172 173
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
GENDER PERSPECTIVE ON TEACHER-PUPIL 
CLASSROOM INTERACTION: FEEDBACK AND 
EVALUATION
M a r g a r e t a  B A Š A R A G I N ,  S v e n k a  S A V I Ć
Womens’ Studies and Research, Novi Sad, Serbia; Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi 
Sad, Serbia
Bašaragin, M., Savić, S. (2019). Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction: 
Feedback and evaluation. Slovenščina 2.0, 7(2): 172–196.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2019.2.172-196
Various studies confirm the existence of gender bias in classroom interaction 
and the unequal treatment of boys and girls. The aim of this paper is to deter-
mine the differences in the type of teacher feedback after female and male pu-
pils’ speech contribution and explore whether the varied reactions contribute to 
the development of different linguistic, gender and cultural identities of pupils 
in Serbian and Hungarian classes. The corpus was collected during the final 
year of a bilingual primary school in Subotica (Vojvodina) in 2015, and consists 
of the fine transcripts of two audio and video recordings of mother tongue les-
sons in Serbian and Hungarian classes. The results confirm the differences in 
feedback distribution and type in both classes regarding the pupils’ gender. The 
teachers’ feedback supports the higher status of male pupils in the group (class) 
and in relation to the teachers.
Keywords: classroom interaction, feedback, gender, Hungarian language, Serbian 
language
1  I N T R O D U C T I O N
Classroom talk is a form of complex group dialogue between a teacher and 
pupils with their predetermined roles, social positioning and individual spe-
ech styles. It is a staged communicative event, directed towards the fulfilling 
of teaching and learning goals and objectives, which occurs under controlled 
conditions within a limited time and space. Classroom discourse refers to the 
173
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
language used between teachers and pupils. Its traditional structure consists 
of Initiation-Response-Evaluation/Feedback (IRE/F) cycles and it allows a 
teacher to control who, when and how they speak, as well as the topic and 
very structure of classroom talk (McHoul, 1978; Swann, 1997; Cazden, 2001; 
Lefstein and Snell, 2011; Walsh, 2011).1
McHoul examines in what ways the rules of turn-taking management for na-
tural conversation (Sacks et al., 1974) are to be modified to account for the 
organization of turn-taking in the classroom, and concludes that “only the 
teacher can direct speakership in any creative way” (McHoul, 1978, p. 188). 
Classroom talk is always pre-allocated: the teacher begins a ‘talk-unit’ (les-
son) and corrects any deviation from the pattern Teacher-Pupil(s)-Teacher. 
Pupils’ participation rights are limited to the choice between continuing or 
selecting the teacher as the next speaker. McHoul also listed technical diffe-
rences between classroom talk and natural conversation: 1. the potential for 
gaps and pauses is maximized, 2. the potential of overlaps is minimized, and 
3. the permutability of turn-taking is minimized (McHoul, 1978, p. 188).
Lefstein and Snell (2011) indicate that the IRF/E model supports the uncriti-
cal acceptance of teachers’ authority and teaching objectives, and therefore li-
mits the development of pupils’ thinking and their socialization. They propose 
the dialogic model of classroom discourse practice which focuses on the equal 
responsibility and equal opportunities of all participants to freely exchange 
ideas, to take an active role in meaning-making and to develop a collaborative 
and supportive learning community (Lefstein and Snell, 2011, p. 170).
Different contexts regulate classroom talk. The primary context is a lesson 
in a classroom, so that changes in classroom activities directly influence the 
way the language is used. Betsy Rymes (2008) distinguishes three dimensions 
of classroom discourse. The wider social context includes the social factors 
outside the immediate interaction that influence how words function in that 
interaction: the national education policy and curriculum, socioeconomic, 
ethnic and cultural backgrounds of pupils and teachers, and gender and other 
social norms. Interactional context refers to the sequential or other patterns of 
talk within an interaction that influence what can and cannot be said, and how 
1 This three-part structure was first put forward by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975 and is also 
known as a recitation script or tryadic structure (Walsh, 2011, p. 17).
174 175
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
others interpret it within classroom discourse. Individual agency refers to the 
influence an individual can have on how language is used and interpreted in 
an interaction (Rymes, 2008, p. 31–32).
The teacher’s language use is affected by the communicative event and social 
role in a given context, that is their personal (education, cultural and social 
status, ethnic group, age, sex/gender) and professional characteristics (atti-
tudes and expectations, educational style), which may be more or less general 
or individual. They control and decide on the topics and who, when, how and 
how much a person speaks. The pupils’ language use is also affected by the gi-
ven communicative event and social role and their individual characteristics: 
age, sex/gender, ethnic group, family milieu, and previous knowledge (Ernst, 
2002; Veith, 2005; Szépe, 2011). 
The holistic theoretical approach provides the following conceptualization 
of classroom interaction. First, the linguistic production is seen as essenti-
ally dialogic, formed in the process of social interaction, so that the meaning 
emerges in the process of active understanding and response (Bakhtin, 1973). 
Second, gender itself is constituted trough verbal and nonverbal interaction 
(West and Zimmerman, 1987), and gender identities and power relations are 
highly contextualized and (re)produced through ‘schooled language’ (Swann, 
2003). This is the language of teaching and learning, of a school and a classro-
om organization. It is part of the formal and informal (‘hidden’) curriculum 
which affects the socio-cognitive development of boys and girls as ‘schooled 
subjects’ and their experience of education (Swan, 2003). As a form of social 
interaction classroom talk directly and indirectly forms gender, cultural, eth-
nic and other components of pupils’ identities. It is an important vehicle for 
learning “socially appropriate behaviour (including gender-appropriate beha-
viour)” (Swann, 1997, p. 18).
