Journal of English for Academic Purposes

3 (2004) 3954
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest

lectures: some insights from a comparative
corpus-based study
Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli*
Faculty of Economics, University of Florence, Via Curtatone 1, 50123 Firenze, Italy

Abstract
Interactive discourse structuring is used to guide listeners through on-going speech and has
been shown to have a positive eect on lecture comprehension, particularly in L2 settings. As
mobility increases in the academic world, there are more opportunities for lecture events
characterized not only by linguistic/cultural diversity, but also by unfamiliarity between lec-
turers and audiences. In these situations, interactive discourse structuring may have an espe-
cially important role. This study compares interactive discourse structuring used by guest
lecturers (both L1 and L2) versus L1 classroom lecturers. Using corpus methodology, inter-
active discourse structuring was found to be most frequent among L2 guest lecturers, least
frequent among L1 guest lecturers, with L1 classroom lecturers falling in the middle. The
results suggest that linguistic/cultural diversity has more inuence on discourse structuring
than participant unfamiliarity. In addition, the analysis revealed other trends, particularly the
very wide range of vocabulary used in discourse structuring expressions by all speakers. The
ndings can be implemented towards developing more authentic academic listening materials,
as well as guidelines for both native and non-native guest lecturers who interact with inter-
national audiences.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Academic lectures; L2 listening comprehension; Discourse structuring; Discourse analysis;
Intercultural communication; Corpus methodology; Guest lectures

Some of the ndings in this study are reported in an earlier paper (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2002)
which investigated a more limited range of discourse structuring patterns in guest lectures only.
* Tel.: +39-055-769323.
E-mail address: bcrawford@tin.it (B. Crawford Camiciottoli).

1475-1585/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00044-4
40 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

1. Introduction

Although research on spoken academic discourse still lags behind its written
counterpart, over the last 15 years or so some work has been done with university
lectures and how they are structured. This includes some descriptive analyses
focusing on linguistic features that carry out the specic function of guiding listeners
through the lecture, often referred to as discourse structuring. This term has been
used in variety of ways, ranging from paragraph or sentence-level organization (e.g.
problem-solution) to small micro-markers (e.g. So, OK, Right). In this study, it will
be used to refer to what Chaudron and Richards (1986) rst called macro-mar-
kers. These are metadiscursive comments on how the lecture itself will be orga-
nized, or phrases which signal to listeners what is about to happen. (e.g. What Im
going to talk about today, First lets take a look at, Well come back to that later, Youll
see that in just a minute). They are typically chunks based on rst and second person
pronouns and modal/semi-modal verbs, thus constituting a form of interaction
between lecturer and audience that interrupts the ow of informational content.
In an early study, Rounds (1987) investigated the use of personal pronouns in
university mathematics lectures. She found that rst person pronouns were fre-
quently associated with phrases carrying out the discourse function of announcing
future actions (e.g. what Id like to do today). In one of the most comprehensive
works of its type, Young (1990, 1994) describes lectures as a series of ve dierent
interweaving phases: content, discourse structuring, conclusion, evaluation and
interaction. Among these, the discourse structuring phase plays a crucial role in
telling the audience which direction the lecture will take (e.g. so what I will do now is
give you a description). Rilling (1996) observed high frequencies of certain four-word
lexical phrases functioning as topic markers (e.g. were gonna look at) and topic
shifters (e.g. I would like to) in her corpus of university lectures. Mauranen (2001)
discusses discourse reexivity as a key feature of lectures from the Michigan
Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE).1 She found an abundance of
metadiscursive monologic expressions used to structure on-going speech. These
include prospective devices to signal what is about to come (e.g. today were gonna
talk a little bit about), as well as what is being put aside for the moment (e.g. an issue
worth mentioning but not today).
Other studies in the area of academic listening have investigated the role of dis-
course structuring on lecture comprehension. As pointed out by some authors
(Khuwaileh, 1999; Olsen & Huckin, 1990; Thompson, 1994), lecture comprehension
continues to represent a major obstacle for many non-native speakers, regardless of
prociency level. Discourse structuring devices have been found to have a positive
eect on lecture comprehension, particularly with audiences of non-native speakers.
In their pioneering study, Chaudron and Richards (1986) found that the presence of

