Discourse differences between international teaching assistants and university registers: a quantitative corpus approach

References

• Bachman LF. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bachman LF, Palmer AS. 1996. Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berber Sardinha T, Pinto MV, Mayer C, Zuppardi MC, Kauffmann CH. 2019. Adding registers to a previous multi-dimensional analysis. In T. Berber Sardinha and M. V. Pinto, editors. Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues. London, UK: Bloomsbury; p. 165–186.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Conrad S. 2019. Register, genre, and style. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Conrad S, Reppen R, Byrd P, Helt M, Clark V, Cortes V, Csomay E, Urzua A. 2004. Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus. TOEFL Monograph Series. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Brezina V, Weill-Tessier P, McEnery A. 2021. #LancsBox v. 6.x. [software]. Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs S. 1994. Using performance assessment methods to screen ITAs. In C. G. Madden and C. L. Myers, editors. Discourse and performance of international teaching assistants. Alexandria, VA: TESOL; p. 63–80.
   Google Scholar
• Chang H. 2022. Evaluation of language and teaching skill domains for international teaching assistants: An approach based on invariant measurement. Lang Assess Q. 19(3):264–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2021.2013487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates J. 1993. Women, men and language. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Cotos E, Chung YR. 2019. Functional language in curriculum genres: Implications for testing international teaching assistants. J English Acad Purposes. 41:100766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorsuch GJ. 2006. Discipline-specific practica for international teaching assistants. English Specif Purposes. 25(1):90–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray B. 2015. Linguistic variation in research articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hoekje B, Linnell K. 1994. “Authenticity” in language testing: Evaluating spoken language tests for international teaching assistants. TESOL Q. 28(1):103–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoekje B, Williams J. 1992. Communicative competence and the dilemma of international teaching assistant education. TESOL Q. 26(2):243–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird TFN, Garver AK, Niskodé-Dossett AS. 2011. Gender gaps in collegiate teaching style: Variations by course characteristics. Res High Educ. 52(3):261–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9193-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff R. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Liao S. 2009. Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. J Pragmat. 41(7):1313–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulac A, Lundell TL. 1994. Effects of gender-linked language differences in adults’ written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Lang Commun. 14(3):299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(94)90007-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman ML, Groom CJ, Handelman LD, Pennebaker JW. 2008. Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Process. 45(3):211–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802073712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plough IC, Briggs SL, Van Bonn S. 2010. A multi-method analysis of evaluation criteria used to assess the speaking proficiency of graduate student instructors. Lang Test. 27(2):235–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staples S, Laflair GT, Egbert J. 2017. Comparing language use in oral proficiency interviews to target domains: Conversational, academic, and professional discourse. Mod Lang J. 101(1):194–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunderland J. 2000. Issues of language and gender in second and foreign language education. Lang Teach. 33(4):203–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800015688.
   Google Scholar
• Thirakunkovit S, Rodríguez-Fuentes RA, Park K, Staples S. 2019. A corpus-based analysis of grammatical complexity as a measure of international teaching assistants’ oral English proficiency. English Specif Purposes. 53:74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler A. 1992. Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse. TESOL Q. 26(4):713–729. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams J. 1992. Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Q. 26(4):693–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar