01 Editorial.qxd


Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234

ISSN: 1139-7241 / e-ISSN: 2340-2784

Abstract  

This study was an attempt to explore how important points are highlighted in
Persian academic lectures. More specifically, this paper was aimed to reach a
taxonomy of  importance markers based on (a) the discourse functions of
importance markers, and (b) the relative position of  the importance marker to
the highlighted discourse. A mixed-methods (exploratory) approach and a
corpus-driven method were used to extract importance markers from 60 lectures
of  the Persian SOKHAN corpus. In terms of  discourse functions, importance
marking was found to be done by a set of  five discourse functions, i.e. discourse
organization, audience engagement, subject status, topic treatment, and relating
to exam. Among these, audience engagement was the first most frequently used
discourse function. Additionally, in terms of  the position of  the highlighted
discourse, eight patterns were found for anaphoric importance marking. Ten
patterns were also found for cataphoric importance marking. Moreover,
cataphoric importance markers were considerably more prevalent than
anaphoric importance markers. Generally, the findings suggested that lecturers
are more inclined to function interpersonally in Persian academic contexts. The
paper ends with pedagogical implications. 

Keywords: importance marking, discourse function, Persian academic
lecture, corpus. 

Resumen 

L o s  ma rc a do re s  d e  imp or ta nc i a:  L a  re f e r e nc i a a l  di s c ur s o s e ñ al a do s  e n l a s

c l as e s  ma g i s tra l e s

Este artículo es un intento de explorar cómo determinados aspectos importantes
se destacan en las clases magistrales. Más concretamente, este artículo buscaba

Importance marking: Giving reference to
the highlighted discourse in academic
lectures 

Javad Zare, Abbas Eslami-Rasekh, and Azizollah Dabaghi 

University of Isfahan (Iran) 
javadzare@gmail.com, abbaseslamirasekh@gmail.com & dabaghi@fgn.ui.ac.ir

213



Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

crear una taxonomía de marcadores de importancia basados en (a) las funciones
discursivas de los marcadores de importancia, (b) la posición relativa del
marcador de importancia en el discurso señalado. Un método mixto y un análisis
de corpus (corpus-driven) se utilizaron para extraer los marcadores de
importancia de 60 clases magistrales recogidas en el corpus SOKHAN. En
cuanto a las funciones discursiva, se demostró que para destacar la importancia
se utilzan cinco tipos de funciones, i.e. la organización del discurso, la
involucración de la audience, la importancia de la asignatura, el tratamiento del
tema y la relación con el examen. Entre estos, se demostró que la involucración
de la audiencia es la función discursiva más frecuentemente usada. Además, por
lo que se refiere a la posición del discurso destacado se utilizan ocho estructuras
para destacar la importancia de forma catafórica. Los marcadores discursivos
catafóricos son considerablemente más prevalentes que los marcadores
discursivos anafóricos. En general, nuestros resultados sugieren que los
profesores tienen una mayor inclinación hacia la interpersonalidad en el ámbito
académico en persa. Este artículo concluye con las implicaciones pedagógicas del
estudio. 

Palabras clave: marcadores de importancia, función discursiva, clases
magistrales en persa, corpus 

1. Introduction 

Academic lectures are one of  the most important genres lecturers and
students need to deal with at the university. On the one hand, the importance
of  academic lectures is rooted in the fact that they are the main instructional
method through which lecturers present their theoretical knowledge. The
instructors’ success in their career thus depends on their successful
undertaking of  this genre. On the other hand, the knowledge students obtain
from lectures accounts for the largest part of  assessment and with that of
academic success. As Sutherland and Badger (2004: 285) note, lecturing is
“tightly geared towards assessment” and lecturers see “their lectures as a
means of  conveying the assessment needs of  the course to the students”.
Yet, the abundance of  information presented in the lecture, and lack of
control over the speech rate, along with the students’ limited command of
English, make comprehending lectures a demanding task. Therefore, the
ability to distinguish between important and less important points seems
crucial for efficient comprehension of  the lecture. 

Importance markers, also called “relevance markers” (Hunston, 1994;
Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004, 2007; Deroey, 2014, 2015) are

214



“lexicogrammatical devices which overtly mark verbally or visually presented
points as being comparatively relevant, important or significant” (Deroey,
2014: 266). According to Hunston (1994: 199), relevance markers have four
main features: (a) they are retrospective or prospective; (b) they “overtly
mark the relevance of  preceding, or subsequent, stretches of  text”; (c) they
evaluate the discourse and are, thus, metadiscursive; and (d) they have an
important discourse organizational role. The last two features concern the
metadiscursive nature of  relevance markers. 

Metadiscourse refers to discourse about discourse or discourse about the
evolving discourse (Ädel, 2006). According to Hyland (2004, 2005),
metadiscourse expressions comprise two main functions: interactive and
interactional. Interactive resources are used to guide the reader through the
text; interactional resources, on the other hand, are used to involve the reader
in the argument. The metadiscursive nature of  importance markers can also
be supported by the fact that examples of  these markers are found in
“delimiting topic”, “marking asides”, “managing the message”, and “speech
act labelling” metadiscourse (Ädel, 2010), and “text-structuring
metadiscourse” (Thompson, 2003).

Discourse organizational patterns are reported to improve lecture
comprehension, note-taking, and recall of  the students (e.g., Flowerdew &
Tauroza, 1995; Thompson, 2003; Jung, 2006). As importance markers help
students identify which portions of  the lecture are important to learn,
remember, or take note of, they are considered as decisive discourse
organizational expressions (Flowerdew, 1994). Hence, an understanding of
how important portions of  lecture discourse are highlighted is useful.
Nevertheless, very little is known about importance markers. The studies
that have exclusively dealt with importance markers are few and far between
(e.g., Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004, 2007; Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a;
Deroey, 2014, 2015).

Deroey (2015) explored importance markers derived from 160 lectures of
the BASE corpus. This author classified importance markers in terms of
their orientation to the discourse participants and the highlighted discourse.
She labelled the patterns of  importance markers with content, listener,
speaker, or joint orientation as, respectively, “MN v-link”, “v n/clause”, “1s
pers pron v n/clause”, and “1p pers pron v n/clause”. Importance markers
with prospective, retrospective, or combined orientation to the highlighted
discourse would have the patterns of  “v n/clause” and “MN v-link”; “deic

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 215



v-link ADJ”, “deic v-link MN”, and “deic v-link adj MN”; and “1s pers pron
v n/clause” and “deic v-link adj MN”, respectively. Most markers were
found to be either directed towards the content (e.g., “the point is”) or
listeners (e.g., “you should remember”). Few importance markers were
oriented towards the speaker (e.g., “I should stress”) or speaker and listeners
jointly (e.g., “I want you to notice”). Deroey also made a distinction between
primary and secondary interactive orientation. Classifying a marker as
primary interactive orientation “depends on its main constituents, namely
Subject or Object pronouns, full verbs, metalinguistic nouns, importance
adjectives, and adverbs, while its secondary interactive orientation depends
on possessive determiners, pre- and postmodifiers (adjectives, pronouns,
verb type), and accompanying discourse markers” (2015: 4). She found many
content-oriented markers with secondary listener orientation (e.g., “these are
the things to take home”).