1
MICASE consists of approximately 1.8 million words with full transcriptions available online
(Simpson, Briggs, Ovens, & Swales, 1999). It comprises various genres of spoken academic discourse (e.g.
lectures, colloquia, research group meetings, dissertation defenses, faculty meetings, student study groups)
recorded over several years at the University of Michigan.
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 41

macro-markers (e.g. what Im going to talk about today) improved retention and
recall in post-listening tests. DeCarrico and Nattinger (1988) suggest that formulaic
and well-known lexical phrases (e.g. well be looking at) help students to activate
content schemata. Khuwaileh (1999) determined that introductory chunks (e.g.
today we will be examining) were benecial in guiding students through a science
lecture given by a native English speaker. Further evidence for the importance of
discourse structuring for successful lecture comprehension in cross-cultural settings
comes from research dealing with the communication diculties of non-native uni-
versity teachers. Tyler, Jeries, and Davies (1988) found that the incorrect or unex-
pected use of lexicalized discourse markings by international teaching assistants
caused comprehension problems for their audiences of native English speakers. For
example, the non-native speakers often overused the coordinating conjunction and
as a generic discourse marker to substitute clearer topic shifters such as Lets turn to
the next point. In her study comparing the use of discourse markers used by native-
speaking versus non-native-speaking teaching assistants, Williams (1992) comments
that non-native speakers need to make more explicit use of discourse markers to
compensate for other problems relating to pronunciation and grammatical accuracy.
These studies have taken place in ESL or EFL classroom contexts where non-
native students attended lectures during long-term degree programs and were gen-
erally familiar with the lecturer and academic setting. However, as mobility increases
in the academic world, dierent types of cross-cultural lecture experiences are
becoming more and more frequent. Whether abroad or in their home countries,
students have opportunities to hear lectures given by visiting speakers. Although
guest lectures are a tradition in higher education, they are becoming increasingly
popular in L2 settings in an eort to expose learners to a wide variety of listening
experiences. In fact, guest lecturers are recruited not only from the academic and
professional communities, but also from dierent linguistic/cultural backgrounds.
Thus, the guest lecture is an eective way of achieving the international perspective
that is now essential in many disciplines, particularly the social sciences. However, in
addition to linguistic/cultural diversity among participants, this scenario is also
characterized by mutual unfamiliarity in which various factors come into play.
Guest lecturers may lack knowledge of the institutional setting and the students
backgrounds, while their audiences are faced with variables such as individual lec-
turing style, degree of formality, use of idiomatic language and accent.
The objective of this study was to shed light on the role of interactive discourse
structuring in L2 guest lectures. More specically, a corpus of L2 guest lectures was
compared with a corpus of L1 classroom lectures in order to investigate the inuence of
three variables inherent to L2 guest lectures: the language of the speaker, the language
of the listeners and unfamiliarity among participants. Building on previous research,2
2
Work with guest lectures began as part of a wider on-going inter-university project dedicated to the
study of interaction in small corpora of academic discourse in the humanities and social sciences. A pre-
liminary study found a pronounced use of the modal verb will used to express intentionality/volition
(Crawford Camiciottoli, 2003). Subsequently, discourse structuring patterns based exclusively on PRO-
NOUN+MODAL=SEMI-MODAL+MAIN VERB were shown to be very prominent (Crawford
Camiciottoli, 2002), pointing towards the need to carry out comparative studies.
42 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

the underlying hypothesis was that interactive discourse structuring would be more
prominent in the L2 guest lectures, possibly in relation to the three contextual vari-
ables. A better understanding of how these guest lecturers use interactive discourse
structuring can be useful for developing more eective teaching strategies for this
type of lecture event.

2. Methodology

The methodological approach is grounded in corpus linguistics, which studies

language by collecting and electronically storing authentic written and spoken dis-
course. Text analysis software is then used to generate quantitative data on various
linguistic features, with results also serving as a launching pad for more in-depth
qualitative analyses. Corpus methodology provides invaluable language-in-use
insights for both linguistics research and language teaching.

2.1. The corpora

A corpus of L2 guest lectures was compiled over a 2-year period and consists of
the transcriptions (45,560 words) of ve video/audio taped lectures given by visiting
academics at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Florence (Italy). The
lectures were transcribed according to simplied conversation analysis transcription
conventions adapted for monologic lecture discourse. Two of the lecturers were
native speakers of British English, while the remaining three were non-native
speakers. Thus, in addition to unfamiliarity, the corpus reects the mixture of lan-
guage backgrounds often found in L2 guest lectures (i.e. L1 or L2 lecturers with
mixed nationality L2 audiences). While this small sample limited to ve individuals
clearly precludes broad generalizations about the discourse structuring features of
L2 guest lectures, the corpus can nonetheless oer interesting insights. In fact,
because of its small size, it is possible to systematically go back to the text in order
to further analyze and interpret trends emerging from quantitative analysis, also in
light of the pedagogical purposes of this study.
The lectures were organized within the framework of the European Business
Module, a cycle of guest lectures oered as a credit-bearing undergraduate course to
a limited number of both Italian and international students. The primary aim of the
guest lecture cycle was to introduce students to aspects of business and industry in
dierent European countries. Class sizes were relatively small, ranging from 20 to 40
students. The two researchers involved in collecting the corpus were present during
all lectures to take eld notes. Table 1 provides an overview of the guest lecture corpus.
Fourteen lectures (143,241 words) were then selected from the MICASE online
corpus for comparative purposes. Even if these lectures delivered at one North
American university may not be entirely representative of L1 classroom lectures in
general, they present key dierences in terms of the characterizing features of L2
guest lectures. The MICASE lectures all took place during a regular academic term
(i.e. framed by previous and successive class meetings), meaning that participants
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 43

