[9] As there is no one fixed answer to referential questions, they can be used to instigate genuine communication, thereby facilitating less restricted discourse and promoting greater creativity in the classroom.
Since referential questions serve to request for new information, answers can be subjective and varied based on the students' opinions, judgement and experiences.
Students answer referential questions with the goal of assisting teachers in filling the information gaps.
In addition, students' language proficiency greatly affects the chances of being asked display questions by the teacher.
[12] Asymmetrical conversation is characteristic of institutional talk as opposed to everyday interactions among participants of equal status.
Display questions may sometimes be used by media interviewers and courtroom attorneys in the presence of an overhearing audience to assert their views or opinions.
Utilising display questions that build on previous statements made by the students in a rephrased or simplified form facilitates the production of a more elaborate dialogue.
There is a need to determine the effects of the question types on communicative classroom interaction and student output.
[18] When learners were asked referential questions, responses are found to be significantly longer and syntactically complex.
Learners themselves are found to be more interested in referential question activity and agree that it is more conducive in bringing higher quality and quantity output, and also motivated interaction.
[22] The exclusive or excessive use of display questions generally leads to lower instances of classroom communication.
[23] Referential questions are seen as an effective method of increasing oral participation because it creates opportunities for students to voice their opinions.
[9] The added bonus that there is no one specific answer encourages students to be less afraid of making mistakes and be more productive.
Display and referential questions form part of a question-answer sequence consisting of an initiation, response, and follow-up (IRF).
IRF sequences in everyday discourse seldom include evaluative follow-ups, and responses in casual conversations often carry relational functions such as showing agreement or expressing a particular emotion.
It has been seen as a poor and unproductive model for spoken interaction in the target language outside the classroom due to its failure in enabling students to learn the demands of everyday conversation.
Productive use of conversational responses in peer-to-peer speech practices could be eventually achieved if teachers provide exposure to and guidance on the use of follow-ups.
The following example is a case in point: In the same vein, display questions do not always garner immediate responses because the language learner may have the knowledge but lack the vocabulary to express it, thereby contributing to a longer-wait-time.