Partington (2014) examined the marking of  importance at local and macro
levels in TED talks based on a corpus of  27 TED talks given between 2007 and
2012. Partington found four types of  importance markers including (i)
concordancing lexical items and simple word patterns, (ii) necessity items, (iii)
personal relevance items, and (iv) big number items. “Concordancing lexical
items and simple word patterns” is related to the lexical items (e.g., “key”,
“vital”, “important”, “essential”, and the like) that explicitly highlight the
importance of  information. “Necessity” items concern expressing that
something is necessary to do (e.g., “you have to, “you’ve got to”, “needs to be”,
“so we need”). “Personal relevance” items involve appealing to personal
relevance (e.g., “this is an example that you might care about someday”). And
“big number” items necessitate using large numbers to highlight the importance
of  a topic (e.g., “it’s a 130-fold improvement”, and “that is 10 times further and
faster than anything we’ve ever achieved in industrial history”).

Deroey and Taverniers (2012a) explored 160 lectures from the BASE corpus
to discover relevance markers in English lectures. The authors found
importance markers with adjective, noun, verb and adverb as their main
elements. Among these, the verb pattern “v clause” (e.g., “remember slavery
had already been legally abolished”), followed by the noun pattern “MN v-
link” (e.g., “the point is”), were found to be the dominant relevance markers
in English lectures.

Crawford Camiciottoli (2004, 2007) investigated a small corpus comprising
12 Business Studies lectures delivered by UK, US and non-native speaker

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234216



lecturers and 10 MICASE lectures from different disciplines for potential
relevance markers. She found six retrospective and prospective patterns for
relevance markers with various combinations of  deictics, determiners,
relevance adjectives, metalinguistic nouns, and the linking verb “is”. Among
retrospective patterns, the “DEIC + IS + ADJ” (e.g., “This is important”)
one was dominant. Among prospective importance markers, the pattern
“DET + ADJ + META N + IS”, equivalent to Deroey & Taverniers’
(2012a) “MN v-link” (e.g., “The main point is”), was the most prevalent.
Prospective importance markers were found to be considerably more
frequent than retrospective markers. 

Drawing on authentic discourse data derived from the Persian SOKHAN
corpus1, this study was an endeavor to explore how important portions of
discourse are highlighted in Persian academic lectures. More specifically, this
paper sought to reach a taxonomy of  importance markers based on the
relative position of  the highlighted discourse to the importance markers.
Furthermore, we aimed for a new taxonomy of  importance markers based
on their discourse functions. 

2. Material and method 

2.1. Corpus 

The corpus used in the present study was the Persian SOKHAN corpus.
SOKHAN contains 60 authentic academic lectures distributed across the
four disciplinary groups of  engineering, humanities, medicine, and basic
sciences, 15 from each broad group. The lectures in SOKHAN are all in
Persian and are all delivered by male native speakers of  Persian lecturers. 

2.2. Analytical procedure 

A mixed-methods approach was adopted in the study. The design of  the
study was exploratory, to use Lodico, Spaulding, and voegtle’s (2006) term.
A quantitative measure of  the distribution of  importance markers was
reached based on the qualitative data (transcripts of  the lectures) collected
formerly.

In order to derive importance markers, we followed Deroey and Taverniers’s
(2012a) research design. We constructed a sub-corpus of  16 lectures from
the SOKHAN corpus (four from each disciplinary group), totaling 170,000

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 217



words. To control for the factor of  discipline, lectures from all the four

broad disciplinary groups were included in the study. In order for the sub-

corpus to be representative of  the entire SOKHAN corpus, the study level

was also taken into consideration in selecting the lectures. The sub-corpus

was, thus, systematically varied in terms of  discipline and study level. The

transcripts of  the lectures in the sub-corpus were carefully read to locate the

patterns which appeared to highlight important discourse. In this endeavor,

only expressions that highlighted discourse entity, rather than world entity

were extracted (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a). Here, a distinction needs to be

made between discourse and world entities. Discourse entities are examples

of  expressions that are related to the discourse, that is, expressions where the

lecturer evaluates the importance of  discourse, not a world activity or issue.

Accordingly, examples where it was not clear whether the highlighted

discourse was a discourse entity or world entity were not included (1).

Besides, following Deroey and Taverniers (2012a), we disregarded the

expressions that marked the importance of  student or third-party discourse

and quoted material (2). 

(1) Banabarin in mohem-e ke in mansha-e ab-o bebinim

[So, it is important to see the source of  water]

(2) Je nokte-i ke ona eshare mikonan in-e ke

[A point that they mention is that] 

WordSmith (Scott, 2015) was used to generate concordances for the patterns

that seemed to highlight important discourse in the SOKHAN corpus.

Other lexemes that seemed to mark important points were also discovered.

These lexemes of  marking importance were complemented by their

synonyms and derived forms (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a). The co-texts of

the retrieved importance markers, generated by WordSmith, were then

inspected independently by each author to determine whether they

functioned as importance markers. Afterwards, the researchers compared

their results to reach a compromise. A total of  293 instances of  importance

marking were hence found. 

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234218



3. Results and discussion 

3.1. Anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric importance marking 

Using WordSmith Concord tool (Scott, 2015), concordances of  the 293
instances of  importance marking were broken down. The importance
markers were then classified in terms of  the relative position of  the
highlighted discourse to the importance markers. This was done to see if  the
highlighted discourse goes before or after the importance marker. Crawford
Camiciottoli (2004, 2007), and Deroey and Taverniers (2012a) have used
retrospective and prospective terms for this classification. However, in order
to have a more comprehensive taxonomy, taking into account both verbal
and visual features of  academic lectures, the terms “endophoric”,
“anaphoric”, “cataphoric”, and “exophoric” reference were used. 

As Figure 1 shows, in this taxonomy a distinction is made between
endophoric importance marking, which deals with verbal cues used to signal
the importance of  discourse, and exophoric importance marking, which is
concerned with visual aspects. Endophoric importance marking comprises
anaphoric and cataphoric reference. Anaphoric importance marking occurs
when the importance marker refers to portions of  discourse mentioned
earlier (3). Here, the audience need to look back in the speech to discover the
highlighted discourse. Cataphoric importance marking, on the other hand, is
when the highlighted point is mentioned later in the discourse (4). Thus, to

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 219

JAVAD ZARE & ZAHRA KEIVANLOO SHAHRESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 
ISSN 1139-7241     e-ISSN 2340-2784 

Deroey and Taverniers (2012a) have used retrospective and prospective terms 
for this classification. However, in order to have a more comprehensive 
taxonomy, taking into account both verbal and visual features of academic 
lectures, the terms “endophoric”, “anaphoric”, “cataphoric”, and “exophoric” 
reference were used.  

 

Figure 1. Importance markers in terms of the position of highlighted discourse.  

As Figure 1 shows, in this taxonomy a distinction is made between endophoric 
importance marking, which deals with verbal cues used to signal the importance 
of discourse, and exophoric importance marking, which is concerned with visual 
aspects. Endophoric importance marking comprises anaphoric and cataphoric 
reference. Anaphoric importance marking occurs when the importance marker 
refers to portions of discourse mentioned earlier (3). Here, the audience need to 
look back in the speech to discover the highlighted discourse. Cataphoric 
importance marking, on the other hand, is when the highlighted point is 
mentioned later in the discourse (4). Thus, to recognize the highlighted point the 
audience need to look ahead in the speech.  

(3) … Xob! In nokte aval. 