Table 1
The guest lecture corpus

Lecture 1 Lecture 2 Lecture 3 Lecture 4 Lecture 5

Lecturer British British Italian German Spanish

Topic SMEsa A survey of UK Regional SMEs in the Local productive
in the UK business strategies in the UK Policy Aachen region systems in Spain
a
SMEs=small and medium sized enterprises

were familiar with each other. They were all given by native speakers of American
English to audiences of primarily native speakers. Although todays university lec-
ture audiences are increasingly unlikely to include exclusively native speakers, the
MICASE lectures represent an L1 context as the participants share the same
immediate speech community. More specically, when native speakers lecture in
their native environments, their communicative approach is likely to be native-to-
native, even if audiences may include some non-native speakers. Other variables,
such as class size ( < 40) and academic level (undergraduate), were kept constant
since it seemed that these factors could cause signicant dierences in the type of
language used. However, the MICASE lectures comprise a variety of topics 3 since a
sucient number of lectures within the same academic discipline was not available.
With reference to lecture delivery, both corpora reect what Dudley-Evans (1994)
calls the conversational style, as opposed to the reading or rhetorical styles.
In the conversational lecture, the topic has been planned but not the actual speech.
It is characterized by disuencies such as false starts, hesitations and llers (Chafe,
1985). All of the lectures showed varying degrees of interaction between lecturers
and audiences. In both corpora, there were episodes of audience participation in
form of direct questions. Two guest lecturers (one native and one non-native
speaker) moved towards more active learning, interspersing the monologic mode
with moments of group work followed by student presentations. Judging from direct
observation, none of the guest lecturers attempted to simplify their language either
lexically or syntactically. Nor did they appear to notably reduce their speech rate to
facilitate comprehension for their international audiences.4 In terms of language, the
lectures of both corpora generally exhibit what Swales (in preparation) refers to

3
Each MICASE lecture represents one class meeting from the following semester courses: Medical
Anthropology, Perspectives on the Holocaust, Introduction to Oceanography, Introduction to Physics,
Political Science, Introduction to Psychology, Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Biology of Birds, Microbial
Genetics, Introduction to Programming, American Literature, African History, Historical Linguistics,
Introduction to Psychopathology.
4
A series of calculations based on word counts and number of minutes per lecture yielded an average
of 128 words per minute for the guest lecture corpus compared to 147 words per minute for the MICASE
corpus. However, in both corpora there was quite a lot of variation among individual speakers (min 116
wpm/max 141 wpm for the guest lecturers versus min 92/max 187 for the MICASE lecturers). These
results are in line with previous research on lecture delivery rate (Griths & Berretta, 1991; Tauroza &
Allison, 1990, as cited in Flowerdew, 1994), which also did not nd signicant attempts to adjust speech
rates for L2 audiences and pointed out strong individual dierences among speakers.
44 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

as the open style in spoken academic discourse. This is characterized by strong

signals of the speakers presence (e.g. metadiscourse, expressions of stance, hedging),
informal textual connectives and context-bound references, while at the same time
featuring noun groups that reect the specialized vocabulary of the topic at hand.

2.2. The analysis

Interactive discourse structuring was analyzed in both corpora on the basis of

three principal grammatical/lexical patterns:

1. PRONOUN+MODAL/SEMI-MODAL+MAIN VERB (e.g. We will/ll

talk about)
2. LET+PRONOUN+MAIN VERB (e.g. Let me turn)
3. PRONOUN+WANT+INFINITIVE (e.g. I want to look)

