English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes

journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

How content lecturers help students with language:

An observational study of language-related episodes
in interaction in first year accounting classrooms
Helen Basturkmen a, *, Nick Shackleford b
a
Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
b
Department of Language Studies, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports a study conducted as part of an ESP/language specialist consultation for
Available online 2 September 2014 an Accounting Department in a tertiary education context. Observations were made of the
interaction in first year accounting classrooms in order to provide an understanding of the
Keywords: extent to which and how the accounting lecturers addressed language incidentally during
Accounting their teaching. Eight hours of classroom interaction were recorded and transcribed.
Classroom interaction
Language-related episodes (transitory shifts of the topic of the discourse from content to
Language-related episodes
language) were identified in the transcripts and analysed. Findings showed that the lec-
turers frequently initiated such episodes, and that they did so mostly to highlight technical
vocabulary and conventional articulation of ideas in the discipline, or ‘accounting speak’.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The present study came about in response to a request by the Department of Accounting to ESP/language specialists in an
institution of tertiary education in New Zealand. The department provides accounting courses to students, including many
migrants and international students with English as an additional language, who take courses in accounting as part of a range
of degrees in Business. Some of the accounting courses, as well as being offered in New Zealand, are delivered by the lecturers
from New Zealand at a partner institution in P.R. China. The department requested advice on how the accounting lecturers
might help students with language in their teaching. Before offering such advice, the researchers (ESP specialists at the
institution) wished to understand the present situation. We wished to understand specifically how the accounting lecturers
might already be helping students with language in their teaching.
Previous research into interaction with ESL learners in school contexts has shown ways teachers in school contexts support
their students’ learning by highlighting the most appropriate language to use in terms of the general academic or a discipline-
specific register (Gibbons, 2002, p. 4). Description of the ways and extent subject lecturers in tertiary education settings might
similarly support learning appears limited. However, one study (Wesche & Ready, 1985) investigated how two professors of
psychology made subject content more comprehensible to non-native speaker students. This study found the professors used
more self-repetition and rephrasing, particularly when introducing new conceptual information and terminology to classes of
non-native speaker students.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: h.basturkmen@auckland.ac.nz (H. Basturkmen), nshackleford@unitec.ac.nz (N. Shackleford).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.08.001
0889-4906/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
88 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97