[… Well! This is the first point.] 

(4) Nokte mohem in-e ke … 

[The important point is …]  

Exophoric importance marking occurs when the highlighted point is outside the 
verbal discourse. This happens when the lecturer refers to a point in the handouts 
or slides (5). To detect the highlighted discourse the lecture participants need to 
go beyond the verbal cues and look at the visual information presented.  

HSOLONAVIEKARHAZ&ERAZDAVJA

2102(sreinrevaTdnayeorDe
woH.noitacfiissalcsihtrfo
uoccatoinginkta, ymonoxta

l ohpoden“smerte ht,esruect
desureewecnrere . 

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

IKANATSERHAH

naevitcepsorterdesuevah)a2
maevahotredroni,revew
fl auisvdnal abrevthobt nu
irohapcat“c”,irohapan“c”,iro

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

smretevitcepsorpdn
evisneherpmocerom

icmedacafosertua
c” irohpoex“danc”,i

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

1e gurFi .  mecnrtaopIm

atsihtni,wsohs1erugiFAs
ginamecntaropim ,  dhcih w

esourcsdiof , m icirohpox edn a

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

tehlighigf h onitioso pef th osrm te inrserka

edamsinoitcnitsidaymonoxa
 so tdes useu clabre vhti wslae d

gnikra mecnatropm ,  cs ihcih w

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

ersuocis dd .

neweteb c irohpoden
ecnatropm ieh tlangi s
lausi vhti wdenrecno c

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

, p
anopmic irohpodnE.sectpas

nA.ecnrere anopmic irohap
rsuocsidfosnoirtopotrsre
tohceepsethinkcabkolo
ethno, ginkramecntaropim
ruocsidehtniretaldenoitnme
ieadahkooloteednce enidau

)(3 nI!boX… etnok v a

ehtsisihT! lleW[…

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

gp ,
hapanessirpmcognikarmce an
e htenhwsrccuognikarmce an

,reeH).(3r eirlaedenoitneme
ddtehlighighethrevocisdto

, dnahrethoe ethnehwis
ehtezingocerot,suhT.)4(esr

eechpse htni . 

l.av

trse ntpoi .]

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

c irohapcatdanc iroh
erkarmce antropmie 
otdeenecneiduaeht
icrohptaaC. esruocis
ist inopdtehlighigh
ehttniopdethgilhgih

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

3 3aicréIb 710 (2 ): …-…
NSIS 1139-7241     e- 043 2NSIS -2784

6

)(4 etkNo mehmo  in- ke 

eh[T tntaro ntpoi

nikramecnatropmicirohpoEx
nsppehashiT.esourcsdilbarve

hihettcetdeo T.5)(sdeilsor
nd asueclbarvehetyond bego 

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

2784

…e k

] …

dethgilhgihehtnehwsruccogn
ao tsrerreurtcelhetn hewns
eurtcelhetesourcsdid eghtighlhi

on itamiluasvihettaook lnd 

      

 
  

          
           

       
      
   

 

   

            
  

  
    

     
            

          
         

             
      

    

      

   

    

           
           

         
       

ehtedistuositniopd
sndouthahetn intpoi

paicitrpae o td enesnt
dentesepron . 



recognize the highlighted point the audience need to look ahead in the
speech. 

(3) … Xob! In nokte aval.

[… Well! This is the first point.]

(4) Nokte mohem in-e ke …

[The important point is …] 

Exophoric importance marking occurs when the highlighted point is outside
the verbal discourse. This happens when the lecturer refers to a point in the
handouts or slides (5). To detect the highlighted discourse the lecture
participants need to go beyond the verbal cues and look at the visual
information presented. 

(5) In slide mohem-e.

[This slide is important.] 

Since the video files of  the SOKHAN corpus were not accessible and the
study was limited to exploring verbal cues only, exophoric importance
markers were disregarded. Table 1 shows the lexicogrammatical patterns of
anaphoric importance markers along with their distributions. Hunston and
Francis’ (2000) notation system2 has been used to represent the patterns.
Note that the focus of  the patterns, what signals the importance of  points,
is in upper case. 

As Table 1 shows, the analysis of  concordances revealed eight patterns for
giving anaphoric reference to important points of  discourse. Among
anaphoric patterns, “hd + exam points” and “hd + deic mn v-link (adv)

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234220

IMPORTANCE MARKING IN ACADEMIC LECTURES 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 

(5) In slide mohem-e. 

[This slide is important.]  

Since the video files of the SOKHAN corpus were not accessible and the study 
was limited to exploring verbal cues only, exophoric importance markers were 
disregarded. Table 1 shows the lexicogrammatical patterns of anaphoric 
importance markers along with their distributions. Hunston and Francis’ (2000) 
notation system2 has been used to represent the patterns. Note that the focus of 
the patterns, what signals the importance of points, is in upper case.  

Anaphoric importance markers Raw counts % 

hd3 + deic (adj) MN 9 3 
hd + this v-link MN n/clause 2 0.7 
hd + deic v-link (adv) ADJ 2 0.7 
hd + deic v-link (adv) ADJ mn 7 2.3 
hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ 12 4 
hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ mn 3 1 
hd + topicalized-ADV (deic) v-link adj mn 1 0.3 
hd + exam points 12 4 
Total 48 16 

Table 1. Distribution analysis of anaphoric importance markers.  

As Table 1 shows, the analysis of concordances revealed eight patterns for 
giving anaphoric reference to important points of discourse. Among anaphoric 
patterns, “hd + exam points” and “hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ” outnumbered 
the other patterns as the first most frequently used patterns in Persian academic 
lectures (4,4 %). The pattern “hd + exam points” includes those instances of 
importance markers that indicate the likelihood of portions of discourse to be 
included in the exam (6). Though very helpful for students to detect important 
points, this pattern constituted only four percent of all the importance markers in 
the SOKHAN corpus. The infrequence of this pattern may be related to the fact 
that the constant use of this pattern by the professor might reflect a teaching-to-
the-test attitude: where the lecturer only stresses the materials which are 
considered important for assessment and the students are discouraged from 
paying attention to the other parts of discourse.  

(6) In soal-e emtehan-e. 

[This is an exam question.]  

The pattern “hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ” is somehow similar to the most 
frequent retrospective pattern, “DEIC + IS + ADJ”, that Crawford Camiciottoli 
(2007) found in English lectures. What makes our pattern different is the 
inclusion of a metalinguistic noun (e.g., “point”), in addition to an evaluative 
adjective (e.g., “important”), to signal the importance of discourse (7). The 
occurrence of these elements together makes this pattern an explicit importance 
marker, thus assisting the lecture audience in detecting the important portions of 



ADJ” outnumbered the other patterns as the first most frequently used
patterns in Persian academic lectures (4,4 %). The pattern “hd + exam
points” includes those instances of  importance markers that indicate the
likelihood of  portions of  discourse to be included in the exam (6). Though
very helpful for students to detect important points, this pattern constituted
only four percent of  all the importance markers in the SOKHAN corpus.
The infrequence of  this pattern may be related to the fact that the constant
use of  this pattern by the professor might reflect a teaching-to-the-test
attitude: where the lecturer only stresses the materials which are considered
important for assessment and the students are discouraged from paying
attention to the other parts of  discourse. 

(6) In soal-e emtehan-e.

[This is an exam question.] 