The rst two patterns were suggested by the literature (DeCarrico & Nattinger,
1988; Fortanet, in press; Rounds, 1987), as well as initial work with the guest lecture
corpus itself. In contrast, the third pattern with want emerged only after beginning
to work with the two corpora.
Although discourse structuring can also be retrospective in nature (e.g. as I said
before), this study is limited to those forward-looking patterns that announce
upcoming moments within the lecture as a self-contained event. Since guest lectures
do not entail ongoing relationships between lecturers and audiences, retrospective
discourse structuring is of less interest. For example, there will be no instances of
phrases such as last week we looked at, which instead would presumably be rather
common in a regular classroom setting.
The software program Wordsmith Tools (Scott, 1998) was used to quantify all
instances of interactive discourse structuring in both corpora based on the three
principal patterns. More specically, the concordancing tool generated vertical lists
of all searched items, along with some co-text to the right and left. This allowed for
all instances to be located and clearly laid out for further analysis. A sample of
concordance output for We will/well+main verb is shown in Appendix A.
Once the concordances of all the various patterns had been produced, it was
necessary to hand edit the output in order to eliminate those which did not function
as discourse structuring (e.g. reported speech, embedded narratives, hypothetical
uses such as Lets say, and utterances produced by members of the audience). Most
instances were fairly straightforward and could be determined on the basis of the
concordance line alone. Some cases were more ambiguous. To determine whether
these patterns could be considered as discourse structuring or not, it was necessary
to go back to the original text les for more co-text. These instances were usually
claried by the presence of some temporal element (e.g. now, today, later on, in a
moment) found in the co-text that signaled the pattern as relating to the lecture itself.
During this process, it also became necessary to further ne-tune my denition of
discourse structuring. More specically, there were instances of patterns that refer-
red to logistical matters:
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 45

(1) Lemme turn these lights down so we can see whats going on here. (MICASE)

Since this type of utterance does not refer to the organization of the content of the
lecture, cases of this type were excluded. However, an utterance such as example no.
8 would instead be considered discourse structuring. Even though it refers to a
logistical blackboard, the intent is towards the content that is written on the
blackboard.

(2) Actually I want to start with the blackboard today (Guest/NNS)

There were also a few cases in which even with expanded co-text, it was not pos-
sible to determine whether the utterance was discourse structuring or not (e.g. false
starts, interrupted phrases). These have been left as unclassied.

3. Results and discussion

Table 2 illustrates the distribution of interactive discourse structuring patterns at

three dierent levels: native speakers of the guest lecture corpus (Guest/NS sub-
corpus), non-native speakers of the guest lecture corpus (Guest/NNS subcorpus)
and the MICASE corpus. The guest lectures were analyzed at the NS/NNS sub-
corpus level to better understand the inuence of speaker language background.
Rather than indicating simple frequency counts, the data is reported according to
the normalized parameter of tokens per 10,000 words. In this way, it is possible to
make meaningful comparisons between corpora/subcorpora of dierent sizes (i.e.
word counts), as in this case.
As can be seen, interactive discourse structuring is most frequent in the Guest/
NNS subcorpus, least frequent in the Guest/NS subcorpus, with the MICASE
corpus falling in the middle. While the high frequency among NNS guest lec-
turers is in line with the expectation that the guest lectures would generally
contain more discourse structuring, the low frequency among the NS guest lec-
turers is not.
To seek possible explanations, it seemed important to identify major dierences at
the level of individual patterns. The highest frequency of discourse structuring
among NNS guest lecturers can be traced to primarily I/we/you will patterns, which
instead do not present particularly large dierences between the two sets of native
speakers. The concordance lines of these patterns were re-examined, focusing on
dierences in verbs that had been used. As shown in examples (3) and (4), one verb
that showed notable variation was explain (1.3 Guest/NNS versus 0 Guest/NS versus
0.07 MICASE per 10,000 words). Although the NNS guest lecturers may have been
responding to perceived lack of comprehension on the part of the audience, their
greater use of explain seems more likely to reect a concern to reassure audiences
that things would be fully elucidated during the course of the lecture. This may
derive from an understanding of students potential diculties with which they
could identify as non-native speakers themselves.
46 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

Table 2
Discourse structuring patterns in the guest lecture corpus versus the MICASE lecture corpus

Discourse structuring pattern Tokens per 10,000 words

Guest/NS Guest/NNS MICASE

Pronoun+modal/semi-modal
We will/Well 3.0 9.9 4.6
I will/Ill 3.5 8.1 3.3
You will/Youll 1.4 5.5 0.7
Im going to 1.3 1.0
We are/Were going to 0.7 0.7
Im gonna 0.2 2.5
Were gonna 1.4
I would/Id 0.7 0.6

Pronoun+want
I want 1.1 2.4 1.0
I wanna 1.6
We wanna 0.2
You wanna 0.07

Let+pronoun
Lets 0.7 3.2 4.0
Let me 0.7 2.7
Lemme 0.3

Non classiable 0.2 0.1

Total 11.4 31.2 24.8

(3) I will explain you two examples later

(Guest/NNS)
(4) I will explain the limitations of this at the end
(Guest/NNS)

Another verb used frequently by the NNS guest lecturers was try (1.3 Guest/NNS
versus 0 Guest/NS versus 0.1 MICASE per 10,000 words), as shown in example (5).
They seemed to wish to appear more politely modest, perhaps due to language-related
insecurity. In contrast, the very few instances of try in the MICASE lectures all involve
the dynamics of keeping the lecture moving [example (6)], rather than lecturing ability.

