{"references": ["Osborne D. Teacher's talk. In a sociolinguistic variable. Forum. 1999;3(2):10-16.", "Routledge; 2013. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics.", "Allwright D, Bailey KM. Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.", "Viiri J, Saari H. Teacher talk patterns in science lessons: Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2006;17(4):347\u201365.", "Nunan D. Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Cambridge University Press; 1991.", "Walsh S. Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research. 2002;6(1):3-23.", "Sinclair JM, Brazil D. Teacher talk. London: Oxford University Press; 1982.", "M. X-y. Teacher talk and EFL in university classrooms (Unpublished Master's thesis). In press 2006.", "Liu YZY. A study of teacher talk in interactions in English classes. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2010;33(2):76-86.\n[10]\tSnow CE. Beginning from baby talk: Twenty years of research on input and interaction. In: Gallaway; C, Richards BJ, editors. Input and interaction in language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 3-12.\n[11]\tSnow CE. Mothers' speech to children learning language. Child Development. 1972;43(2):549-65.\n[12]\tFerguson CA. Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics. 1975;17:1-14.\n[13]\tFerguson CA. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In: Holmes D, editor. Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge University Press; 1971. p. 141-50.\n[14]\tPark D-J. An analysis of classroom discourse in adult esl classrooms. English Education. 1999;54(1):17-42.\n[15]\tFerguson CA. Baby talk as a simplified register. In: Snow; CE, Ferguson CA, editors. Talking to children Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977. p. 209-35.\n[16]\tFerguson CA. Baby talk in six languages. American Anthropologist. 1964;66(6):103-14.\n[17]\tKrashen SD, Terrell TD. The natural approach language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall International; 1988.\n[18]\tLong MH, Porter PA. Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly. 1985;19(2):207-28.\n[19]\tNunan D. Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Contemporary; 2003.\n[20]\tL\u00e9vesque M. Incidental vocabulary acquisition through aural means: What do English television programs have to offer? (Unpublished Masters' thesis). In press 2013.\n[21]\tMatsumoto H. Triangulated studies on TT and student comprehension in japanese (as a second/foreign) language classrooms at American colleges and universities. Journal of Japanese Language Education Methods. 2006;13(1):28-9.\n[22]\tHenzl VM. Foreigner talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 1979;17(2):159-67.\n[23]\tChaudron C. Vocabulary elaboration in teachers' speech to l2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1982;4(2):170-80.\n[24]\tKleifgen LA. Skilled variation in a kindergarten teacher's use of foreigner talk. In: Gass; SM, C. G. Madden, editors. Input in second language acquisition Rowley, MA: Newbury House; 1985. p. 59-68.\n[25]\tHenzl VM. Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. In: Robinett; BW, Schachter J, editors. Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1983. p. 395-412.\n[26]\tLarsen-Freeman D, Long MH. An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman; 1991.\n[27]\tBlau E. The effect of syntax, speed and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly. 1990;24(4):746-52.\n[28]\tKelch K. Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1985;7(1):81-90.\n[29]\tKawaguchi Y. Technical aspects of comprehensibility in elementary japanese lessons. Bulletin of Center for Japanese Language, Waseda University. 2007;20:19-32.\n[30]\tKozaki S. Teacher talk in the elementary Japanese language class. Journal of Practical Study on Teaching Japanese Language. 2008;5:87-96.\n[31]\tGaies SJ. The nature of linguistic input in formal second language learning: Linguistic and communicative strategies in ESL teachers' classroom language. In: Brown HD, Yorio; CA, Crymes RH, editors. Tesol '77. Washington, D. C.: TESOL; 1977;77:204-12."]}

This study aimed to investigate medical students’ attitudes toward some teachers’ talking features regarding their gender in the Iranian context. To do so, 60 male and 60 female medical students of Urmia University of Medical Sciences (UMSU) participated in the research. A researcher made Likert-type questionnaire which was initially piloted and was used to gather the data. Comparing the four different factors regarding the features of teacher talk, it was revealed that visual and extra-linguistic information factor, Lexical and syntactic familiarity, Speed of speech, and the use of Persian language had the highest to the lowest mean score, respectively. It was also indicated that female students rather than male students were significantly more in favor of speed of speech and lexical and syntactic familiarity.