Literature in accounting education reports that although the subject tends to attract high numbers of international stu-
dents, these students often struggle with the linguistic demands of the discipline (Lee & Bisman, 2006; Wagner & Huang,
2011). It has been argued that international students may need additional opportunities to develop their language and
communication skills for studying in the discipline (Wright, Baker, & Perera, 2004). Particular problems highlighted in the
literature concern international student difficulties in understanding the content of lectures (Mulligan & Kirkpatrick, 2000)
and the terminology of accounting. Teemant (2010) showed for example that students often felt “lost in a flood of termi-
nology” in their accounting classes (p. 9).
Conventionally ESP literature has considered ways ESP teaching can help students prepare for or make progress in their
target work or study areas. Consideration of the language-learning opportunities that may exist within target work or study
areas has been limited. One study, which was not centrally situated in the ESP literature, addressed the latter topic by
investigating how nursing students acquired a specific genre, the nursing care plan, while studying nursing and transitioning
to a workplace setting (Parks, 2001). Very little research interest has been given to ways subject lecturers might support the
learning of academic registers during interaction in the classroom. However, the topic has very recently begun to draw
research interest in the European context (Costa, 2012; Hynninen, 2012). Hynninen (2012) notes that even when courses are
not language courses “language sometimes becomes the topic of discussion in the form of language correcting and com-
mentary” (p. 13). To investigate how language sometimes becomes the topic in subject lectures, Costa examined lecturer talk
in Italian universities (settings in which English was used as the medium of instruction). Costa drew on the definition of “focus
on form episodes” from literature in the field of language-teaching research to identify instances when the lecturers peri-
odically focused on language. The study (Costa, 2012) found that such episodes were quite common in lecturer talk in this
setting. (Parts of the lectures that had involved interaction with students were not included in Costa’s analysis). This led to the
present study in which we observed naturally occurring episodes in accounting classes. The present study aimed to build on
this recent thrust of research into focus on language during content lecture discourse. It investigated periodic language-
related episodes in lecture discourse in one discipline (accounting) in the New Zealand context and it included analysis of
lecturer–student interaction. It explored the kinds of language features focused on and the circumstances in which such
episodes arose. Specifically, the study investigated how two accounting lecturers, interacting with students primarily to
develop their content knowledge, constructed what Gibbons (2003, p. 267) has referred to as “linguistic bridges between
learner language and the target register.”
Literature has tended to show that content teaching in school settings is not necessarily good language teaching (Snow,
2005). Lyster and Ranta (1997) suggest that although the language used to convey subject matter may need to be high-
lighted to make “certain features salient” (p. 41) this may not occur. One study of mathematics teaching in a multilingual
secondary school setting (Van Eerde, Hajer, Koole, & Prenger, 2001) found the teacher missed opportunities to integrate maths
and language learning (for example, the teacher did not help students who could not understand terms in the maths problem).
However, other research has shown content teachers are aware of the importance of such integration. Coxhead (2013)
reports the comments of a biology teacher in a secondary school:
Teaching biology is like teaching a language subject. For every known word students are familiar with, there is a biology
word. For example, dissolve is not scientific English. It refers to solubility and insolubility. It relates to solute and
solvent. Students have to be able to explain this word in a scientific context. If they use a scientific word in general
terms, it will not be used in the correct way in normal language. (p. 127)
Gibbons (2003) explored ways that teachers supported the language and learning of ESL students through interaction in
mainstream science school classrooms. Such support, argues Gibbons, is of key importance both for ESL and English mother-
tongue children. Both groups of children need to learn how language is used in particular subject areas – “it is not simply a
matter of getting the ‘grammar’ correct, but of knowing the most appropriate language to use in the context” of the subject
(2002, p. 4).
Research in the university context suggests there is a close relationship between students’ disciplinary knowledge and
their understanding of the specialised language of the discipline, and that being able to use special purposes vocabulary
demonstrates group belonging (Woodward-Kron, 2008). Discipline-specific vocabulary includes not only single-word items
but also multi-word units, units denoting field-specific concepts and even the metaphors of a discipline or field (Coxhead,
2013, p. 125). Examples of two and three-word units from business studies given in Coxhead (2013) include interest rates
and option value model. Learning vocabulary can include gaining understanding of the form and meaning of words, concepts
and referents (what concepts refer to), associations (what other words can be used instead), collocations and constraints of
use (where and when a word can be used) (Nation, 2001, p. 27).
Nation (2001) defines special purposes vocabulary or technical vocabulary as words “recognisably specific to a particular
topic, field or discipline” and suggests a four-way categorisation according to the level of technicality, that is, how restricted
the word is to a particular field. Group 1 words rarely appear outside the particular discipline; Group 2 words may appear
outside the particular field but do not carry the same meaning as within the field; Group 3 words appear inside and outside
the particular field but most uses with a particular meaning are within the field. Group 4 words are more common in the field
than elsewhere and although they carry little or no specialisation of meaning, members of the particular field have a more
exact understanding of what the word means. Words in Group 1 are considered to be purely technical terms, and a person
who knows these terms will probably have some knowledge of the field as these words “can only be learned and really
understood by studying the field” (pp. 198–199).
 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97 89

Research from an applied linguistics perspective into how subject teachers in higher education highlight vocabulary and
other aspects of language has been limited. Lately, however, some research has been published (Costa, 2012; Hynninen, 2012).
Research has begun to focus on the kinds of incidental language-learning opportunities that may be present in subject
teaching in higher education (Pecorari, Shaw, Irvine, & MalmstrTm, 2011).

2. Language-related episodes

To investigate how language sometimes became the topic of discussion in subject teaching, the present study drew on the
construct of language-related episodes which have been used in second language acquisition literature to refer to instances
when teachers and learners talk about language, such as grammar or vocabulary, or a feature of the discourse or phonological
systems within communication that is primarily concerned with exchanging messages. As argued by Long and Robinson
(1998, p. 23), attending to language forms and attending to meaning are not always mutually exclusive. During an “other-
wise meaning-focused” classroom lesson, there can be occasional and incidental shifts of attention to language features
which may arise because of perceived problems with comprehension or production.
Language-related episodes (LREs) have been described as any part of a dialogue where interlocutors “talk about the
language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 326).
LREs have been used as the unit of analysis in a number of studies of classroom interaction (Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Watanabe
& Swain, 2007). The construct was used in the present study to enable us to document the kind of subtle, transitory and
unplanned type of shifts of attention to language our observations of the accounting classes had suggested. In the subject
classroom, as Gibbons has argued, students are engaged not only in learning the conceptual matter of the discipline but also in
learning the discourse or register of the discipline and subject lecturers, as our data will show, sometimes shift attention to
highlight conventional language use in the disciplinary context.
A number of studies into language-teaching classrooms have investigated the occurrence of focus on form episodes (a type
of language-related episode, personal correspondence with S. Loewen, December 16, 2013). A study of communicative ESL
lessons in a language school context (Ellis, Loewen, & Basturkmen, 1999) found an occurrence of one focus on form episode
every 1.6 min. Most of these episodes focused on either grammar (37%) or vocabulary (38%), and around 40% of them were
initiated by students. Further research into focus on form has suggested that student-initiated episodes usually target vo-
cabulary (Alcón, 2007; Loewen, 2011; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007).
A recent study (Costa, 2012) investigated focus on form episodes in lectures in natural and applied sciences that were
given in English by Italian first-language lecturers. The study examined lecturer talk. (It did not examine multi-party inter-
action, and times when students asked questions were not transcribed or analysed.) The study found 76 occurrences of
lecturer pre-emptive episodes in over 18 h of lecture recordings, most of which focused on vocabulary rather than grammar
(25 compared to 4 instances). The study revealed two previously undocumented kinds of focus – code switching (the lec-
turers translated words or phrases into Italian) and “typographical input enhancement” (p. 41), ways of making language
visible, such as asking students to underline certain key words in a text. Translation can occur in unilingual settings, such as in
Italian and French immersion (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
The present study investigated language-related episodes in the first year accounting classes of two lecturers in a tertiary
education institution in New Zealand. It addressed the following questions:

1. To what extent do language-related episodes (LREs) occur in the accounting classes, and who initiates them?
2. Which language categories (vocabulary or other) are LREs related to?
3. What are the interactional characteristics of lecturer and student-initiated LREs?

3. Method

The study was situated in first year accounting classrooms on a Bachelor of Business programme in a tertiary education
setting in New Zealand. It was conducted with two cohorts of students over two semesters. The stated aim of the course was
to introduce the students to the role of accounting in business decision-making and to analyse and interpret financial in-
formation. Students taking first year accounting often later take majors in accounting, finance, management or marketing.
The observational study reported in this paper was part of a wider study which included inquiry into the lecturers’ beliefs
about dealing with language in their teaching. (The study of beliefs is being reported in a different paper.) This observational
study was classroom-centred research, that is, investigation of what happens inside the classroom when learners and
teachers are together (Allwright, 1983). Nunan (2005) suggests an important topic in classroom-centred research is enquiry
into what teachers and students consider “worth communicating about” (p. 238). The present study investigated whether
language appeared to be a topic worth communicating about in the context of first year accounting classrooms. It examined
the extent to which language became the focus of attention in classroom discourse.
We observed the two-hour classes of two lecturers teaching the same course over three-week periods in two consecutive
semesters (a total of eight hours of recording). Two lecturers responded to our invitation to participate in the study. One was
male and had 17 years’ experience teaching accounting and finance at tertiary level. The other was female and had 10 years’
experience teaching accounting in tertiary education. The classes were predominantly lecturer-fronted teaching that involved
90 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97

lecturer–student interaction and occasional periods in which students worked individually or in pairs on ‘questions’. There
were 46 students in the first cohort and 50 in the second. Approximately 60% of students in both cohorts had English as an
additional language.
In conducting our observations we endeavoured to work closely with the lecturers, taking care that our presence did not
impose on what was happening in their classroom, and making the purposes and processes involved in the research explicit
to the lecturers throughout the research period (Harbon & Shen, 2010). We were aware of the need to build a relationship
with the lecturers and also that, as we were language specialists, the lecturers might think we would evaluate their use of
language in teaching and thus we might be “regarded warily” (Richards, 2003, p. 127). In an attempt to avoid this, we stressed
that our purposes were descriptive and not judgemental.
We made notes of events and activities in the four classes we observed, although we did not use an observational grid to
guide the note-taking as the classes were audio- and video-recorded. Whole-class interaction was recorded using a central
microphone. A second microphone was attached to the lecturers’ lapels and these also enabled us to record the interactions
between the lecturers and individual students or pairs of students as they went round the class monitoring students while
they worked on questions.
The recordings were transcribed and language-related episodes (LREs) in the transcriptions were identified. Excerpt 1
shows an episode within surrounding discourse. It illustrates a lecturer-initiated, pre-emptive episode which focuses on lexis
(vocabulary), the meaning of the word form varies. In discussion of the shortcut method (subject content), the student’s
answer (that the method was not suitable because the cash flow varied) gives rise to an LRE. The lecturer attends to the
meaning of the word varies, which he rephrases in a less technical way as go up and down. The discussion returns to subject
content, the need to do a cumulative table.

Excerpt 1 (lecturer-initiated)
L: Now remember with this you can’t make the shortcut method. Why can’t you take the shortcut method?
S: The cash flow varies.
L: Right the cash flow varies. They go up and down each year. So you have to do the cumulative table. So if you do it for
the first two years, you know at the end of year two you’ve become positive.

The lecturer thus seems to explain the meaning of the word varies (in the context of cash flow varies) for the benefit of other
students in the class (not to correct the student who had produced the utterance). He provides a synonym or an “association”
for it (Nation, 2001, p. 27). In the interview following the observation, the lecturer talked about his strategy of “trying to
explain in a number of different ways, so that I can see if the students are getting it, so I know the message is getting there, so I
might try and do it in a different way, say it in a different way.”
Excerpt 2 illustrates a lecturer-initiated, reactive episode focussing on ‘accounting speak.’ It begins with discussion of an
accounting decision (subject content). Although the student’s responses ‘no’ and ‘we got a negative’ are correct technically,
the lecturer appears to respond to the student’s contribution by modelling a conventional articulation of the idea in the
register of the accounting classroom – ‘The decision was no we would not do this investment because it was a negative net present
value’. The lecturer reformulates the student’s contribution to retain the original meaning, enhance its articulation and
somewhat extend its content, a strategy that may serve to indicate the need for a more “registrally appropriate response”
(Gibbons, 2003, p. 263). The discussion then returns to subject content, the discount rate used in the calculation. Gibbons
(2003, pp. 258–259) reports a similar example in her data of a teacher’s interaction with ESL learners in a school science
classroom, in which the teacher’s response closely followed the student’s construction, appropriated the student’s meanings
and recoded words – “recasting and extension of student-initiated meanings” with teacher modelling “on the basis of what
the student has contributed.” This episode was coded as accounting register (‘accounting speak’) because it targeted the
formulation of a complete idea/sentence.

Excerpt 2 (lecturer-initiated)
L: When we did Part B the decision was what?
S: Ah, no.
L: The decision was no because?
S: Ah because we got a negative.
L: Correct. The decision was no we would not do this investment because it was a negative net present value (pauses) that
was using $15 as our discount rate. Now this part of the question.

In the interview after the lecturer talked about his strategy of “trying to get them used to . this language because it’s part
of the normal accounting world ... not trying to produce automatons or anything, but . that’s the way the accountants
speak”.
Excerpt 3 occurs within discussion on the advantages of the payback period (subject content). The lecturer says get my
$450 and a student responds to the lecturer’s use of get by seeking clarification and asking if it means recover (the money),
which the lecturer confirms and accepts (Yeah, yeah) before the topic returns to subject content (unexpected factors). This
episode illustrates a student-initiated reactive episode that focuses on lexis (vocabulary). This episode was coded as vo-
cabulary because it targeted the meaning of a word form.
 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97 91

Excerpt 3 (student-initiated)
S: I don’t see any other advantage.
L: ‘cause most people can understand the fact that it takes a period of time to get my $450.
S: Recover that money.
L: Yeah, yeah.
S: That’s what I see. But it doesn’t give allowance for unexpected factors like inflation.....

A total of 164 episodes were identified in the recordings. The episodes were coded for initiator (student or lecturer), and
following Fortune and Thorp (2001) for the categories of language (grammatical, lexical and discourse) they related to.
However, as shown above in Excerpt 2, a further category of language was evident in this context – conventional articulation
of a proposition (a complete idea or sentence) in the register of accounting (accounting speak). The episodes were thus coded
for four categories of language, grammar, lexis (vocabulary), discourse and conventional articulation of a proposition in ac-
counting speak (Figure 1). Vocabulary or lexical-focused episodes were those that targeted a word form (see Excerpts 1 and 3)

Figure 1. Categories of language.

92 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97

Table 1
Frequency of lecturer and student-initiated LREs.

Lecturer 1 Lecturer 1 Lecturer 2 Lecturer 2 Total

class 1 class 2 class 1 class 2
Lecturer-initiated 35 30 33 47 145 (88.4%)
Student-initiated 8 5 2 4 19 (11.6%)
43 35 35 51 164

and register or accounting speak-focused episodes were those that targeted articulation of a proposition, that is, an idea or
sentence (see Excerpt 2). Episodes were classified for interactional type. Following Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001), the
types were reactive (responding to an utterance produced by another that is seen as linguistically problematic or unclear) and
pre-emptive (to enquire about language or to draw attention to language “even though no actual problem in production has
arisen”, p. 414). For the purposes of checking reliability, the transcripts of approximately 10% of the episodes were coded for
initiator and language category by the second researcher with a reliability score of 87.5%, and for interactional type with a
reliability score of 81.3% between the two coders.

4. Results

4.1. To what extent did language-related episodes occur and who initiated them?

LREs occurred quite often. As shown in Table 1, 164 episodes were observed in eight hours of recorded lessons. Thus an
episode was observed to occur at a rate of around 1 every 3 min. Nearly 90% of episodes were initiated by the lecturers.

4.2. What categories of language were episodes related to?

As shown in Table 2, a similar pattern was seen across all four lessons. The vast majority of episodes were related to
vocabulary (46%) and conventional articulation of ideas in the register of accounting (41%). In Excerpt 4, the lecturer explains
the technical term delayed payment to trades payables, and in Excerpt 5 the lecturer highlights how a student articulated a
calculation in the accounting register, presumably so that other students in the class could learn from it.