(5) I will try to advise you that here theres not a contradiction
(Guest/NNS)
(6) Ill try to move relatively quickly (MICASE)

For you/we will patterns, the verb see was used more frequently by the NNS guest
lecturers (6.8 Guest/NNS versus 0.4 Guest/NS versus 0.8 MICASE per 10,000
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 47

words). As illustrated by example (7), see was used to announce upcoming visuals by
both NS and NNS guest lecturers (1.3 Guest/NNS vs. 0.9 Guest/NS vs. 0.1
MICASE per 10,000 words), suggesting that visuals had a generally more important
role in the guest lectures. However, the NNS guest lecturers more frequently used
see metaphorically to express the cognitive concept understand (3.7 Guest/NNS
versus 1.1 Guest/NS versus 0.4 MICASE per 10,000 words) [example (8)]. Again,
they appeared particularly keen on reassuring the students. On the other hand, this
repeated reassurance could also be self-directed as a way to deal with the uncer-
tainties arising from this intercultural context.

(7) Right so youll see some UK gures in a minute

(Guest/NS)
(8) But in a way in which well see better in a moment
(Guest/NNS)

The strong presence of I/we/you will patterns with the above verbs suggests that
the higher frequency of discourse structuring among the NNS guest lecturers is
inuenced mostly by the language background of the speaker. Compared with
native speakers, they probably have a heightened awareness of comprehension pro-
blems, leading to a stronger eort to facilitate their audiences. At the same time,
they may have been coping (even sub-consciously) with the problems that can arise
when lecturing in a foreign language in which one is more or less procient.
Noticeable dierences were also found in patterns based on the inclusive form let
(3.9 Guest/NNS versus 0.7 Guest/NS versus 7.1 MICASE per 10,000 words). The
highest frequency of these patterns among the MICASE lecturers could be accoun-
ted for by the camaraderie stemming from a high level of familiarity established in
an on-going course. The NNS guest lecturers also used this pattern more than the
NS guest lecturers, possibly as a strategy to maintain contact with their audiences,
again seeking to ensure comprehension. On the other side of the coin, the lowest
frequency of discourse structuring patterns in general among the NS guest lecturers
could be associated with a combined eect of less concern with and awareness of
language issues, as well as less motivation or opportunity to establish a group
atmosphere.
On a global level, the analysis highlights a dierence in the use of the phonological
reductions gonna, wanna and lemme [examples (911)]. These appear almost exclu-
sively in the MICASE corpus, with only case of gonna produced by a NS guest lecturer.

(9) These are some of the techniques were gonna discuss (MICASE)
(10) Today I wanna shift um to this coastal region (MICASE)
(11) Okay lemme tell you a little bit about this little thing (MICASE)

One possible explanation is that there were no native speakers of American Eng-
lish among the guest lecturers. In their discussion of dialectic dierences in modal
and semi-modal usage, Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999) report
that the semi-modal form going to (including gonna) is more common in American
48 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

conversational English. In fact, there were relatively few instances of going to, with
both native and non-native speakers preferring to use forms of will. However, the
dierence might also be inuenced by the language background of the lecturers and
participant unfamiliarity. Phonological reductions may not come naturally to non-
native speakers. Yet neither did the British lecturers favour these forms, which might
mean that they were at least to some extent monitoring their speech for their inter-
national audiences after all. In addition, the guest lecturers were interacting with
their audiences for a very limited period of time. Thus, they had no opportunity to
establish the relaxed climate of on-going relationships, which might lead to more
casual language. It is also possible that all of these factors acted in synergy to con-
tribute to this dierence between the MICASE corpus and the guest lecture corpus
as a whole.
Further examination of the concordance lines highlighted two other interesting
trends. Although the frequencies involved are not particularly high, the fact that
these patterns appeared exclusively in the MICASE corpus was worth looking into.
The future progressive tense was used 14 times (nine of which with the verb talk)
[examples (12) and (13)]. This could be due to the more on-going nature of the
MICASE lectures. In fact, as part of semester-long courses, these lectures contribute
to a progressive learning experience developed over a series of class meetings, rather
than being concentrated into a single event, as in the case of the guest lectures.