The feedback is information provided by a teacher regarding aspects of a pu-
pil’s performance or understanding. It occurs typically after instruction that 
seeks to provide knowledge and skills or to develop a particular attitude (Ha-
ttie and Timperley, 2007, p. 102). The feedback is an important feature of the 
three-part exchange, since it allows pupils to see whether their response has 
been accepted or not. Frequently, feedback entails some kind of evaluation, 
such as good, right, ok (Walsh, 2011, p. 17) and can be positive as well as 
175
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
negative. Any constructive encouragement in form of feedback can be motiva-
tional for pupils to improve their learning abilities and skills, to increase their 
knowledge and efforts, and to enhance self-esteem. It also regulates pupils’ 
behaviour during class activities, i.e. reinforces desirable and discourages un-
desirable behaviour (Burnett, 2002, p. 6). Teachers should avoid being jud-
gmental and especially forming feedback as negative critique related to pupils’ 
personality and individual psychosocial features. 
The teacher’s feedback and evaluation is usually connected with their own 
expectations of the pupils’ classroom performance. The so called ‘Pygmali-
on effect’ in the classroom suggests that teachers form initial expectations of 
pupils, who then behave in ways that confirm these (Brophy and Good, 1974; 
Kostović, 2008; Sadker and Zittleman, 2009):  higher expectations thus lead 
to an increase in performance and low expectations lead to a decrease in per-
formance. If teachers expect certain pupils to perform poorly because of some 
their characteristics (e.g. race, gender, intelligence scores, or economic sta-
tus), then the pupils will indeed perform poorly because teachers will interact 
less and possibly more harshly with those students. This kind of approach fails 
to take into account the active, participatory role of the pupils in the interacti-
on (Jones and Dindia, 2004, p. 456).
2 P R E V I O U S R E S E A R C H
Various studies confirm the existence of gender bias in classroom interaction 
and the unequal and different treatment of boys and girls. They also show that 
teacher perceptions are consistent with stereotypes of gender differences in 
learning performance and abilities between boys and girls (Spender, 1990; 
Tiedemann, 2002; Frawley, 2005; Sadker and Zittleman, 2009).
Thus, Alyson Julé (2002, 2005) studied the amount of talk used by girls as 
opposed to boys in a grade 2 ESL classroom located in the Lower Mainland of 
British Columbia in teacher-led classroom lessons. Data were collected thro-
ugh videotaped observations and then transcribed. The findings revealed a 
particular lack of linguistic space in the girls’ experience: they were limited in 
language in use and their silence appeared partly influenced by the teacher’s 
response to their comments, which may impact language learning opportuni-
ties. Julé (2004) examined also how silence in language classrooms affects the 
176 177
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
construction of gender roles and how classroom habits create certain consis-
tent behaviours. Her empirical studies confirmed that teachers ignore girls for 
long periods of time and that boys call out and dominate classroom talk, in 
addition to dominating the actual physical space.
Joachim Tiedemann (2002) studied the hypothesized biasing effect of tea-
chers’ gender role stereotypes on their impressions of their students’ mathe-
matical abilities and effort resources in mathematics. A total of 48 teachers 
participated in the study and responded to the questionnaires concerning 
their perceptions of about 300 of their third and fourth grade students. The 
findings confirmed the influence of stereotypes on teachers’ perceptions of 
their students’ mathematical abilities and effort, that boys have more develo-
pmental resources in mathematics. 
Denn and others (2015) evaluated patterns of teacher-student interaction in 
German elementary schools during mathematics instruction. The authors 
studied differences in teachers’ feedback behaviour regarding boys and girls. 
The results show that boys received more teacher reaction than girls, with 
the teachers also reacting more often to boys’ misbehaviour and praising girls 
more often.
Hsiao-Ching She (2000) analysed the cross-relationships among a Taiwanese 
seventh-grade biology teacher’s beliefs, practices and classroom interactions 
with either male or female students. She used classroom observation to de-
termine gender-based differences during classroom interaction. The findings 
revealed the unequal distribution of direct questions, unbalanced feedback 
and encouragement, and a lack of restrictive control on calling out answers.
Tannen (1993) pointed out the differences in speech styles that boys and girls 
adopt when using language within their peer-groups, and considers them as 
different cultural groups. Speer (2005) concluded that variations in conversa-
tional patterns and speech styles are not solely determined by speakers’ sex/
gender or by their belonging to a particular cultural group.
In this paper, we deal with a far more complex phenomenon that occurs du-
ring classroom interaction. We ask what this looks like in primary school 
classrooms in Vojvodina (Serbia) today, especially in bilingual ones, where 
two typologically different languages, Serbian and Hungarian, are taught and 
177
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
since greater gender equality has been declared as one of the aims of primary 
education in Serbia2 (Bašaragin, 2016; Bašaragin and Savić, 2016).
The existing Serbian literature on classroom discourse focuses primarily on 
improving the academic achievement of pupils, and classroom interaction is 
studied only from the teaching-methodological perspective, aiming to imp-
rove professional competence of engaged teachers. The gender differences in 
classroom discourse have never been considered an issue in Serbian research 
papers. Therefore, we decided to deal with the complexity of classroom disco-
urse by combining two approaches: discourse analysis (Ehlich, 1993; Savić, 
1993) and gender studies (West and Zimmerman, 1987).
The aim of this paper is to determine the differences in the type of the teacher 
feedback and evaluation sequences after the female and/or male pupils’ spe-
ech contribution, and to explore whether the diverse teacher’s reactions con-
tribute to the development of different linguistic, gender and cultural identi-
ties among pupils in Serbian and Hungarian classes during the final year of 
bilingual primary schools in Subotica (Vojvodina) in 2015.