The pattern “hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ” is somehow similar to the
most frequent retrospective pattern, “DEIC + IS + ADJ”, that Crawford
Camiciottoli (2007) found in English lectures. What makes our pattern
different is the inclusion of  a metalinguistic noun (e.g., “point”), in addition
to an evaluative adjective (e.g., “important”), to signal the importance of
discourse (7). The occurrence of  these elements together makes this pattern
an explicit importance marker, thus assisting the lecture audience in
detecting the important portions of  discourse. The metalinguistic nouns
found in Persian lectures were “point”, “question”, “idea”, “thing”,
“matter”, “truth of  the matter”, and “focus”. Among these, “point”
outnumbered the other lexemes (105 instances). This mirrors the findings in
Swales (2001), who investigated the use of  “point” and “thing” in MICASE
and observed “point” among the most frequent discussive nouns.

It is important to note that lexemes such as “question”, “idea”, “thing”,
“matter”, “truth of  the matter”, and “focus” do not necessarily signal the
importance of  discourse per se. Counting these lexemes as importance
markers depends on the presence of  other elements such as evaluative
adjectives (8). The evaluative adjectives found in Persian lectures were
“important”, “necessary”, “fundamental”, “main”, “interesting”, and
“considerable”. In line with Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan
(1999), and Swales and Burke (2003, as cited in Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a),
“important” outnumbered the other evaluative adjectives (29 instances). As
in English (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a), in Persian “interesting” did not

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 221



signal the importance of  discourse by itself  (9). The presence of  an
interactive verb highlighted the importance of  points. 

(7) In nokte mohem-e.

[This point is important.]

(8) Chizi ke vase ma mohem hast in-e ke

[What is important for us is]

(9) Jaleb ine ke bedonid

[It is interesting for you to know that] 

What is common among most anaphoric patterns is the presence of  a deictic
(e.g., “this”). A deictic was found in six out of  eight patterns. The frequent
use of  dectics in anaphoric importance markers mirrors the findings of
Deroey and Taverniers (2012a), who found retrospective relevance markers
with a deictic. The deictic used in the patterns is important, as it encapsulates
the highlighted parts of  discourse and its detection and interpretation are
crucial for the comprehension of  the lecture by the audience. Each
anaphoric pattern is provided with an example in the appendixes (Appendix
A). 

Table 2 presents the derived patterns of  cataphoric importance markers
along with their distributions. 

As Table 2 shows, the analysis of  concordances revealed ten patterns for
giving cataphoric reference to important portions of  discourse. Among
cataphoric patterns, “v + hd” (37%) outnumbered other patterns as the
most frequently used pattern in Persian academic lectures, followed by “(adv)

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234222

IMPORTANCE MARKING IN ACADEMIC LECTURES 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 

Table 2 presents the derived patterns of cataphoric importance markers along 
with their distributions.  

Cataphoric importance markers Raw counts % 

(adj) MN + hd 16 5.5 
(adv) (adj) MN v-link + hd 68 23.3 
there v-link (adj) MN + hd 14 4.8 
let 1st pers pron V (MN) + hd 3 1 
V + hd 108 37 
(ADV) 1st/2nd pers pron V + hd 20 7 
it V + hd 1 0.3 
let's (not) V + hd 3 1 
it v-link ADJ + hd 5 1.7 
what v-link ADJ v-link + hd 7 2.3 
Total 245 84 

Table 2. Distribution analysis of cataphoric importance markers.  

As Table 2 shows, the analysis of concordances revealed ten patterns for giving 
cataphoric reference to important portions of discourse. Among cataphoric 
patterns, “V + hd” (37%) outnumbered other patterns as the most frequently used 
pattern in Persian academic lectures, followed by “(adv) (adj) MN v-link + hd” 
(23.3%). This mirrors the findings of Crawford Camiciottoli (2007), who found 
“DET + ADJ + META N + IS” to be the most frequent pattern in English 
lectures. 

In “V + hd”, an interactive verb signals the importance of upcoming discourse 
(10). The verbs used in this pattern were “remember”, “remind”, “keep in mind”, 
“forget”, “pay attention”, “note”, “notice”, “highlight”, “take note of”, “learn”, 
“know”, and “understand”. The verbs may be complemented by a following 
deictic such as “here” and “this”, or a that-clause. In a similar vein to English 
lectures (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a), the pattern was predominant (37%) in 
cataphoric patterns and all the importance markers. The dominance of this 
pattern may be due to (a) the simple structure of this pattern and (b) the 
interactive verbs used in it. The basic structure of this pattern (using a main verb 
only) makes it a convenient way of signaling importance. Moreover, the 
imperative nature of the interactive verbs used in the pattern orient the audience 
to certain parts of discourse by involving them in the discoursal process.  

(10) Deqat konid man nemixam begam 

[Note! I’m not saying]  

The pattern “(adv) (adj) MN v-link + hd”, which was found to be the second 
most frequent cataphoric pattern, comprises chiefly a metalinguistic noun and a 
linking verb with sporadic pre-modifications such as adjectives and adverbs (11). 
The nouns were the same as anaphoric importance markers, with “point” being 
the most frequent one. Here, the parts of discourse which are aimed to be 



(adj) MN v-link + hd” (23.3%). This mirrors the findings of  Crawford
Camiciottoli (2007), who found “DET + ADJ + META N + IS” to be the
most frequent pattern in English lectures.

In “v + hd”, an interactive verb signals the importance of  upcoming
discourse (10). The verbs used in this pattern were “remember”, “remind”,
“keep in mind”, “forget”, “pay attention”, “note”, “notice”, “highlight”,
“take note of ”, “learn”, “know”, and “understand”. The verbs may be
complemented by a following deictic such as “here” and “this”, or a that-
clause. In a similar vein to English lectures (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a), the
pattern was predominant (37%) in cataphoric patterns and all the
importance markers. The dominance of  this pattern may be due to (a) the
simple structure of  this pattern and (b) the interactive verbs used in it. The
basic structure of  this pattern (using a main verb only) makes it a convenient
way of  signaling importance. Moreover, the imperative nature of  the
interactive verbs used in the pattern orient the audience to certain parts of
discourse by involving them in the discoursal process. 

(10) Deqat konid man nemixam begam

[Note! I’m not saying] 

The pattern “(adv) (adj) MN v-link + hd”, which was found to be the second
most frequent cataphoric pattern, comprises chiefly a metalinguistic noun
and a linking verb with sporadic pre-modifications such as adjectives and
adverbs (11). The nouns were the same as anaphoric importance markers,
with “point” being the most frequent one. Here, the parts of  discourse
which are aimed to be highlighted are either embedded in the same clause as
the importance marker (11) or encapsulated by a deictic and said afterwards
(12). 

(11) Nokte asli in-e ke

[The main point is that]

(12) Ide in-e. Bebinid je

[The idea is this. See, a] 

The pattern “(ADv) 1st/2nd pers pron v + hd”, which was the third most
frequent cataphoric importance marker, comprises an initial adverb and a
main verb principally (13). What is important about this pattern is the fact

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 223



that the adverb does not indicate the importance of  points by itself. The
presence of  another element such as an interactive verb complements this
function (13). 

(13) Faqat bajad bedonid ke

[Only you should know that] 

What is interesting to note is that all the patterns containing interactive verbs
were cataphoric in nature. Note that in these patterns, the highlighted
discourse always follows the importance marker either in the same clause as
the importance marker or summed up by a deictic and stated completely
afterwards in another sentence. Each cataphoric pattern is provided with an
example in the appendixes (Appendix B).