(12) Were going to be talking about it today (MICASE)

(13) Well also be be using the idea of risk (MICASE)

The phrasal verbs go through and go over were also present only in the MICASE
lectures (seven instances). They seemed to function as a variation of talk about, but
with a slight twist, that is, to talk about systematically [examples (14) and (15)]. This
may be linked to the more complex and theoretical nature of the MICASE lecture
topics compared with the essentially descriptive lectures given by the guest speakers.

(14) Well go over it one piece at a time okay?

(15) And Im gonna go through and give you some examples

During the analysis, another feature that came to the forefront was the very wide
variety of verbs used in both corpora, and by both native and non-native speakers.
Contributing to this were a number of action verbs that were used guratively as
alternatives to the verb of speech talk, as shown in the following examples:

(16) Okay let me mo- move on to reliability then (move on=talk about something
dierent) (MICASE)
(17) Im going to pick up a little bit in chapter twelve (pick up=continue talking
about) (MICASE)
(18) Thats an important issue and well come back to that (come back=talk
about it again) (Guest/NS)
(19) I think I will cut these a bit short (cut=talk about less) (Guest/NNS)
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 49

However, the most creative verb choices were found only in the MICASE corpus
[examples (2022)]. As L1 lecturers, they were likely to use this type of language
more spontaneously, particularly within the familiar atmosphere of on-going cour-
ses. Moreover, since they were lecturing in an L1 environment, they could also be
condent that these expressions would be understood.

(20) Well lemme shift gears for a few minutes now

(21) Id like to just put that on the table
(22) Well anything else we wanna touch on

Appendix B provides a list of the 90 dierent verbs found in both corpora.

To conclude this discussion of discourse structuring patterns, a word about the
use of pronouns in general is in order. In both the MICASE corpus and the NS/
NNS guest subcorpora, discourse structuring patterns using I were more frequent
than those with we. The same tendency was noted in a recent study by Fortanet (in
press). Although she analyzed the use of pronouns and their semantic mappings in a
variety of discourse functions, she also found that we was less frequent than I in
university lectures from the MICASE corpus. Because these ndings are in contrast
with Rounds (1987) earlier study, Fortanet suggests that university lectures are
becoming more personalized and with more focus on individuals. The wide variety
of vocabulary found in the discourse structuring patterns of the lectures in this study
would seem to support this idea.

4. Concluding remarks

While interactive discourse structuring was not found to be generally more fre-
quent in the L2 guest lectures as expected, the results nonetheless provide some
important insights about how the variables involved in L2 guest lectures can aect
discourse structuring. The highest frequency of discourse structuring among NNS
guest lecturers suggests that speaker language background has a strong inuence.
Their non-native speaker status seemed to prompt them to use discourse structuring
expressions not only to help the L2 listeners, but also for their own language-related
needs. Contextual unfamiliarity does not appear to have a particularly stimulating
eect on discourse structuring as indicated by the low frequency among NS guest
lecturers. On the other hand, it is possible that some of the high frequency among
the NNS guest lecturers was also inuenced also by this variable. To more clearly
distinguish the roles of language background and unfamiliarity, this type of research
would need be conducted under conditions allowing for strict control and matching
of variables (e.g. guest lectures versus non-guest lectures or L1 versus L2 lecturers in
the same academic contexts). This would probably be feasible only in a carefully
constructed experimental approach, which actually would not reect the messy
reality of todays L2 guest lecture events. For this reason, even if not entirely con-
clusive, these ndings still contribute to a better understanding of the language used
in authentic L2 guest lectures.
50 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

This study also suggests a number of possibilities for further research. Clearly, it
would be important to expand the guest lecture corpus to include more speakers.
In fact, the limited sample size necessitates a cautious interpretation of the ndings.
More lectures would also put the personal dimension in a better perspective. As
Goman (1981) points out, lecturing is also very much a matter of the individual
style and personality of the lecturer, something that could only be investigated with
many more cases. Another signicant source of knowledge would be information
gleaned directly from guest lecturers through interviews or questionnaires in order
to reveal more about their language and context-related choices, strategies and impres-
sions.
There are also other variables beyond those addressed in this study that could
have an impact on interactive discourse structuring. Firstly, there is the issue of
content. The guest lectures were quite homogeneous in that they all dealt with the
same subject area, while the MICASE lectures addressed a wide variety of topics.
Further research with a disciplinary focus would likely reveal interesting dierences
in how lecture discourse is organized in various academic elds. Secondly, the two
lecture corpora compared in this study actually have somewhat dierent commu-
nicative purposes. The guest lectures introduced students to aspects of business in
dierent European countries and were thus mainly descriptive in nature, without
delving into conceptual knowledge. Perhaps they were more articulated with meta-
talk for this reason. In contrast, as part of a semester-long course based on a sylla-
bus, the MICASE lectures were more theory-oriented. This was clearly illustrated in
the concordance output which listed 44 instances of Lets say to introduce a hypo-
thetical statement, while the guest lectures had none. In this sense, the guest lectures
could even be considered as a sort of hybrid genre, having some characteristics of
presentations, for example, a business presentation aiming to introduce and describe
a company, product or service. The use of visual aids could also be examined more
closely to investigate similarities between guest lectures and presentation genres. In
fact, the more frequent references to upcoming visuals in the guest lectures com-
pared with the MICASE lectures would seem to signal some anity with presenta-
tions, where the visual channel makes a crucial contribution5.
The higher frequency of phonologically reduced forms in the MICASE lectures
also warrants further study. While this could be associated with both the language
background of the speakers and mutual familiarity, it could also be a reection of
what is stereotypically considered informal American style. It would be interesting
to analyze lecture corpora in American versus British versus other varieties of Eng-
lish to determine dierences in formal versus casual language.
From a pedagogical viewpoint, this study begs the question of whether more
interactive discourse structuring is linked to improved understanding also in L2

5
Rowley-Jolivet (2002) found that visuals are of paramount importance in scientic conference pre-
sentations. Her study was restricted to the elds of geology, medicine and physics, and it may well be
that conference presentations in other disciplines make less use of visuals. Nevertheless, generally
speaking, today most conference presentations are characterized by some form of supporting visuals.
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 51

guest lecture settings. It would be worthwhile to set up studies with L2 guest lecture
audiences to learn more about this aspect, through post-lecture testing to determine
possible dierences in comprehension and interviews with listeners to better under-
stand how they respond to these metadiscursive features.
In terms of teaching methodology, the wide range of vocabulary found in the
discourse structuring of all the speakers involved in this study points to lexis as
an area needing more attention in lecture comprehension courses. Concordance
output could be integrated into teaching materials to illustrate how many dif-
ferent verbs can be used to express a relatively limited number of concepts.
More specically, there are many variations on the basic themes of talk, do, and
learn, which represent the essence of what happens, or at least should happen,
during a lecture. Particularly among native speakers, these utterances can take
on quite non-traditional forms [e.g. examples (2022)] and likely create pro-
blems for non-native speakers. Patterns with phrasal verbs (also notoriously
problematic for L2 learners) should be pointed out (e.g. nish o/up, start o/
up/out, wind down/up, get to/back to/into). Another potential source of diculty
for non-native speakers are patterns that reect the process of de-lexicalization,
where the verb is actually semantically void. For example, a pattern such as lets
have a look, typical of lecture discourse, comprises one of the most common three-
word lexical bundles (have a look) found in British English conversation (Biber et
al., 1999). All of the above discourse structuring previews can serve to consolidate
a set of expectations among L2 lecture audiences and thus facilitate the listening
process.
These ndings can also nd practical application in the preparation of prospective
guest lecturers. Both L1 and L2 speakers can benet from an enhanced awareness of
the important function of interactive discourse structuring to guide L2 listeners.
Particularly NS guest lecturers could be encouraged to use more interactive dis-
course structuring to facilitate L2 audiences. A pronounced use of discourse struc-
turing may come less spontaneously to native speakers with respect to non-native
speakers, who instead may use it often in response to both their listeners and their
own needs. NS guest lecturers may nd it useful to assess their vocabulary choices
and the possible need to make adjustments for international audiences. On the other
hand, NNS guest lecturers could be prompted to broaden their range of discourse
structuring expressions and explore more informal communication styles. This type
of self-evaluation can lead to a conscious eort to exploit interactive discourse
structuring as a tool to aid comprehension, and thus ultimately contribute to more
successful lecturing.