In addition to Serbian, on the territory of Vojvodina (Serbia) there are nine 
other languages in official use that are spoken by the ethnic communities 
that live there: Bulgarian, Montenegrin, Czech, Croatian, Hungarian, Ma-
cedonian, Romanian, Ruthenian and Slovak. For some of these ethnic com-
munities, depending on the number of children in a class, both primary 
and secondary education is organized in their mother tongues (this right 
is granted by the Serbian constitution). However, at the same time they are 
obligated to attend instruction in Serbian, the language of ethnic majority. 
For these people Serbian as an official language is termed a “non-mother 
tongue”. There is no clear definition of this term in the literature, but it is 
usually considered a language adopted or learned in addition to the mother 
tongue: the second language.
Why should one compare Serbian and Hungarian classes in Vojvodina regar-
ding gender issues? The classroom discourse and gender interaction within a 
2 The Law on Basic Education System (National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, 2019), 
Article 44, allows the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and prohibition 
of discrimination in content and form of textbooks. 
178 179
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
classroom setting are underrepresented as research objectives in Serbian lite-
rature. Hungarian and Serbian are not only two typologically different langu-
ages, but Serbian is also the language of majority and Hungarian the language 
of “others”. This opens up the possibility of different linguistic behaviour in 
the same context – classroom discourse.
The primary research questions are: 1. What types of feedback sequences are 
present in Serbian and Hungarian classes? 2. Are there differences in feedback 
distribution regarding gender between Hungarian and Serbian classes? 3. Do 
the teachers evaluate the pupils’ speech contributions differently regarding 
pupils’ gender and the type of language used in the classroom?
3 T R A N S C R I P T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y
The transcription methodological framework is based on the discourse pro-
cedures in the transcription for verbal interaction (Savić, 1993) and partly 
on the HIAT2 transcription system for nonverbal communication and action 
(Ehlich, 1993).3 
3.1 Corpus
The corpus consists of the fine transcript of two audio and video recordings 
of mother tongue lessons in Serbian (length 187’22’’) and Hungarian classes 
(length 164’50’’) during the final year of primary4 schools in Subotica, Voj-
vodina5. The recordings6 were made in the spring of 2015, with two movable 
cameras, placed in the left and right corners of the classrooms, facing pupils 
diagonally next to the teacher’s desk, and a tape recorder placed on the chair 
at the back of the classroom. The classroom setting is traditional, set up with 
five or six rows all facing the front. The teacher’s desk is in front and so are 
the chalkboards. The aisles have enough space between them for the teacher 
to walk up to each pupil. This setup allows all the pupils to see the teacher and 
the board. In the Hungarian classroom there is also a computer in the right 
3 Symbols used for transcription are given in the Appendix. 
4 Primary school lasts eight years in Serbia, in the final year pupils are 14–15 years old.
5 Subotica is a town in the northern part of Serbia, in the province of Vojvodina.
6 We gained a written permit for video recording from the local educational advisor, directors 
of primary schools, as well as parents’ approval.
179
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
corner facing the teacher and an overhead projector above the teacher’s desk 
facing the wall behind the teacher.
The Serbian class consists of 13 male and 7 female pupils and the Hungarian 
class of 7 male and 10 female pupils. Both teachers are women, the homeroom 
teachers for these classes, and they teach mother tongue lessons. During the 
recorded lessons pupils in both classes were working on literary texts: the main 
tasks were text comprehension and analysis (theme, genre, ideas, structure, 
and similar), but there were also some reading exercises. The lessons have the 
form of group discussions; they are frontal, teacher-centred and verbal.
The Serbian lesson was about the poem by a Serbian author, Jovan Jovanović 
Zmaj, “Svetli grobovi” (“Bright Graves”). It talks about the promise of descen-
dants to continue what their ancestors began, a continuous sacrifice of many 
generations for a noble cause, and about a difficult but glorious past which 
helps new generations to find the right path into the future. 
The Hungarian lesson was about a play by a Hungarian playwright, Spiró György, 
called “Esti műsor” (George Spiro: “Evening Program”). This modern drama is 
about the everyday life of the Hungarian middle class. There are four characters: 
two married couples, Bella and Béla, and Géza and Gizi, are having dinner to-
gether, watching TV. The focus is on their family life and their marriage problems.
3.2 Unit of analysis
The basic unit of analysis is one IRF/E-cycle presented in turn, consisting of 
multiple or single speech contributions of actors, which are further divided 
into single utterances as the smallest units of analysis (Excerpt 1).
Excerpt 17
0328 N VA I da li sada, deco, razumete∫ 
[And do you, children, understand it now∫]7
NA o- - - - - -stands by the desk, fa, loo at - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 
0329 VA ∫po čemu su, deco, njihovi grobovi svetli? (..) 
[∫why, children, are their graves light? (..)]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 All translations into English are done by the author.
180 181
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
0330 VA Pa na osnovu čega,∫
[Well, why,∫]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0331 VA ∫koće da nam kaže? 
[∫who is going to tell us?]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -o
0332 Un VA Na osnovu njihovih dela. 
[Because of their works.]
NA  (many talking at once)
0333 N VA Na osnovu njihovih dela koje su ostavili za vreme svog života,∫ 
[Because of their works which they left behind during their 
lives,∫]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
0334 VA  ∫je l‘ tako?
 [∫isn’t it so?]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -o
4 R E S U L T A N D D I S C U S S I O N
4.1 Quantitative results
The quantitative results show differences in feedback distribution between the 
Serbian and Hungarian class and also differences regarding pupils’ gender. 