Table 3 presents the overall counts of  anaphoric and cataphoric importance
markers. 

As Table 3 shows, cataphoric importance markers dominated the Persian
importance markers in the entire SOKHAN corpus, accounting for 84 % of
them. This mirrors the findings of  Crawford Camiciottoli (2007) and Deroey
(2015) for English lectures. The dominance of  cataphoric importance
markers may be twofold. First, the presence of  interactive verbs in most of
these importance markers involves the participants of  the lecture in the
discourse and makes them participate actively in the process. Second, the
initial position of  the importance marker in relation to the highlighted
discourse informs the audience of  the prominence of  the information,
which is about to be presented and thus of  the necessity of  paying close
attention to or taking note of  them.  

3.2. Importance markers in terms of  discourse functions 

The 293 instances of  importance marking that were derived from the
SOKHAN corpus were examined manually by the two researchers to see
which discourse functions they served. A compromise was reached, in case

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234224

JAVAD ZARE & ZAHRA KEIVANLOO SHAHRESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 
ISSN 1139-7241     e-ISSN 2340-2784 

highlighted are either embedded in the same clause as the importance marker 
(11) or encapsulated by a deictic and said afterwards (12).  

(11) Nokte asli in-e ke 

[The main point is that] 

(12) Ide in-e. Bebinid je 

[The idea is this. See, a]  

The pattern “(ADV) 1st/2nd pers pron V + hd”, which was the third most 
frequent cataphoric importance marker, comprises an initial adverb and a main 
verb principally (13). What is important about this pattern is the fact that the 
adverb does not indicate the importance of points by itself. The presence of 
another element such as an interactive verb complements this function (13).  

(13) Faqat bajad bedonid ke 

[Only you should know that]  

What is interesting to note is that all the patterns containing interactive verbs 
were cataphoric in nature. Note that in these patterns, the highlighted discourse 
always follows the importance marker either in the same clause as the 
importance marker or summed up by a deictic and stated completely afterwards 
in another sentence. Each cataphoric pattern is provided with an example in the 
appendixes (Appendix B). 

Table 3 presents the overall counts of anaphoric and cataphoric importance 
markers.  

Importance markers Raw counts % 
Anaphoric 48 16 
Cataphoric 245 84 
Total 293 100 

Table 3. Distribution analysis of anaphoric/cataphoric importance markers. 

As Table 3 shows, cataphoric importance markers dominated the Persian 
importance markers in the entire SOKHAN corpus, accounting for 84 % of them. 
This mirrors the findings of Crawford Camiciottoli (2007) and Deroey (2015) for 
English lectures. The dominance of cataphoric importance markers may be 
twofold. First, the presence of interactive verbs in most of these importance 
markers involves the participants of the lecture in the discourse and makes them 
participate actively in the process. Second, the initial position of the importance 
marker in relation to the highlighted discourse informs the audience of the 
prominence of the information, which is about to be presented and thus of the 
necessity of paying close attention to or taking note of them.   

3.2. Importance markers in terms of discourse functions  



their opinions differed. It is important to note that this part of  the study was
conducted to extend the results of  Deroey and Taverniers (2012b) on
importance markers. In a study on lesser importance marking, these authors
observed five types of  markers of  lesser importance in English academic
lectures, including “message status”, “topic treatment”, “lecturer
knowledge”, “assessment”, as well as “attention-and note-taking directives”.
We wanted to see if  the same types of  markers are found for highlighting
importance. Consequently, the functional analysis of  the importance
markers led to a set of  five importance marking functions. 

As Figure 2 shows, these functions include “discourse organization”,
“audience engagement”, “subject status”, “topic treatment”, and “relating to
exam”. From these five importance marking functions, “subject status”,
“topic treatment”, and “relating to exam” were taken from Deroey and
Taverniers (2012b), not to mention the fact that they discuss them as
“types”, rather than “functions”. Note also that Deroey and Taverniers’
study was on the marking of  lesser importance. We found it interesting to
investigate whether the same markers can be found for importance marking.
Interestingly, “lecturer knowledge” markers of  lesser importance were not
present in importance markers. “Message status”, “topic treatment”,
“assessment”, and “attention-and note-taking directives”, however, were
present among the importance markers with some noteworthy differences. 

All the importance markers were then investigated to see which functional
category they belonged to. Table 4 presents the distribution of  each
functional category in the Persian SOKHAN corpus. Each discourse
function is provided with an example in the appendixes (Appendix C). 

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 225

IMPORTANCE MARKING IN ACADEMIC LECTURES 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 

The 293 instances of importance marking that were derived from the SOKHAN 
corpus were examined manually by the two researchers to see which discourse 
functions they served. A compromise was reached, in case their opinions 
differed. It is important to note that this part of the study was conducted to 
extend the results of Deroey and Taverniers (2012b) on importance markers. In a 
study on lesser importance marking, these authors observed five types of 
markers of lesser importance in English academic lectures, including “message 
status”, “topic treatment”, “lecturer knowledge”, “assessment”, as well as 
“attention-and note-taking directives”. We wanted to see if the same types of 
markers are found for highlighting importance. Consequently, the functional 
analysis of the importance markers led to a set of five importance marking 
functions.  

 
Figure 2. Importance markers in terms of discourse functions.  

As Figure 2 shows, these functions include “discourse organization”, “audience 
engagement”, “subject status”, “topic treatment”, and “relating to exam”. From 
these five importance marking functions, “subject status”, “topic treatment”, and 
“relating to exam” were taken from Deroey and Taverniers (2012b), not to 
mention the fact that they discuss them as “types”, rather than “functions”. Note 
also that Deroey and Taverniers’ study was on the marking of lesser importance. 
We found it interesting to investigate whether the same markers can be found for 
importance marking. Interestingly, “lecturer knowledge” markers of lesser 
importance were not present in importance markers. “Message status”, “topic 
treatment”, “assessment”, and “attention-and note-taking directives”, however, 
were present among the importance markers with some noteworthy differences.  

All the importance markers were then investigated to see which functional 
category they belonged to. Table 4 presents the distribution of each functional 
category in the Persian SOKHAN corpus. Each discourse function is provided 
with an example in the appendixes (Appendix C).  

 

atropmifosecnatsni392eTh
uanmedniamexe erwsuprco

.devresyehtsnoitcnfu cA 
tId.erdi  no ttnatropm is i

aneyoerDfostluesre htdentex
ecnatropmirsseelnoydust

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

GINKRA MECNATROPIM

devirederewtahtgnikramecna
otserchearesrowte htybylal

c esiomprom ni,dehcaerswa
dut seh oa psih ttah teto n

)b2102(serineravTdan on pim
,gnikram srothuaeseth sb o

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

SERUTCE LICMEDAC A ING

NAHKOSehtmod
e srucosidchihwee s
snoiniporiehtesac
o tdetcudno csa wyd
anI. srekramecntaro
f osepy tevdevre

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

ecnatrompiresselfosrekrma
,”tnemtaertcipot“,s”utast

noitnett“a - etondan - irdginkta
lhgihrdnuerasrekrma
mce antropmie htfosisyalan

snoitcnfu . 