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by a Morley Scholarship for Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching at the English Language Institute of the Uni-
versity of Michigan. My special thanks go to John M. Swales and Rita C. Simpson
for their invaluable comments during the preparation of this article.
52 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

Appendix A. Sample of concordance of We will/well+main verb from the guest

lecture corpus

N Concordance
1 and uh thats an important issue and uh
2 found and what well come to later on
3 And later on what we found and what
4 to see whats happened in Spain and
5 u one that we have in Spain and then
6 ial cycle OK Right So tomorrow
7 rive it from this And in the case study
8 study. . .case studies. . .and then
9 ribution of activity on the territory then
10 rms really really small so at this point
11 I think youve got. . .And things Erm
12 at is said pick out the issues and then
13 r that reason I suppose I will have time
14 dout that I gave you before uh uh: so
15 y youll be European in a few time so
16 data sets which explain all about them
18 asis on services and and the city Uh:
19 after seeing other opinions- a lot eh?
20 not here whats happened here huh?
21 ook at small rms But in a way which
22 petitiveok? because they cooperate
23 es in favour of horizontal measures (.)
24 ompetitive of it for it ok? so tomorrow
25 nt to be proved we have 39 a lot huh?
well come back to that in a minute
well come to that high tech rms ar
well come to later on well come to t
we will decide if in Spain we have a
we will dene nally what in Spain
well do a case study ((Student)). . .
we will face today I show you one typ
well nish o by looking at govern
well go further after proving that e:r
well go specically to the topic of
well have a break at this point How
well have a report back session to th
well talk about what UK industrial p
well just carry on as we where whe
well know more about these countr
well look at those youll get youll g
well say something later on but its
well say well were interested at lea
We will see later more clearly dont
well see in a moment its not been pa
we will see later perhaps they e chan
Well see in a moment what this mea
we will see what determines location
well see then a map a beautiful map

Appendix B. Verbs used in discourse structuring patterns in the two corpora

Address come to discover

analyze compare discuss
ask conclude do
attempt continue draw
cover
begin cut emphasize
build on examine
decide explain
carry on dene explore
check develop
come back
(continued on next page)
 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954 53

Appendix B. (continued)

face list share

nd look shift
nish show
focus make skip
mention solve
get into move spend
get through move into start
get to move on step back
give stop
go back notice study
go further suggest
go on overlap sum up
go over summarize
go through pick up
present take
have put take up
highlight talk about
read tell
introduce realize touch on
recap try
jump reconvene
refer use
keep repeat
know wrap up
say write
leave see

References

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and
written English. Essex: Longman.
Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic dierences produced by dierences between speaking and writing. In
D. Olsen, N. Torrence, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning (pp. 105123).
Cambridge: CUP.
Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The eect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures.
Applied Linguistics, 7, 113127.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2002). Discourse structuring in academic lectures to linguistically diverse and
unfamiliar audiences. In P. Evangelisti, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Textus, XV, English in academic settings:
techniques of description/pedagogical applications (pp. 265278). Genoa: Tilgher.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2003). Interacting with the audience: modality in business lectures delivered in
a cross-cultural context. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.) English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and
contrastive studies. Frankfurt am main: Peter Lang, pp. 2743.
DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures.
English for Specic Purposes, 7, 91102.
54 B. Crawford Camiciottoli / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 3954

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variation of the discourse patterns favoured by dierent disciplines and their
pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening (pp. 146158). Cambridge: CUP.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Academic listening. Cambridge: CUP.
Fortanet, I. The use of we in university lectures: a reconsideration. English for Specic Purposes, (in
press).
Goman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Khuwaileh, A. A. (1999). The role of chunks, phrases and body language in understanding co-ordinated
academic lectures. System, 27, 249260.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reexive academic talk: observations from MICASE. In R. S. Simpson, &
J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North Americaselections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 165
178). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension.
English for Specic Purposes, 9, 3347.
Rilling, S. (1996). Lexical phrases as organizational markers in academic lectures: a corpus- and compu-
ter- based approach to research and teaching. The ORTESOL Journal, 17, 1940.
Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational setting. English for Specic
Purposes, 6, 1329.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientic conference papers: a genre-based study. English for
Specic Purposes, 21, 1940.
Scott, M. (1998). Wordsmith tools, Oxford University Press (version 3.0).
Simpson, R., Briggs, S., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (1999). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken
English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan (http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/
micase.
Swales, J. M. Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge: CUP (in preparation).
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: a genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introduc-
tions. English for Specic Purposes, 13, 171186.
Tyler, A. E., Jeries, A. A., & Davies, C. E. (1988). The eect of discourse structuring devices on listener
perceptions of coherence in non-native university teachers spoken discourse. World Englishes, 7, 101
110.
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking and the comprehensibility of international teaching
assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693711.
Young, L. (1990). Language as behaviour, language as code. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Young, L. (1994). University lecturesmacro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.),
Academic listening (pp. 159176). Cambridge: CUP.

Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli is an EAP/ESP lecturer at the University of Florence (Italy) Faculty of
Economics. Her research interests are L2 reading instruction, modality, cross-cultural issues and spoken
academic discourse. She has published in the Journal of Research in Reading and Reading in a Foreign
Language.