The total amount of teacher feedback sequences in the Serbian lesson is 98, 
which makes up about 11% of the overall teacher’s verbal activity during the 
lesson. While providing feedback, she addresses male pupils for 30% of her 
verbal activity, female pupils 26%, male and female pupils 14%, the whole 
class 30%, and she evaluates her own speech contributions three times. A 
male pupil once gives feedback on a female pupil’s answer.
In the Hungarian class the teacher’s feedback sequences make up about 13% 
of her overall verbal activity (54 sequences). She directs her feedback to male 
pupils for 57% of her verbal activity, female pupils 34%, male and female pupils 
3%, the class 5%, and twice to herself. A male pupil once gives confirmatory fe-
edback to a female pupil and once a female pupil gives the same to a male pupil.
The majority of the teacher’s feedback sequences to male pupils in the Hunga-
rian class is directly connected with the disproportion between the number of 
181
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
male and female pupils and their verbal activity: six out of seven male pupils 
and nine out of ten female pupils participate in the classroom discourse. A 
similar thing applies to the Serbian class, where male pupils exceed the num-
ber of female pupils: eight out of thirteen male pupils are verbally active as 
opposed to six out of seven female pupils.
The analysis reveals several basic types of teacher feedback and evaluation 
sequences in the form of the discourse strategies (Table 1). These can be la-
belled as:
(1) Positive: repetition of pupils’ responses, addition of a response, con-
firmation, praising and thanking, and 
(2) Negative: rejection of response, rebuke, ironic comment, criticism.
Table 1. Relative frequency of teacher feedback in Serbian and Hungarian class per 45-minute 
class period with regard to gender.
Feedback type m f m+f class
Teacher positive feedback in the Serbian class
Repetition of pupils’ responses 0.21 0.06 0.12 0.17
Confirmation 0.08 0.15 0.02 0.1
Praising 0.01 - 0.02 0.05
Teacher positive feedback in the Hungarian class
Repetition of pupils’ responses 0.15 0.11 - 0.02
Addition of a response 0.17 0.02 - -
Confirmation 0.19 0.15 0.02 -
Praising 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04
Thanking 0.02 0.02 - -
Teacher negative feedback in the Serbian class
Rejection of response 0.07 - - -
Rebuke 0.07 0.14 - -
Ironic comment 0.07 0.21 - 0.21
Criticism - 0.21 - -
m=male pupils, f=female pupils, m+f=male and female pupils
We detected the positive evaluation types of ‘addition of a response’ and ‘than-
king’ only in the Hungarian class (Table 1). On the other hand, we identified 
a larger amount of negative feedback in the Serbian class, while there is only 
one feedback sequence in Hungarian class that contains this kind of feedback 
(the rejection of a female pupil’s comments on lesson content). 
182 183
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
The relative frequency of teacher feedback in the Serbian and Hungarian clas-
ses per 45-minute class period in relation to gender is shown in Table 1. The 
collected data reveal that male pupils receive more teachers’ positive feed-
back in both classes than female pupils. The negative feedback types of ‘ironic 
comment’ and ‘criticism’ seem to be reserved only for female pupils in the 
Serbian class. These results correspond with the data in the literature which 
show that female pupils experience different treatment in classrooms (Spen-
der, 1990; Denn et al., 2015).
4.2 Positive feedback
4.2.1 The confirmation and repetition of pupils’ answers
The confirmation and repetition of pupils’ answers in order to evaluate them 
as correct are the most prevalent types of feedback in both classes. The Serbi-
an teacher mostly uses the expressions dobro, mh, naravno, tako je (good, 
hm, of course, that is it) and the Hungarian teacher much the same, mh, igen, 
jó, igaz (hm, yes, good, that is it) in order to evaluate the pupils’ answers as 
correct. The positive reaction is directed more at the male pupils in both clas-
ses (Table 1).
The following example (Excerpt 2) explains how this feedback is performed in 
classroom discourse.
In the Serbian lesson the teacher requests from the pupils to name some “glo-
rious people” of Serbian history and culture. The pupils name mostly male 
authors and scientists: Milutin Milanković, Nikola Tesla, Vuk Karadžić, Mi-
hajlo Pupin, etc. Excerpt 2 is a part of this larger exchange related to naming 
famous people. At this moment, the teacher wants to hear another represen-
tative of the glorious Serbian past (0302). The male pupil U5 gives the name 
of the same Serbian author whose poem is analysed in the lesson (0303). The 
teacher repeats the answer and confirms its correctness by adding “Dobro” 
(Good., 0304–0305). 
183
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
Excerpt 2
0302 N VA Onda?
[Then?]
NA o- - - - - - leaning against the board, fac, loo at Un - - - -  - -- - - - o
0303 U5 VA I Jova Zmaj.
[And Jova Zmaj.]
NA o- - - - - - - -loo at N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - -o
0304 N VA Čika Jova Zmaj. (..)
[Uncle Jova Zmaj]
NA o- - - - - - leaning against the board, fac, loo at Un - - - - - - - - - - -
0305 VA Dobro.(..) Dobro,∫
[Good. (..) Good,∫]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - -o
The confirmation and repeating of the pupils’ answers similarly occur in the 
Hungarian class. 
4.2.2 Praising
Surprisingly, the teachers praise very seldom in both classes, although praise 
plays a very important role in the process of learning and socio-cognitive de-
velopment of pupils (Burnett, 2002; Maclellan, 2005). The literature suggests 
that older pupils perceived praise after success or neutral feedback after fa-
ilure as an indication that the teacher perceived their ability to be low. When 
given criticism after failure and neutral feedback after success, they percei-
ved that the teacher had evaluated their ability to be high and their effort low 
(Hattie and Timperley, 2007, p. 97). The corpus reveals the following results. 
The Serbian teacher praises four times: twice the whole class with “Vi to lepo 
znate” (You know that very well, 0463) and “Lepo ste to zaključili” (You’ve 
concluded that very nicely, 0535), twice male pupils U3 and U5 with “Odlično” 
(Excellent, 0593) and once the male pupil U5 and female pupil Ua4 also with 
“Odlično” (Excellent, 1029). This praise is related to the pupils’ good academic 
achievement, i.e. accurate conclusions about the topic they were discussing. 
The next example in Excerpt 3 demonstrates how the Serbian teacher within 
only one complex IRF/E-exchange treats a male and female pupil differently, 
after right answering her question. 
184 185
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
In Excerpt 3 the Serbian teacher asks a question about the keywords from the 
poem (0794–0795). She addresses the whole class, using personal pronoun 
and a verb for the 2nd person plural (vi mislite) and without inserting any 
names. So, any pupil having an appropriate answer may begin and give an 
answer. The female pupil Ua4 answers correctly (0796). At that moment, the 
male pupil U5 turns back toward Ua4 because she sits in the back row and 
he in the middle row (0797). That tells us how much he is interested to see 
whether she is going to give correct answer or not, because the same female 
pupil succeeded several times before in giving correct answers and his own 
attempts failed. The teacher repeats the female pupil’s answer and evaluates 
it as correct (0798). Then she requires further responses from the whole class 
(because she uses “children”) (0799–0800) and the same male pupil U5 repli-
es correctly (0801). The teacher’s reaction is praise, with “excellent” (0802). 
Pupil U5 is very pleased with this positive evaluation, and he happily shakes 
his head and smiles (0803). The praise was omitted when the female pupil 
gave the correct answer, and thus the male pupil feels that his correct answer 
has higher value and his higher position in the class hierarchy is confirmed. 
Excerpt 3
0794 N VA ∫<Šta vi mislite∫
[∫<What do you think∫]
NA o- -fac, loo at Un - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0795 VA ∫koje su ovo ključne reči?>
[∫what are those keywords?>]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
0796 Ua4 VA Svetli grobovi.
[Light graves.]
NA o- - - - loo at N- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - -o
===================
0797 U5 VA
NA % turns back toward Ua4
o- - loo at Ua4 - - - - - - - o
0798 N VA Tako je, svetli grobovi.∫
[That’s right, light graves.∫]
NA o - - - -stands in front of the table, fac, loo at Un- - - - - - - - - - - -o
........................................................................................................
185
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
0799 N VA ∫Dalje. (..)
[∫Next. (..)]
NA o- - - - fac, loo at Un- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
0800 VA Šta bismo rekli, deco?
[What would we say, children?]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
0801 U5 VA Ideali.∫
[Ideals.∫]
NA o- - - - loo at N- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
0802 N VA ∫*Odlično*, ideali. (...)
[∫*Excellent*, ideals. (...)]
NA o- - - - fac, loo at U5- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - -o
0803 U5 VA
NA o- - -shaking head, smiling - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
The Hungarian teacher praises five times: twice the whole class with “Így 
van, nagyszerű” (That’s right, excellent, 048) and “Ügyesek vagytok” (You 
are clever, 050) for correct answering; once the male pupils T1 and T3 with 
“Nagyszerű! Jó.” (Excellent! Good., 419) for taking the initiative in role assi-
gnment, and once the group of male and female student with “Nagyszerű” 
(Excellent, 510) after a reading exercise. 
4.2.3 Thanking
One of the most interesting features of feedback sequences in the Hungari-
an class is the use of thanking, and we did not find this phenomenon in the 
Serbian lesson. On two occasions, both after reading exercises, the Hungarian 
teacher expresses thanks to the active female and male pupils for their efforts. 
She uses the expression “Jó, köszönjük” (Good, we thank you, 174) and the 
similar “Jó, elég, köszönjük szépen” (Good, that’s enough, we thank you very 
much, 613). These expressions are in the first-person plural. The teacher tries 
in this way to create an atmosphere of equal participation and mutual encou-
ragement in classroom activities, and perhaps to underline belonging to same 
social (and cultural?) group.
The use of thanking as type of feedback sequence in classroom talk is in our 
opinion a linguistic and cultural phenomenon of Hungarian speakers. It 
186 187
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
allows the consideration of every speaker as equal regardless his/her actual 
conversational status. Unfortunately, there is still no research conducted on 
this to support this conclusion. 
4.3 Negative feedback
4.3.1 Criticism
As we already mentioned, we detected the teacher’s negative reaction only in 
the Serbian class. The most interesting type of negative feedback is criticism, 
because it applies the negative personal evaluation of pupils – it disrespects 
pupils’ personalities and presents an assault on their integrity (Arsenović Pa-
vlović et al., 2017; Burnett, 2002).
The collected data reveal only one occasion of critical feedback to one female 
pupil in the Serbian class. The following example in Excerpt 4 shows how the 
Serbian teacher criticizes the female pupil while at the same time not taking 
the opportunity to do the same to a male pupil.
The poem analysed in the Serbian lesson dates from 19th century, and there-
fore contains lot of archaic words. In Excerpt 4 the Serbian teacher asks a qu-
estion about any archaic words that the pupils do not understand, addressing 
the whole class (0951). The male pupil U5 gives an answer first, slightly after 
the teacher ended her turn (0952). But this answer has nothing to do with the 
question asked, so the teacher ignores it. Then, the female pupil Ua2 gives an 
answer (0953). The teacher repeats it, beginning with “Hm” (0954). In this 
way she clearly shows her attitude towards its content: she is not satisfied with 
it. The teacher’s following comment is in fact a form of a negative critique, 
because she criticizes the female pupil’s lack of knowledge (0955–0956). The 
teacher does not give any explanation of these words in the following lines, 
and the female pupil continues with giving further examples of archaic and 
incomprehensible words. 
187
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
Excerpt 4
0951 N VA Koje su to reči?∫
[What are these words?∫]
NA o- - - - -stands l by the table, glasses in ha, fac, loo at Un - - - - - -o
0952 U5 VA ∫To je pogrešno.
[∫That is wrong.]
NA o- - - - loo at N- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
0953 Ua2 VA Golemo, ogromno, ***∫
[∫Tremendous, huge, ***]
NA o- - - - - - - loo at textbook- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -o
0954 N VA ∫ Hm. Golemo i ogromno∫
[∫Hm. Tremendous and huge∫]
NA                      % smiles
o- - - - -stands l by the table, glasses in ha, fac, loo at Ua2 - - - - - -
0955 VA ∫<to nekada bi bilo *nepojmljivo*∫
[∫<it was *unthinkable* before∫]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0956 VA ∫da je to // da je to nepoznata reč.>∫
[∫that this is// that this is an unknown word.>∫]
NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - -o
4.4 Feedback omission  
The omission of the teacher feedback can have negative effects on pupil’s sel-
f-esteem, and this strategy can be used for different treatment of male and fe-
male pupils (Frawley, 2005; Tannen, 1993). Spender (1990, p. 102–131) claims 
based on her own classroom discourse research that female pupils’ spoken con-
tributions to classroom discussions are largely ignored by teachers. They receive 
not only less attention from the teacher but must also wait longer to get it. In 
this way female pupils become invisible and less respected in the classroom.
The following examples in Excerpt 5 and Excerpt 6 illustrate the different 
treatment of male and female pupils when it comes to feedback practices in 
classroom discourse.
The part of the Hungarian lesson is dedicated to reading exercises and to 
improving reading comprehension. Three female pupils and two male pupils 
188 189
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
read the play aloud from the textbook. The excerpts below show two situati-
ons when one female pupil (TL3, Excerpt 5) and two male pupils (T3 and T1, 
Excerpt 6) assign themselves the roles they want to read.
Excerpt 5
372 TŐ VA ∫azt szeretném hogy megcsinálnám //
[∫I would like to do //]
NA o- -stands by the desk, fac Tn, loo at textbook, r ha holding the text-
book - 
                                    =========
373 TL3 VA                                     =Gizi leszek.=
                                    [=I will be Gizi.=] 
NA                                                  o- - -smiling - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
                                           % looks up at TŐ
374 TŐ VA Leszel? 
[Will you?]
NA % looks up at  TL3
  o- -stands by the desk, fac, loo at TL3, holding textbook in r ha - -o
375 TL3 VA =Igen.=
[=Yes.=]
NA  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
% loo at Tn
376 Tn VA
NA o- - -some turning towards TL3, smiling - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
Excerpt 6
415 T3 VA <Bírok én olvasni?>∫ 
[<Can I read?>∫] 
NA o- - -finger-rising, loo at TŐ- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
                 ====
416 TŐ VA Gizi //
NA o- - -stands by the desk, fac, loo at TL3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
                     ====
189
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
417 T1 VA                     ∫<Bírok é nGéza?>∫ 
                   [∫<Can I be Geza?>∫]
NA o- - -finger-rising, loo at TŐ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
418 T3 VA ∫Én meg a Béla.]
[∫And I will be Bela.]
NA o- - - -loo at TŐ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o
419 TŐ VA Nagyszerű! Jó. 
[Excellent! Good.]
NA o- - -stands by the desk, loo at T1 and T3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
These two situations differ in the context and timing of occurrence. At the 
point when TL3 interrupts the teacher no one has mentioned any reading 
exercises or role assignment. The teacher explains at that moment some fe-
atures of the dialogic forms in the text and then the female pupil interrupts 
her (372–373). That tells us two things. First, reading exercises are a common 
classroom activity, something that pupils expect to do when some new literary 
text or writer are introduced, and the teacher assumes with all certainty that 
she does not have to give any information about the activity. Secondly, the 
excerpts show that the female pupil (TL3) decides to act by interrupting the 
teacher’s turn and expressing her willingness and desire ‘to be’ a character 
who she likes. She is the one who takes initiative first. 
In Excerpt 6 the teacher, at that moment, carries out the actual role assi-
gnment. In the previous exchanges she had assigned the role of one female 
character and the narrator to two girls (TL8 and TL9). Now with an attempt 
at “Gizi//” (416) she wants to confirm the participation of TL3 (because she 
expressed this wish before, Excerpt 5). The male pupil T3 uses her intra-turn 
pause to state his wish to participate in the reading exercise in the form of a 
question (415), followed by the male pupil T1 who states also in the form of 
question that he wants to read the lines of one male character (417). Then T3 
immediately extends his previous turn with the same wish as T1 (418).
In both examples the teacher’s turns are interrupted, she stops her verbal 
activity and focuses on the questions posed by all the pupils. The difference 
lies in how she reacts. When the female pupil interrupts her, she responds 
in the form of the yes-no-question (374). She is not willing to get an answer 
(although the TL3 answers with “yes”, 375), because feedback or evaluation is 
190 191
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
omitted. Therefore, TL3 doesn’t actually know whether she is going to read or 
not. The teacher continues with further explanations. TL3 spoke when it was 
not allowed and got punished for it. On the other hand, the teacher’s reaction 
to the male pupils’ interruption is “Excellent! Good.” (419). We can read this 
as: You did well, I am happy and proud of you and I support your initiative.