Excerpt 4
L: What are the options in terms of using that as influencing your internal finance? (silence)
L: See the bit in the middle – delayed payment to trades payable, to trades payable. Pay more slowly. Your suppliers
have done a job for you – he wants his money within 30 days. You give it to him after 45 or 60. Push him out to two
months. It means you keep your funds internally.

Excerpt 5
L: Anything else?
L: How are you going to get the long term debt percentage?
S: Do you take the long term debt, divide it by five eight zero, zero the total and then times a hundred?
L: Exactly yes, beautifully expressed thank you. You’re going to take the long term debt .

4.3. What were the interactional characteristics of the LREs?

The lecturers initiated pre-emptive episodes somewhat more frequently than reactive episodes (see Table 3). In Excerpt 6
the lecturer uses an academic word, robust, but immediately provides a less formal word choice, clear, that has a similar
meaning, presumably anticipating that some students might not be familiar with robust. In Excerpt 7, the lecturer introduces a
technical term.

Table 2
Frequency of episodes according to language focus.

Lecturer 1 Lecturer 1 Lecturer 2 Lecturer 2 Total

lesson 1 lesson 2 lesson 1 lesson 2
Grammar 1 3 – 1 5 (3%)
Vocabulary 24 16 18 18 76 (46%)
Discourse 1 4 1 4 10 (6%)
Conventional articulation of proposition 15 11 15 26 67 (41%)
Unclassified 2 1 1 2 6 (4%)
43 35 35 51 164
 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97 93

Table 3
LREs by interactional type.

Pre-emptive Reactive
Lecturer 1 (lessons 1 & 2) 35 30
Students 10 3
Lecturer 2 (lessons 1 & 2) 45 34
Students 5 1

Excerpt 6
L: What could you do with those variables to make sure your decision is more robust . more clear?
Excerpt 7
L: I want you just to think of this as effectively a record of our sales, or a record of our all our accounts receivable.

Similar to practices in language-teaching classrooms, the lecturers were observed to use elicitation to draw attention to
technical terms in accounting or their meanings, as shown in Excerpts 8 and 9 below.

Excerpt 8
L: Debentures is another one. And I’m going to make you explain that because I’m looking at terms now. So debentures,
what are you going to tell me about debentures?
S: Debentures are when you borrow from another company.
L: Good description okay. So just repeating what Ana said .
Excerpt 9
L: The benchmark and another name for that?
S: The discount rate
L: The discount rate, correct.

The lecturers initiated reactive episodes to correct prior utterances by students. In Excerpt 10 (a grammar-focused
episode), the lecturer repeats the meaning of the student’s prior utterance but provides a linguistically accurate version.
Reactive episodes also arose as the lecturers reformulated students’ utterances into more appropriate articulations, not only
recoding the language used but also expanding on it. In Excerpt 11 the lecturer repeats the student’s contribution but adds
“from the company’s perspective” to render a more precise articulation, similar to the kind of “recasting and extension of
student-initiated meanings” reported in Gibbons (2003, pp. 258–259).

Excerpt 10
L: What does that number tell you?
S: Residual value
L: The residual value correct.
Excerpt 11
L: We always have to work on the after tax cost of debt. So why don’t we do that with equity?
S1: There is no tax advantage
S2: The tax
L: Right if the dividend is given to a shareholder which is part of the return you get for equity there is no tax advantage
from the company’s perspective because they pay you a dividend out of after tax profits. Alright?

Student-initiated pre-emptive episodes were generally enquiries about language use in the disciplinary context as shown
in Excerpt 12 below. On a few occasions students initiated reactive episodes as shown in Excerpt 3 above.

Excerpt 12
S: So you don’t write months? So it’s just one year point nine?

5. Discussion

The study revealed ways the classroom participants talked about language or questioned language use. The fairly frequent
occurrence of lecturer-initiated episodes observed in the study suggested that the two lecturers in this particular context
were engaged in helping their students with the (disciplinary) language of accounting and expanding their disciplinary and
academic linguistic repertoires.
A number of studies have investigated focus on form in interaction in language teaching classrooms (Loewen, 2011). One
recent study investigated and found evidence of focus on form in lecturer talk (Costa, 2012). The present study investigated
language-related episodes in interaction in content lectures in accounting. It found quite a high frequency of language-related
94 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97