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

lgnEnie sertucleicmedacahis
ssmssea“,”egdelwonkrerutcel“

eestodtenaweW. ”setivceir
esnoC.ecnatrompignithgil

e vfoetsa otedlserkarm

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

egassem“gindlucin, 
s allews a,”tnessm
foseptyemasethif

,yltne l antiocneth
gnimce antropmi

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

2e gurFi . rtaopIm

nesehtwsohs2erugiFAs

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

tiocn fuersuocisf d osrm te inrserka mecnrta

agroesruocsid“edulcnisnoitcn

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

sntio .

ecneidua“”noitazina

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

neseht,wsohs2erugiFAs
tenemaggen suattsectus“”,

inamecntaropimeeseth
katerew”maxeotgnitale“r

tahttcafehtnoitnme yeth si d
erineravTdaneyoerDathtosal

vniotgnitseretnitidnuWe
sertenI. ginkramecntaropim
t neserpt onerewecntaropim

na, t”nemssessa“, t”netmaetr
tneserperwe gnoam op imeth

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

agroesruocsidedulcnisnoitcn
atelr“dan”,tenmeatrtc ipot“”,
“, ”stutast ceus“, sntiocng

evaTdnayeoreDmonek
h trehta r,”sepyt “s ameh tssucs

gnime htnoaswyduts’ser
kramemasehtrehtehwetagitsev

cle“, lygtins ”egdlewonkrertu
eM“. sreamecntaropimint 

ntionttea“dn - etondan - dginkta
teo nemo sith wsrekra mecntar

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

ecneidua,noitazina
”.amexotgniat moFr

dna, t”netmaetricpto
otton,)b2102(srein
eto N.”snoitcn “nah

ce.anopmierseslfo
rdnuebnacsrek
resslefosrekram”

icpto“, ”stutasegasse
, revewoh, ”setivceird

 dythrow .secner

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

srekramecnatropmiehtlAl
T.otedgnoelbeyhtyroegcat

aniserPe htniyroegcat KSO
elpmaxenahtwi dnepp ae thin

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

Ibér

sotdetagitsevninehterwe
oitubirtside htstenesrp4e labT

NAHK e srucosidachE.suprco
idneppA (seixd )Cx . 

 

 

            
        

          
  

           
       

         
       

           
        
        

 

 
   

          
         

      
            
     

            
              

      
      

   
     

           
          
         

    

 

33ca ibér 710 (2 ): …-… 11

lanoitcnhciwhees
alnoictneachfono
eddivorpsinoictn



As Table 4 shows, audience engagement was found to be the first most
frequently used discourse function. Audience engagement refers to instances
of  importance marking where the lecturer involves the audience in the
discourse process (14). Here, the audience is supposed to pay attention,
memorize, or take note of  specific portions of  the discourse. The audience
is attracted to the discourse by using verbs such as “remember”, “keep in
mind”, “not forget”, “pay attention”, “notice”, “highlight”, “take note of ”,
“learn”, “know”, and “understand”. The preponderance of  this discourse
function may suggest that lecturers tend to function interpersonally in
importance marking by actively involving their audience in the lectures.
Audience engagement importance markers are somehow similar to Deroey
and Taverniers’ (2012b) “attention-and note-taking directives”. Whereas
audience engagement markers draw the attention of  the audience to the
important information of  lectures, attention-and note-taking directives
“explicitly direct the audience not to pay (much) attention to particular
discourse” (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012b: 2096). 

(14) Doresh-o qat bekeshid

[Circle that] 

Discourse organization was the second most frequently used function
among Persian importance markers. Discourse organization involves
organizing the discourse by means of  dividing it into points and non-points
(15). This is done by the use of  such nouns as “point”, “question”, “idea”,
“thing”, “matter”, “truth of  the matter”, and “focus”. The prevalence of
discourse organization as an importance marking function may be related to
the prevalence of  “point” in academic lectures. 

(15) Je nokte-i ke inja hast in-e ke

[There is a point here that] 

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234226

JAVAD ZARE & ZAHRA KEIVANLOO SHAHRESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 
ISSN 1139-7241     e-ISSN 2340-2784 

 

Importance markers Raw counts % 

Discourse organization 82 28 
Audience engagement 134 46 
Subject status 59 20 
Topic treatment 7 2.5 
Relating to exam 11 3.5 
Total 293 100 

Table 4. Distribution analysis of importance markers.  

As Table 4 shows, audience engagement was found to be the first most 
frequently used discourse function. Audience engagement refers to instances of 
importance marking where the lecturer involves the audience in the discourse 
process (14). Here, the audience is supposed to pay attention, memorize, or take 
note of specific portions of the discourse. The audience is attracted to the 
discourse by using verbs such as “remember”, “keep in mind”, “not forget”, “pay 
attention”, “notice”, “highlight”, “take note of”, “learn”, “know”, and 
“understand”. The preponderance of this discourse function may suggest that 
lecturers tend to function interpersonally in importance marking by actively 
involving their audience in the lectures. Audience engagement importance 
markers are somehow similar to Deroey and Taverniers’ (2012b) “attention-and 
note-taking directives”. Whereas audience engagement markers draw the 
attention of the audience to the important information of lectures, attention-and 
note-taking directives “explicitly direct the audience not to pay (much) attention 
to particular discourse” (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012b: 2096).  

(14) Doresh-o qat bekeshid 

[Circle that]  

Discourse organization was the second most frequently used function among 
Persian importance markers. Discourse organization involves organizing the 
discourse by means of dividing it into points and non-points (15). This is done by 
the use of such nouns as “point”, “question”, “idea”, “thing”, “matter”, “truth of 
the matter”, and “focus”. The prevalence of discourse organization as an 
importance marking function may be related to the prevalence of “point” in 
academic lectures.  

(15) Je nokte-i ke inja hast in-e ke 

[There is a point here that]  

“Subject status” or “message status” (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012b) involve 
explicitly evaluating the importance or relevance of information, using 
evaluative adjectives (16). This is usually done by the use of such adjectives as 
“important”, “necessary”, “fundamental”, “main”, “interesting”, and 
“considerable”. Subject status was the third most frequent function of importance 



“Subject status” or “message status” (Deroey & Taverniers, 2012b) involve
explicitly evaluating the importance or relevance of  information, using
evaluative adjectives (16). This is usually done by the use of  such adjectives
as “important”, “necessary”, “fundamental”, “main”, “interesting”, and
“considerable”. Subject status was the third most frequent function of
importance marking in Persian lectures. This function can be used to mark
explicitly certain portions of  discourse as important or less important. 

(16) Chizi ke mohem-e in vasat in-e ke

[What is important here is that] 

relating to exam involves revealing what is likely to be assessed in the exam
in relation to the content of  present discourse (17). Deroey and Taverniers
use “assessment” (2012b) or “assessment-related” (2012a) to refer to those
markers of  (lesser) importance that “point out the likelihood of  being
assessed on particular content” (2012a: 231). In all the instances of  this
function, the word “exam”, its synonyms, or derived forms were identified.
Whereas relating the discourse content to assessment and exam is a useful
way of  telling the students which parts to pay attention to, this function was
quite rare. According to Deroey and Taverniers (2012a), as information
concerning what to examine in the test is usually discussed in the first or last
sessions of  the course, and we do not know for sure whether the lectures
incorporated into the SOKHAN corpus are from the first or last sessions of
the semester or not, the infrequence of  these markers cannot be explained.
However, it can be hypothesized that the rareness of  this function is related
to the fact that relating specific content of  the discourse to assessment might
overshadow other parts of  discourse which are necessary to learn as
disciplinary content but are not normally assessed in exams. This might lead
to a teaching-to-the-test attitude and discourage the audience from paying
attention to other portions of  discourse. 