5 C O N C L U S I O N
The analysis of teachers’ feedback sequences in the Serbian and Hungarian 
classes showed differences in feedback type and distribution between the 
Serbian and the Hungarian class regarding pupils’ gender. The ‘confirmation’ 
and ‘repeating of pupils’ answers’ in order to evaluate them as correct are the 
most prevalent types of feedback. Moreover, male pupils receive more positive 
feedback from teachers in both classes than female pupils. 
The positive feedback types of ‘addition of a response’ and ‘thanking’ appear 
only in the Hungarian class. The use of thanking as type of feedback sequen-
ce in classroom talk is in our opinion a linguistic and cultural phenomenon 
of Hungarian speakers. It allows the consideration of every speaker as equal 
regardless of his/her actual conversational status. Unfortunately, there is still 
no research conducted on this phenomenon to support this conclusion. 
The negative feedback types ‘ironic comment’ and ‘criticism’ seem to be re-
served only for female pupils in the Serbian class. The omission of feedback 
is also more commonly used after the correct answers of female pupils. The 
teachers not only fewer evaluations of female pupils’ performance (regar-
ding the number of male and female pupils in the classes) but also criticize 
female pupil’s lack of knowledge, as in the Serbian lesson. They also ignore 
the poor performances or the wrong answers of male pupils and praise them 
more directly. Male pupils thus experience different treatment and receive 
more opportunities to participate in classroom discourse. That influences the 
positioning and image of male and female pupils in the classroom hierarchy, 
and the development of specific psychosocial features that support the higher 
status of male pupils in the group (class) and in relation to the teachers.
The limitations of this research are connected with the fact that a relatively 
small corpus (only two lessons in two classes) was analysed, so any kind of 
191
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
generalisation is excluded. It is necessary to conduct a wider research project, 
especially because the classroom discourse and gender interaction within a 
classroom setting are at this point more than underrepresented as research 
objectives in Serbian literature. The future research should include the broa-
der linguistic, cultural, and social context (because of the wide range of lan-
guages spoken on the territory of Vojvodina) with a larger number of primary 
schools and videotaped lessons.
The classroom talk can be considered as a socialization model that affects the 
formation of stereotypical gender-based behavioural patterns of female and 
male pupils. The educational policy makers, national curriculum and textbo-
ok authors as well as teacher education program designers should thus make 
efforts to raise awareness about the importance of immediate classroom inte-
raction, and aim to over the implicit gender-based discrimination that is part 
of teachers’ explicit language use.  
R E F E R E N C E S
Arsenović Pavlović, M., Antić, S., & Jolić Marjanović, S. (2017). Pedagoška 
psihologija. Udžbenik sa priručnikom za vežbe [Educational psychology. 
Textbook and training manual]. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakul-
tet za specijalnu edukaciju i rehabilitaciju – Izdavački centar (ICF).
Bakhtin, M. M. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York 
and London: Seminar Press.
Bašaragin, M. (2016). A társadalmi nem és a nyelv kölcsönhatása a tantermi 
beszélgetésekben – megszólítás [Interaction of gender and language in 
classroom talk – addressing]. Létünk, 56(4), 109–128.
Bašaragin, M. V., & Savić, S. L. (2016). Rodno osetljiva analiza čitanki za osmi 
razred OŠ za srpski jezik, srpski kao nematernji i mađarski jezik [Gender 
sensitive analysis of the textbook for the eight grade of elementary scho-
ol for Serbian, Serbian as second language and Hungarian language. In 
J. Milutinović (Ed.), Zbornik Odseka za pedagogiju, 25 (pp.75–97). doi: 
https://doi.org/10.19090/zop.2016.25.75-97 
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher–student relationships: Causes 
and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
192 193
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions 
of the classroom environment. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 5–16.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and 
learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Denn, A., Lotz, M., Theurer, C., & Lipowski, F. (2015). „Prima, Lisa. Richtig“ 
und „Psst, Max. Hör auf zu stören!“ Eine quantitative Studie zu Unter-
schieden im Feedbackverhalten von Lehrkräften gegenüber Mädchen und 
Jungen im Mathematikunterricht des zweiten Schuljahres [‘Well done, 
Lisa. Correct’ and ‘Shush, Max. Stop disrupting!’ A quantitative study of 
differences in the teachers’ feedback behavior regarding girls and boys in 
second grade elementary mathematics instruction]. Gender. Zeitschrift 
für Geschlecht, Kultur, Gesellschaft Journal for Gender, Culture and So-
ciety, 7(1), 29–47.
Ehlich, K. (1993). HIAT – A transcription system for discourse data. In J. A. 
Edwards and M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and co-
ding in discourse research (pp. 123–148). New York and London: Psycho-
logy Press.
Ernst, P. (2002). Pragmalinguistik, Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Probleme 
[Pragmalinguistics, principles, applications, problems]. Berlin and New 
York: Walter de Gruyter.
Frawley, T. (2005). Gender bias in the classroom: Current controversies and 
implications for teachers. Childhood Education, 81(4), 221–228.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hsiao-Ching, S. (2000). The interplay of a biology teacher’s beliefs, teaching 
practices and gender-based student-teacher classroom interaction. Edu-
cational Research, 42(1), 100–111.
Kostović, S. (2008). Pigmalion u razredu [Pygmalion in the classroom]. Novi 
Sad: Filozofski fakultet, Odsek za pedagogiju.
Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in 
the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 443–471.