episodes in the accounting classes we observed. There were on average around 20 episodes per hour which suggested
language was viewed as a topic worth discussing in this context. Such episodes appeared to be an important means by which
the accounting lecturers in the study integrated in quite subtle and transitory ways attention to language into their teaching.
The study also indicated the kinds of occasions when the discourse topic shifted to language and ways the lecturers seemed to
be supporting students’ language during their teaching.
The study found periodic shifts to language as the topic of discussion in all four accounting classes we observed, and that
the lecturers initiated the LREs with some regularity. Students too initiated episodes, although they did so much less often.
The frequency suggested the lecturers gave importance to the development of their students’ ability to understand or use
accounting language (their specific purpose linguistic ability). The frequency of 1 LRE around every 3 min found in the present
study is lower than the rate of 1 focus on form episode every 1.6 min reported in meaning-focused activities in ESL classes
(Ellis et al., 1999; Ellis et al., 2001). That the rate was lower is not surprising given that this was a study of content not language
teaching and we would not expect classroom participants to be as centrally concerned with language in such a setting. The
lecturers initiated pre-emptive episodes somewhat more frequently than reactive episodes. This contrasts with findings in an
earlier study of ESL classroom (Ellis et al., 1999) showing teachers initiated comparatively more reactive episodes. Not un-
expectedly, the lecturers in the present study were probably less concerned with correcting students’ language use than the
ESL teachers reported in the earlier study.
Recent literature has shown that lecturers sometimes use focus on form pre-emptively (Costa, 2012). The present study
provides confirmatory evidence of pre-emptive attention to language but it also indicates additional types of attention – we
observed that students, not only lecturers, initiated episodes and that the lecturers also addressed language in response to
shortcomings in linguistic formulation of students’ contributions. Findings indicated a high proportion of vocabulary-related
episodes, a finding consistent both with studies in ESL classes and in university lecturer talk (Costa, 2012). The episodes
generally targeted technical terms, such as debentures and discount rate (Group 1 or and 2 words) or Group 3 words, such as
recover money, according to Nation’s categorisation (2001). Such attention to technical terms may have indicated that the
participants recognised the kind of close correspondence between specialised language and the development of disciplinary
knowledge described by Woodward-Kron (2008). That participants talked about vocabulary in the accounting lessons we
observed was not surprising. Vocabulary may have been seen as important (worth discussing) because these were first year
accounting classes and we might expect a strong focus on key terms when students are not likely to be familiar with subject
terminology. (Not all vocabulary episodes concerned technical words, however, as the lecturers explained words of a general
academic register, such as robust, too).
Literature in higher education suggests the important role that the learning of fundamental terms and concepts plays in
the early stages of developing disciplinary knowledge. As conceptual knowledge and pedagogies for teaching accounting are
language-based, the understanding of specialised disciplinary vocabulary “complements student learning of accounting
concepts and needs to be established at introductory levels” (Peters et al., 2013, p. 5). The role of specialist terminology in first
year learning of sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) is critical, and difficulties with language are understood to be a
contributing factor in the kinds of problems students may have with concepts, such as problems in recognising the
boundaries of concepts and differentiating them (Zhang et al., 2011).
Few grammar-related episodes were found in our data, a finding consistent with Costa’s observational study (2012) of
lecturer discourse. That the accounting lecturers did not deal explicitly with grammar may have been predictable because
grammar was “too obvious an instance of linguistic focus, and thus the lecturers did not feel competent” to deal with
grammar points (Costa, 2012, p. 40) or because in the accounting classes we observed, grammar points were largely minor
infelicities that did not impede the flow of communication. For example, students’ contributions of “There is two treatments a
week” and “Is like borrowing money you’d pay to shareholders?” were not corrected by the lecturer.
A particularly important finding was that the lecturers highlighted conventional articulations of ideas in the ac-
counting register and in this way appeared to be socialising their students into their disciplinary discourse community.
This could occur as the lecturers provided a linguistic reformulation of a contribution by a student as shown in Excerpt 13
below. Previous research has noted that language can become the topic of discussion in university subject teaching in the
form of “language correcting and commentary” (Hynninen, 2012, p. 13). The present study indicates language also
became the topic in the form of lecturer modelling or demonstrating conventional articulations of ideas in the register of
accounting.

Excerpt 13
L: What do you do with inventory? What’s the obvious?
S: You sell more.
L: You sell. Yes ok. So you sell some, you sell more than normal. So you increase the rate of inventory that you sell.