(17) Soal-e emtehan hamin-e

[This is an exam question] 

Topic treatment is the function dealing with the way the lecturer lectures in
a special subject. Deroey and Taverniers (2012b: 2091) refer to topic
treatment markers as “discourse organizational statements signaling that
topics or aspects thereof  are not covered, or that little discourse or time is
devoted to them”. We have taken topic treatment as another way of

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 227



highlighting importance in academic lectures. Here, topic treatment refers to
statements that suggest whether a topic or its aspects need to be covered
extensively (18), or are not necessary to cover at all (19, 20). This function
involves using expressions such as “go into”, “cover”, “skip”, “briefly”, and
“in more detail”. It is important to note that the interpretation of  topic
treatment as importance marking is based on the idea that only salient topics
and information make it into the lecture, considering the limited time
available and the abundance of  topics to discuss (Deroey & Taverniers,
2012b). However, it must be born in mind that lack of  time to cover
everything might be the case sometimes. 

(18) Takid mikonim roj-e in

[I stress this]

(19) vali man vared-e jozejat nemisham

[But I don’t go into the details]

(20) Hala az in ke begzarim

[Let’s skip this subject] 

What makes topic treatment different from subject status is that in subject
status, the lecturer presents his/her attitudinal evaluation of  the importance
of  the presented information along a “parameter of  importance”
(Thompson & Hunston, 2000: 24), whereas in topic treatment whether a
topic gets limited or preferential treatment is stated. In other words,
importance marking is done explicitly in subject status, whereas it is implied
in topic treatment. As topic treatment deals with topics, the rareness of  this
function may be related to time management, the fact that only a few topics
are usually discussed in every session. 

4. Conclusion 

This study was informed by the belief  that an understanding of  the
discourse structure of  lectures is beneficial to the students’ comprehension,
note-taking, and recall of  lectures (e.g., DeCarrico & Nattinger, 1988;
Flowerdew & Tauroza, 1995; Khuwaileh, 1999; Jung, 2003a, b, 2006;
Thompson, 2003). With the limited analysis of  this study, which, as video
recordings of  the SOKHAN corpus were not accessible, explored verbal

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234228



importance markers only, any generalized conclusions are necessarily
tentative but perhaps worth noting with respect to their implications.

First, in terms of  the position of  the highlighted discourse, eight patterns
were found for anaphoric importance marking, among which the patterns
“hd + exam points” and “hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ” outnumbered
others. Ten patterns were also found for cataphoric importance marking
among which “v + hd” was predominant. Second, cataphoric importance
markers dominated the entire SOKHAN corpus. Third, in terms of
discourse functions, marking certain portions of  discourse as important was
found to be done by one of  the five discourse functions – discourse
organization, audience engagement, subject status, topic treatment, and
relating to exam. Interestingly, audience engagement was found to be the
first most frequently used discourse function.

By and large, the findings of  this study may imply that lecturers are more
inclined to involve the audience than to refer to the text when signaling
importance in Persian academic contexts. That is to say, instead of
providing information without caring about the interpretations of  the
audience about the relative importance of  discourse, lecturers tend to
ensure that what they present is given enough attention to by drawing their
addressees in and providing the important points of  discourse in a way that
makes planning for online processing and note-taking possible. In other
words, Persian academic lectures are more oriented towards the audience
than to the content.

Theoretically, the authentic patterns and discourse functions of  importance
marking that were found in this study may be used as a basis for comparative
research on how this function is done in other genres, and across other
languages and disciplines. Pedagogically, these patterns, discourse functions
and examples of  their specific uses may be utilized in materials for listening
and lecturing courses. Specific courses for lecture listening, comprehension,
and note-taking can also be designed and implemented based on these
patterns for native and non-native speakers of  Persian.

This study suggests various areas for further research on the function of
importance marking. Further research needs to be conducted to find if  the
taxonomy of  the discourse functions of  importance marking is the same for
other languages such as English. Additionally, it seems necessary to
investigate some of  the variables that are relevant to lectures such as
lecturing styles, academic culture and field of  study. 

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 229



Article history: 
Received 18 February 2016 

Received in revised form 01 June 2016 
Accepted 11 June 2016 

References 

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234230

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ädel, A. (2010). “Just to give you kind of a map of
where we are going: a taxonomy of metadiscourse
in spoken and written academic English”. Nordic
Journal of English Studies 9,2: 69-97.

Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E.
Finegan (1999). The Longman Grammar of
Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. 

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). “Audience-
oriented relevance markers in business studies
lectures” in G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini
Bonelli (eds.), Academic Discourse: New Insights
into Evaluation, 81-97. Bern: Peter Lang.

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2007). The Language of
Business Studies Lectures. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

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

Deroey, K.L.B. (2014). “‘Anyway, the point I’m
making is’: Lexicogrammatical relevance marking
in lectures” in V. Lieven, K. Davidse, C. Gentens &
D. Kimps (eds.), Recent Advances in Corpus
Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora,
265-291. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Deroey, K.L.B. (2015). “Marking importance in
lectures: Interactive and textual orientation”.
Applied Linguistics 36,1: 51-72.
doi:10.1093/applin/amt029

Deroey, K.L.B. & M. Taverniers (2012a). “Just
remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance
markers in lectures”. English for Specific Purposes
31,4: 221-233. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001

Deroey, K. L. B. & M. Taverniers (2012b). “‘Ignore
that ‘cause it’s totally irrelevant’: Marking lesser
relevance in lectures”. Journal of Pragmatics
44,14: 2085-2099.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.001

Flowerdew, J. (1994). “Research of relevance to
second language lecture comprehension: An
overview” in J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic
Listening: Research Perspectives, 7-29.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flowerdew, J. & S. Tauroza (1995). “The effect of
discourse markers on second language lecture
comprehension”. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 17,4: 435-458. doi:
10.1017/S0272263100014406

Hunston, S. (1994). “Evaluation and organization
in a sample of written academic discourse” in M.
Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text
Analysis, 191-218. London: Routledge.

Hunston, S. (2000). “Evaluation and the planes of
discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts” in
S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in
Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of

Discourse, 176-207. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Hunston, S. & G. Francis (2000). Pattern
Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the

Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2004). “Disciplinary interactions:
Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing”. Journal
of Second Language Writing 13,2: 133-151.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring
interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Jung, S. (2003a). “The effects of organization
markers on ESL learners’ text understanding”.
TESOL Quarterly 37,4: 749-760. doi:
10.2307/3588223

Jung, S. (2003b). “The role of discourse signaling
cues in second language listening
comprehension”. The Modern Language Journal
87,4: 562-577. doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00208

Jung, S. (2006). “Misunderstanding of academic
monologues by nonnative speakers of English”.
Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1928-1942. doi:
10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.001

Khuwaileh, A.A. (1999). “The role of chunks,
phrases and body language in understanding
coordinated academic lectures”. System 28,2:
249-260. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00019-6

Lodico, M.G., D.T. Spaulding & K.H. Voegtle
(2006). Methods in Educational Research from
Theory to Practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons.