Julé, A. (2002). Speaking Their Sex: A Study of Gender and linguistic Space 
in an ESL Classroom. TESL Canada Journal/Revue du Canada, 19(2), 
37–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i2.928
193
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
Julé, A. (2004). Gender, Participation and Silence in the Language Classro-
om: Sh-shushing the Girls. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
Julé, A. (2005). A fair share: Gender and linguistic space in a language classro-
om. Multilingua, 24(1–2), 25–37. doi: 10.1515/mult.24.1part2.25
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Classroom discourse: The promise and com-
plexity of dialogic practice. In S. Ellis and E. McCartney (Eds.), Applied 
Linguistics and Primary School Teaching (pp. 165–185). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. 
Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213.
Maclellan, E. (2005). Academic achievement: The role of praise in motivating 
students. Active learning in higher education, 6(3), 194–206.
National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. (2019). Zakon o osnovama siste-
ma obrazovanja i vaspitanja [The Basic Education System Act]. Službeni 
glasnik RS no. 88/2017, 27/2018, and 10/2019.
Rymes, B. (2008). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflecti-
on. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the 
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. R. (2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender 
bias cheats girls and boys in school and what we can do about it. New 
York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Simon and Schuster.
Savić, S. (1993). Diskurs analiza [Discourse analysis]. Novi Sad: Filozofski 
fakultet.
Smith-Lovin, L., & Brody, C. (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The 
effect of gender and group composition. American Sociological Review, 
54(3), 424–435.
Spender, D. (1990). Mit Agressivität zum Erfolg: Über den doppeltlen Stan-
dar, der in den Klassenzimmern operiert [With aggressiveness to su-
ccess: About the double standard in the classrooms]. In S. Trömel-Plötz 
(Ed.), Gewalt durch die Sprache. Die Vergewaltigung von Frauen in 
Gesprächen [Violence through language: The rape of women in conver-
sations] (pp. 71–98). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbücher Verlag.
194 195
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
Swann, J. (1997): Talk control: An illustration from the classroom of problems in 
analysing male dominance of conversation. In C. Logan (Ed.), Gender per-
spectives on writing and language (pp.16–21). Ontario: Broadview Press.
Swann, J. (2003). Schooled language: Language and gender in educational 
settings. In J. Holmes & M. Miriam (Eds.), The Handbook of Langua-
ge and Gender (pp. 624–644). Maiden, Oxford and Berlin: Blackwell 
Publishing.
Szépe, Gy. (2011). Mother tongue competence and socio-professional integra-
tion into the community. In V. Vasić (Ed.), Jezik u upotrebi: Primenjena 
lingvistika u čast Ranku Bugarskom [Language in use: Applied linguistic 
in honour of Ranko Bugarski] (pp. 219–220). Novi Sad: Filozofski fakul-
tet; Beograd: Filološki fakultet.
Tiedemann, J. (2002). “Teachers’ Gender Stereotypes as Determinants of Te-
acher Perceptions in Elementary School Mathematics”. Educational Stu-
dies in Mathematics, 50(1), 49–62.
Trömel-Plötz, S. (1991). Frauensprache: Sprache der Veränderung [Women’s 
language: The language of change]. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Tas-
chenbuch Verlag.
Veith, W. H. (2005). Soziolinguistik. Ein Arbeitsbuch mit 104 Abbildungen, Kon-
trollfragen und Antworten [Sociolinguistics: A workbook with 104 illustrati-
ons, control questions and answers]. Tübingen: Gunther Narr Verlag.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society, 
1(2), 125–151.
195
M. BAŠARAGIN, S. SAVIĆ: Gender perspective on teacher-pupil classroom interaction
Appendix: Symbols used in transcription
N, TŐ    teacher
Ua, TL    female pupil
U, T    male pupil
VA    verbal activity
NA    nonverbal activity
0001-...                      number of sequences
..................                            beginning and ending of IRE/F cycles
o- - - -o                               duration of NA
%                                              momentariness of NA
, . ? !                                          punctuation
(..)                                             short pause
(...)                                               longer pause
(.n)                                              very long pause
*text between these signs*  particularly emphasized
-text between these signs-        loudly pronounced
=text between these signs=     quietly pronounced
<text between these signs>       quickly pronounced
>text between these signs<      slowly pronounced
//                                                    unfinished sequence, (self)repair
======                                        overlap 
∫                                                       latching
[]                                                      translation
loo                                                   looking at
fac                                                   facing
ha                                                    hand(s)
r                                                       right
l                                                        left
196 197
Slovenščina 2.0, 2019 (2)
VIDIK SPOLA PRI RAZREDNI INTERAKCIJI 
MED UČITELJI IN UČENCI: POVRATNE 
INFORMACIJE IN OCENJEVANJE
Različne raziskave potrjujejo, da pri izmenjavah v učilnici prihaja do neenake 
obravnave fantov in deklet. Namen članka je določiti razlike v učiteljskem 
odzivu po govornem udejstvovanju šolarjev in šolark, hkrati pa ugotoviti, ali 
različni tipi odzivov učitelja pomagajo krepiti različne jezikovne, spolne in kul-
turne identitete učencev v srbskih in madžarskih razredih. Korpus je bil leta 
2015 sestavljen iz prispevkov zadnjega razreda dvojezične osnovne šole v Sub-
otici (Vojvodina), sestoji pa iz transkripcij dveh zvočnih in video posnetkov 
pouka maternega jezika v srbskih in madžarskih razredih. Rezultati potrjuje-
jo razlike pri tipu in distribuciji povratnih informacij učitelja v obeh razredih 
glede na spol. Povratne informacije učiteljev podpirajo višji status fantov v sku-
pini (razredu) v v razmerju do učitelja.
Ključne besede: interakcija v razredu, povratne informacije, družbeni spol, 
madžarščina, srbščina
To delo je ponujeno pod licenco Creative Commons: Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi 
pogoji 4.0 Mednarodna. / This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-
Alike 4.0 International.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/