Typological enhancement in terms of asking students to underline key words and code switching, two categories of focus
on form found in the study of lecturer discourse (Costa, 2012), were not observed in the present study. The lack of code
switching is not surprising given that New Zealand is a multilingual setting. Translation or code switching is associated with
unilingual settings, such as the Italian setting described by Costa (2012) and Italian and French immersion classrooms (Lyster
& Ranta, 1997).
 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97 95

6. Conclusion

This article reports an investigation into the extent and ways language became the topic of talk in first year accounting
lectures in a tertiary institution. This is a topic that extends the scope of ESP literature. ESP has mainly considered how
language students can be assisted to prepare for study in their disciplines so as to preclude or lessen potential language
difficulties. However, there has been little consideration of how content teachers might engage in language-related talk in the
classroom and support their students’ specific-purposes language development through interaction. The findings from this
descriptive study provide insights into the extent the lecturers in one context engaged in language-related talk and the
categories of language they were concerned with in their classroom practice with first year accounting students.
In deliberations on how to help students prepare for study in their disciplines, ESP teachers often consider how much
attention to give to teaching disciplinary vocabulary. Findings showed the two content lecturers in this study often initiated
vocabulary-related episodes while teaching. These observations suggest the lecturers in this context did not assume their
students would all have a full understanding of the technical vocabulary being used and that they took steps to help their
students with this vocabulary.
Findings from the present study concerning the extent of language-related talk, and the interactional types and categories
of language it included, should not be generalised. Two lecturers being observed and recorded over eight hours of teaching is a
limited sample. It is possible that content lecturers in different settings or disciplines might not address language to the same
extent. In particular, content classes at higher levels (Years 2–4) may not involve as much focus on vocabulary as the first year
classes observed in the present study since students at higher levels may be thought to have acquired the necessary field-
specific vocabulary. Teaching first year accounting may involve more focus on vocabulary and conventional means of artic-
ulating ideas in the discipline than would be the case in teaching at higher levels. Although lecturers would most likely
continue to draw students’ attention to such disciplinary vocabulary throughout their years of study, it is possible that lec-
turers do more to highlight it in teaching their first year classes, especially if the students have not previously studied the
subject.
The study was limited in a number of additional ways. It was beyond the scope of the study to investigate whether the
students learned or used the linguistic information provided in the episodes. The study observed that there seemed to be
multiple opportunities in the classroom for students to notice language when lecturers constructed “linguistic bridges be-
tween learner language and the target register” (Gibbons, 2003, p. 267) but the study did not investigate whether students
actually noticed or learned from them, although this would be a useful topic for a future research project. Both the lecturers
who participated in the study were very experienced in teaching accounting. Possibly, less experienced accounting lecturers
would be less aware of their first year students’ needs in terms of developing their academic and accounting vocabulary and
conventional ways of articulating ideas in the field. Less experienced lecturers might attend to language during classroom
interaction less often than the experienced lecturers we observed in the present study. The study was based on observations
of two accounting lecturers (the two accounting lecturers who responded to our invitation to participate in the research), a
limited sample in terms of the number of lecturer participants.
A conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that content classes in tertiary education settings can include incidental,
transitory and often quite subtle episodes when language becomes the topic of discussion. Examining language-related
episodes offers a promising method for identifying such incidences in content teaching. Further studies, drawing on the
methodology used in this study, could be conducted to determine if content classes in other settings and disciplines would
involve a similar frequency of language-related episodes and thus interest in language. Researchers may consider building on
the present study and extending it. They may consider observing language-related episodes in the classes of a greater number
of lecturers (if possible) and in different disciplinary areas. They may also consider conducting comparative studies of
language-related episodes in the teaching of more and less experienced lecturers or in teaching at different levels (for
example, to compare teaching in Years 1 and 2 with teaching in Years 3 and 4). Research into lecturer interaction with
students at higher levels and thus with more disciplinary knowledge than first year students might indicate different findings.
Such extensions of the research could provide a more complete picture of incidental attention to language during interaction
in content lectures.
ESP and language specialists in other contexts could draw on the methods used in the present study and similarly examine
language-focused episodes in content lectures in other institutions and disciplines. The findings could be used as a basis for
discussion with the content lecturers about the opportunities lecturers have to support students’ learning of their disciplinary
or academic registers during classroom interaction.
It is also possible that subject lecturers themselves (either in our context or in other contexts) could draw on methods of
the present study. They could record their own teaching and observe the language-related episodes in their classrooms as a
basis for reflection on integrating a focus on language in teaching content. This might enable the development of the kind of
“self-awareness, self-discovery and personal internalisation” described by Costa (2012, p. 43).
It is hoped that the findings of the present study will lead to opportunities for professional development in the institution
in which the study was conducted. As our study indicated that the accounting lecturers did appear to help their students with
language during interaction in the classroom, we may, as language-teaching specialists, suggest ways the content lecturers
could extend their range of ways to highlight disciplinary vocabulary. At the same time, by discussing examples of episodes
with content lecturers we may learn about the register of accounting and disciplinary discourse in general from the subject
specialists. If our findings had shown that the accounting lecturers did not attend to vocabulary, or attend to it only very
96 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97