Partington, A. (2014). “The marking of importance
in ‘Enlightentainment’ talks” in M. Gotti & D.S.
Giannoni (eds.), Corpus Analysis for Descriptive
and Pedagogical Purposes, 143-166. Bern: Peter
Lang.

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

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

Swales, J.M. (2001). “Metatalk in American

academic talk the cases of point and thing”.
Journal of English Linguistics 29,1: 34-54.
doi:10.1177/00754240122005189

Thompson, G & S. Hunston (2000). “Evaluation:
an introduction” in S. Hunston & G. Thompson
(eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the
Construction of Discourse, 1-27. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Thompson, S.E. (2003). “Text-structuring
metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of
organization in academic lectures”. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes 2,1: 5-20.

doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X.

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 231

Javad Zare holds a Ph.D. in applied linguistics from the University of
Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. His research areas of  interest include discourse
analysis, corpus-linguistics, pragmatics, and EAP. His most recent
publications have been in Discourse Processes, Text & Talk, and Iberica.

Abbas Eslami-Rasekh is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of  Foreign
Languages at the University of  Isfahan in Iran. He has taught graduate and
undergraduate level courses in EFL for the last 10 years. His research
interests include issues related to EAP students, EAP needs assessment,
discourse analysis, and translation.

Azizollah Dabaghi completed his doctoral studies in language learning and
teaching at the University of  Auckland. Currently, he is an Assistant
Professor at the University of  Isfahan, teaching and researching language
acquisition and translation courses at both undergraduate and post-graduate
levels. His main interests include translation and culture, legal translation,
sociolinguistics, and second language acquisition.

NotEs 

1 The Persian corpus of  SOKHAN  was  developed at the Science and  Technology Park of  North
Khorasan, Iran under the directorship of  Javad Zare and Zahra Keivanloo-Shahrestanaki. Corpus
development was assisted by funding from the Technology University of  Esfarayen and the Science and
Technology Park of  North Khorasan, Iran. The lectures of  SOKHAN were recorded between 2010 and
2015. SOKHAN totals 480,526 words.

2 Following Deroey and Taverniers (2012), Hunston and Francis’ (2000) notation system has been used
for the patterns of  importance markers. Here, the pattern focus is in upper case, other elements are in
lower case and lexemes are in italics.

deic = deictic, adj = adjective, mn = metalinguistic noun, v-link = linking verb, n = nominal complement

3 “hd” stands for “highlighted discourse” in the derived patterns. 



Appendix A 

Appendix B 

J. ZArE & Z. KEIvANLOO-SHAHrESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234232

JAVAD ZARE & ZAHRA KEIVANLOO SHAHRESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 
ISSN 1139-7241     e-ISSN 2340-2784 

Appendix A  
Anaphoric importance markers: patterns and examples  

Anaphoric importance markers Example 
hd + deic (adj) MN In je nokte 

[This is one point] 
hd + this v-link MN n/clause Pas in nokte-i bod ke 

[So, this was the point] 
hd + deic v-link (adv) ADJ Chon in xeili mohem-e 

[Because this is very important] 
hd + deic v-link (adv) ADJ mn In matlab-e mohemi-je 

[This is an important topic] 
hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ In nokte mohem-e 

[This point is important] 
hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ mn In nokte nokte mohemi-je 

[This point is an important point] 
hd + topicalized-ADV (deic) v-link adj mn Xeili nokte xobi-je 

[A very good point it is] 
hd + exam points Soal-e emtehan hamin-e 

[This is an exam question] 
 

Appendix B  
Cataphoric importance markers: patterns and examples  

Cataphoric importance markers Example 

(adj) MN + hd Nokte xeili mohem 
[A very important point] 

(adv) (adj) MN v-link + hd Nokte in-e ke 
[The point is that] 

there v-link (adj) MN + hd Do-ta nokte inja vojod dare 
[There are two points here] 

let 1st pers pron V (MN) + hd Je nokte-i-o aval eshare konam 
[Let me make one point first] 

V + hd Deqat konid man nemixam begam 
[Note! I’m not saying] 

(ADV) 1st/2nd pers pron V + hd Faqat bajad bedonid ke 
[Only you should know that] 

it V + hd Takid mishe age 
[It is emphasized that if] 

let's (not) V + hd Faramosh nakonim ke 
[Let’s not forget that] 

it v-link ADJ + hd Jaleb in-e ke bedonid 
[It is interesting for you to know] 

what v-link ADJ v-link + hd Chizi ke vase ma mohem hast in-e ke 
[What is important for us is] 

 

JAVAD ZARE & ZAHRA KEIVANLOO SHAHRESTANAKI 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 
ISSN 1139-7241     e-ISSN 2340-2784 

Appendix A  
Anaphoric importance markers: patterns and examples  

Anaphoric importance markers Example 
hd + deic (adj) MN In je nokte 

[This is one point] 
hd + this v-link MN n/clause Pas in nokte-i bod ke 

[So, this was the point] 
hd + deic v-link (adv) ADJ Chon in xeili mohem-e 

[Because this is very important] 
hd + deic v-link (adv) ADJ mn In matlab-e mohemi-je 

[This is an important topic] 
hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ In nokte mohem-e 

[This point is important] 
hd + deic mn v-link (adv) ADJ mn In nokte nokte mohemi-je 

[This point is an important point] 
hd + topicalized-ADV (deic) v-link adj mn Xeili nokte xobi-je 

[A very good point it is] 
hd + exam points Soal-e emtehan hamin-e 

[This is an exam question] 
 

Appendix B  
Cataphoric importance markers: patterns and examples  

Cataphoric importance markers Example 

(adj) MN + hd Nokte xeili mohem 
[A very important point] 

(adv) (adj) MN v-link + hd Nokte in-e ke 
[The point is that] 

there v-link (adj) MN + hd Do-ta nokte inja vojod dare 
[There are two points here] 

let 1st pers pron V (MN) + hd Je nokte-i-o aval eshare konam 
[Let me make one point first] 

V + hd Deqat konid man nemixam begam 
[Note! I’m not saying] 

(ADV) 1st/2nd pers pron V + hd Faqat bajad bedonid ke 
[Only you should know that] 

it V + hd Takid mishe age 
[It is emphasized that if] 

let's (not) V + hd Faramosh nakonim ke 
[Let’s not forget that] 

it v-link ADJ + hd Jaleb in-e ke bedonid 
[It is interesting for you to know] 

what v-link ADJ v-link + hd Chizi ke vase ma mohem hast in-e ke 
[What is important for us is] 

 



Appendix C 

IMPOrTANCE MArKING IN ACADEMIC LECTUrES

Ibérica 33 (2017): 213-234 233

IMPORTANCE MARKING IN ACADEMIC LECTURES 

Ibérica 33 (2017): …-… 

Appendix C  
Importance markers in Persian academic lectures in terms of discourse functions: examples  

Importance markers Example 

Discourse organization Je nokte-i ke inja hast in-e ke 
[There is a point here that] 

Audience engagement Doresh-o qat bekeshid 
[Circle that] 

Subject status Chizi ke mohem-e in vasat in-e ke 
[What is important here is that] 

Topic treatment Takid mikonim roj-e in 
[I stress this] 

Relating to exam Soal-e emtehan hamin-e 
[This is an exam question]