coverage (e.g. briefly, quickly, a little bit) can serve as mitigation devices. As most markers require some or substantial interpretation to achieve their relevance marking effect, an understanding of the main characteristics and purposes of the lecture genre as well as co-textual, visual, non-verbal and prosodic clues seem particularly important in identifying the function of these lexicogrammatical items but poses a challenge to quantification. Indeed, Hunston’s observation that ‘much evaluative meaning is not obviously identifiable, as it appears to depend on immediate context and on reader assumptions about value’ (2004: 157) is particularly pertinent here. The research presented here should interest anyone interested in spoken (academic) discourse, evaluative language, identifying discourse functions in corpora, and EAP course design for lecture listening and delivery. References Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012a). ‘Just remember this’: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (4), 221-233. Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012b). ‘Ignore that ‘cause it’s totally irrelevant’: Marking lesser relevance in lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (14), 2085-2099. Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Audience-oriented relevance markers in business studies lectures. In Del Lungo Camiciotti, G., & Tognini Bonelli, E. (Eds.), Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation (pp. 81-98). Bern: Peter Lang. Hunston, S. (2004). Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In Partington, Morley, A. & Haarman, L. (Eds), Corpora and discourse (pp. 157-188). Bern: Peter Lang. Swales, J. M. & Burke, A. (2003). “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In Leistyna P., & Meyer, C. F. (Eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 1-18). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: OUP. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailHow do lecturers convey what is (less) important information?
Deroey, Katrien UL

Scientific Conference (2013, April 21)

This paper uses the British Academic Spoken English corpus to survey how lecturers verbally indicate comparatively (un)important points. Educational and EAP literature generally advocates discourse ... [more ▼]

This paper uses the British Academic Spoken English corpus to survey how lecturers verbally indicate comparatively (un)important points. Educational and EAP literature generally advocates discourse organizational signals to aid lecture comprehension, note-taking and recall. The ability to distinguish between points that merit special attention and those requiring less attention is arguably particularly beneficial, especially for non-native speakers. However, until the research reported here was undertaken we knew very little about how such ‘relevance marking’ was achieved. I present a wide variety of markers, which often are not the ones that intuitively come to mind and rarely refer to assessment. Some prevalent markers may furthermore be difficult to discern. The findings can be used in lecturer training, EAP courses in lecture listening and educational research. The paper summarizes the findings of two projects. The first on markers of important points (Authors 2012a) combines a manual analysis of 40 lectures from different disciplines with other methods identifying further markers. The markers were then automatically retrieved from and quantified in all 160 lectures. They were mostly classified according to their main element (adjective, noun, verb, adverb) and how it forms a pattern with co-occurring elements. The predominant markers are ‘remember’ and constructions of ‘the point is’ type. The second study (Authors 2012b) identified potential markers of less important information through a close reading of 40 lectures and retrieved instances from all 160 lectures. They were classified pragmatically as indications of message status (e.g. the detail is not pertinent), topic treatment (e.g. i’m not going to say very much about this), and teacher knowledge (e.g. I can’t remember), and as attention- and note-taking directives (e.g. don’t copy it down) and references to assessment (e.g. it won’t come up on an exam paper). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 UL)
See detailEducational cooperation with Vietnam: English language and cultural considerations
Deroey, Katrien UL

Presentation (2013, April 18)

Detailed reference viewed: 12 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailRelevance marking in lectures: a corpus-based study
Deroey, Katrien UL

Doctoral thesis (2013)

This dissertation by publication contains five articles and six introductory chapters. Deroey & Taverniers (2011) is a general study of the genre and provides an overview of lecture functions based on an ... [more ▼]

This dissertation by publication contains five articles and six introductory chapters. Deroey & Taverniers (2011) is a general study of the genre and provides an overview of lecture functions based on an examination of a lecture subcorpus and a literature study. Deroey (2012) investigates one information highlighting construction, basic wh-clefts, to establish what are the functions of the highlighted discourse and what this reveals about the genre and its disciplinary variation. Deroey & Taverniers (2012a) presents a comprehensive overview of lexicogrammatical markers of important discourse and classifies these into different patterns, while Deroey (submitted) proposes a classification in terms of their interactive and textual orientation. Finally, Deroey & Taverniers (2012b) explores the ways in which lecturers mark less important discourse lexicogrammatically. The six introductory chapters sketch the background to these studies by discussing (1) the lecture genre; (2) relevance marking as a metadiscursive feature; (3) internationalisation and English-medium instruction in higher education; (4) non-native speakers‖ difficulties with English lecture delivery and comprehension; (5) the research rationale; and (6) the lecture corpus. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 84 (8 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMarking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation
Deroey, Katrien UL

in Applied Linguistics (2013)

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of lexicogrammatical markers of important lecture points and proposes a classification in terms of their interactive and textual orientation. The importance ... [more ▼]

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of lexicogrammatical markers of important lecture points and proposes a classification in terms of their interactive and textual orientation. The importance markers were extracted from the British Academic Spoken English corpus using corpus-driven and corpus-based methods. The classification is based on the markers’ constituents and cotext. Most markers are interactively oriented towards the content (e.g. the point is) or listeners (e.g. you should remember) rather than the speaker (e.g. I should stress) or speaker and listeners jointly (e.g. I want you to notice). Many content-oriented markers also have secondary listener orientation (e.g. these are the things to take home). As regards their textual orientation, markers typically occur before the highlighted point. The analysis aims to reveal how the realizations of this metadiscursive feature reflect key characteristics of the lecture genre and suggests factors that may affect the efficacy of importance marking. The findings are useful for lecture listening and note-taking courses, lecturer training, and educational research assessing the efficacy of such discourse organizational cues. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 38 (2 UL)