infrequently, we might have suggested that the language-teaching staff at the institution worked on vocabulary with students
prior to their starting their accounting studies.
The study was situated in an accounting programme. This has enabled us to explore the previously underreported lan-
guage issues of that discipline. In the vocationally orientated tertiary institution where this study was located, lecturers are
often challenged to find ways to connect students’ academic study with the demands of the professional workplace. They may
be interested, for example, in the observations made in this study of ways the lecturers highlighted conventional expressions
of ideas in the accounting register, which appears to have particular significance for educating students into academic and
professional discourse.
This observational study has highlighted how language-related talk occurred in content-driven classrooms. On the basis of
findings from this and the wider study (the inquiry into the beliefs of content lecturers about their role in addressing language
issues), we are planning a professional development session. The topic of the session will be on the integration of language
and content, and it will aim to support the accounting department in exploring and possibly extending their strategies for
addressing language issues that arise during classes. The study appears to have been a useful means of collaboration between
ESP/language specialists and content specialists.

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the help we received from the Accounting Department at Unitec Institute of Technology,
Auckland. We wish to thank the programme leader of the Bachelor of Business (Accounting). We are especially grateful to the
two lecturers and their classes who participated in the study. We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their
valuable insights and comments in the preparation of this article.

References

Alcón, E. (2007). Incidental focus on form, noticing and vocabulary learning in the EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 41-60.
Allwright, D. (1983). Classroom-centred research on language teaching and learning: A brief historical overview. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 191-204.
Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy. In U. Smit, & E. Dafouz (Eds.), AILA Review: 25. Integrating content and language in higher education:
Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities (pp. 30-47).
Coxhead, A. (2013). Vocabulary and ESP. In P. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 115-132). Oxford: John Wiley &
Sons.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Basturkmen, H. (1999). Focussing on form in the classroom. Occasional Paper No. 13. Institute of Language Teaching and Learning,
University of Auckland.
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language-related episodes in collaborative
output tasks. Language Awareness, 10, 143-160.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, UK: Heineman.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.
Harbon, L., & Shen, H. (2010). Researching language classrooms. In P. Paltridge, & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied
linguistics (pp. 274-285). London: Continuum.
Hynninen, N. (2012). ICL at the micro level: L2 speakers taking on the role of language experts. In U. Smit, & E. Dafouz (Eds.), AILA Review: 25. Integrating
content and language in higher education: Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities (pp. 13-29).
Lee, C., & Bisman, J. E. (2006). Curricula in introductory accounting: An international student focus. Paper presentation for the 3rd International Conference on
Contemporary Business. Leura, New South Wales, Australia.
Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 576-592). Florence, KY:
Routledge.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mulligan, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehension. Higher Education Research and Development,
19(3), 311-350.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2005). Classroom research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 225-240). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parks, S. (2001). Moving from school to the workplace: Disciplinary innovation, border crossings, and the reshaping of a written genre. Applied Linguistics,
22, 405-438.
Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., & MalmstrTm, H. (2011). English for academic purposes at Swedish universities. Ibérica, 22, 55-78.
Peters, P., Smith, A., Middledorp, J., Karpin, A., Sin, S., & Kilgore, A. (2013). Learning essential terms and concepts in statistics and accounting. Higher Ed-
ucation Research and Development. Herdsa. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863838.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Snow, M. A. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 693-712). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern
Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research,
37, 285-304.
Teemant, A. (2010). ESL student perspectives on university classroom testing practices. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3), 89-105.
Van Eerde, D., Hajer, M., Koole, T., & Prenger, J. (2001). Promoting maths and language learning in interaction. Interaction in the multilingual classroom:
Processes of inclusion and exclusion. Working papers from the Dutch organization for scientific research project. Netherlands: Department of Linguistics,
Utrecht University.
 H. Basturkmen, N. Shackleford / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 87–97 97

Wagner, R. M., & Huang, J. C. (2011). Relative performance of English second language students in university accounting courses. American Journal of Business
Education, 4(5), 31-38.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue
between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121-142.
Wesche, M. B., & Ready, D. (1985). Foreigner talk in the university classroom. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
89-114). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon: The nature and roles of specialist knowledge in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 7, 234-249.
Wright, S., Baker, P., & Perera, S. (2004). Determinants of student performance in intermediate accounting subjects. Sydney, Australia: Seminar series Macquarie
University, Department of Accounting and Finance.
Zhang, F., Lidbury, B., Schulte, J., Bridgeman, A., Yates, B., & Rogers, J. (2011). A cross-disciplinary approach to language support for first year students in science
disciplines. Canberra: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Zhao, Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431-447.

Helen Basturkmen is Associate Professor in Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland where she convenes courses in discourse
analysis, developing second language literacy and teaching English for Specific Purposes. Her research interests include English for Specific and Academic
Purposes, genre analysis and pragmatics.

Nick Shackleford is Head of the Department of Language Studies at Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland and has been responsible for the growth and
academic development of the department since 1992. Nick is active in research into language policy, language acquisition and transnational education.