- Email: [email protected]
Editorial for 4,1: Some further thoughts on EAP and JEAP
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4 www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
From the Editors
Editorial for 4,1: Some further thoughts on EAP and JEAP In our Editorial for the first issue of JEAP in 2002, we referred to EAP as ‘language research and instruction which focuses on the specific communicative needs and practices of particular groups in academic contexts.’ We also listed some weaknesses of EAP: ‘a tendency to work for rather than with subject specialists, a vulnerability to claims that it ignores students’ cultures, and a reluctance to critically engage with the values of institutional goals and practices.’ As we enter our fourth year, it seems appropriate to re-visit that definition and the range we proposed for the field and the journal, and explore how far we have succeeded in representing those concerns and proposing antidotes for the problems. Our definition was broad enough to encompass pretty much everything that was sent to us; however, it seems there are still some authors who do not distinguish English for academic purposes from English taught in an academic environment. It has been necessary occasionally to explain to would-be authors that JEAP does not consider articles that are about ways of teaching grammar, or reading, or whatever just because the teaching and learning take place in an academic institution: teachingrelated articles for JEAP have to focus on the specific language needs and practices arising from the academic context. Context and purpose are fundamental elements of EAP: what it is and what drives the teaching and research which is done under its umbrella. As we build an archive of articles and the journal acquires a history, this problem should solve itself. We hope, in fact, that the papers which are published in JEAP will not only help to clarify such distinctions but will contribute to defining the field of EAP itself. Some areas that seemed to be on the margins for EAP have been brought closer to the centre. In 2002 we said the following: ‘In recent years the term ‘academic literacy’ has come to be applied to the complex set of skills (not necessarily only those relating to the mastery of reading and writing) which are increasingly argued to be vital underpinnings or cultural knowledge required for success in academic communities, from elementary school on. The discourse of academic literacy is more usually found outside English Language Teaching.’ In 2005, it can be seen that we 1457-1585/$ - see front matter q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.10.001
2
From the Editors / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4
were correct that ‘it (is) increasingly argued’ and wrong to imply that academic literacy might remain outside the spheres of ELT and EAP. Academic literacy is now a much more widely known term, and indeed this journal will have a special issue later this year focussing on advanced academic literacy. But while the term has been adopted from the critical discourse school closer into the EAP mainstream so that ‘academic literacy’ is now an accepted term in ELT and EAP, its plural form seems to remain as controversial as ever and the ‘critical’ component continues to be absent from the discussion. Similarly, the uncertainty of the role we saw for needs analysis in EAP as opposed to ESP has become clearer through several papers in the first three volumes of this journal. Authors have used genre and discourse studies to identify and deconstruct needs for particular groups and contexts, and we are beginning to understand some of the ways that EAP can be seen as specialist discourses and practices, and what may be overlapping and general. However, while studies of discourse variation have been frequent in JEAP, so far studies of successful communication between and among participants in academic contexts remain rare in our pages, and we hope that this gap will be remedied in the next few years. In the academic context EAP often sits rather awkwardly in the middle of a three-way interaction of disciplinary specialist—EAP teacher–student. But so far in JEAP we have seen little evidence that EAP researchers, or EAP teachers, are moving out of the adjunct role and working with subject specialists. EAP is still too often regarded as playing a secondary, supporting role to what is conceived as ‘real’ academic work—the disciplinary content that students are expected to control. The fact is, however, that the ways this content is structured, argued and expressed is inseparable from the content itself. The separation of meaning from form is largely an artificial one, of dubious theoretical value and impossible to maintain in practice. We only successfully articulate our meanings through the selection of appropriate forms. Language is a resource for making meanings, not something we turn to when we have worked out what we are going to say. Control of language remains the main way of legitimizing knowledge, evaluating students, and making an impact in one’s field, and this is the domain of EAP specialists. Until we can work together with the disciplines rather than for them, EAP will remain on the margins of academic respectability, with its future and that of academic staff working in the field under threat. Closely related to this is the field’s continuing vulnerability to claims that EAP ignores students’ cultures, since if this is true it cuts off EAP researchers and teachers from the other side of the conversation. As we said then, ‘By regarding academic literacy practices as something abstract and decontextualised, communication difficulties are too easily regarded as learners’ own weaknesses and EAP becomes an exercise in language repair’. The implication there of course was that English for academic purposes is more than that, and we continue to hold that position. We hope to see a re-balancing of focus and responsibility within this three-way relationship emerging in the EAP literature, and we hope it will prove the case that the special issue this year will make some progress in that direction.
From the Editors / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4
3
Similarly, we have not yet seen the kind of progress in attention to technology in EAP that we hoped for, with the articles we have published in the first three volumes fairly narrowly constrained to a consideration of alternatives; nor have we seen enough attention to visual communication, which as we pointed out in our first Editorial is an area that should not be ignored by EAP researchers or teachers. In fact, we would also like to encourage greater debate around actual classroom practices. There is a danger that theory and research is outrunning practice, or at least that there are too few points of contact between them. What is actually going on in EAP classes around the world? What innovative materials, tasks, courses, and methods of assessment are being used? How can we improve the practical aspects of our trade by making them better informed by theory and research? EAP prides itself on its applied nature which means that EAP specialists are ‘practitioners’ in the sense that we both research and teach. We would like that synergy to be more clearly reflected in the journal. While articles have addressed elements of the questions of whether the EAP endeavour should be pragmatic, critical or both, the central issues remain open to debate. This is a risky venture, and obviously one with no final answer, but it seems to us to be one worthy of continual revisiting and of serious thought by everyone who works in our field. While we see the ‘social-theoretic stance’ running though many of the articles we have published so far, we haven’t yet seen the attention to ‘issues such as individual competitiveness, alliances among particular groups, the role of gatekeepers, and vested interests in institutional reward systems’ which we said we felt then, and still feel, were/are legitimate areas of EAP research. We encourage readers of JEAP to contribute to the conversation, and to enrich it in areas where they feel we have not yet met our own goals—and we remind you that Editors can only publish the best from that which is submitted. Where you see gaps in our conversation, take up the challenge implicit on a conversation participant when the others fall silent! We spoke in our first Editorial about discourse communities and the lack of clarity around this concept; while the concept itself may remain unclear, we do think there are already signs that this journal is beginning to form around itself a discourse community, and to make its contribution to the discourse and community of EAP teachers and researchers. In this issue of the journal, we continue to show the wide interests and provenance of teachers/researchers. Maria Freddi (Italy) employs corpus linguistics to look at genre, register and authorial style in the introductory chapters of linguistics textbooks. Akira Tajino, Robert James and Kyoichi Kijima (Japan) propose and exemplify a useful role in EAP, specifically in needs analysis, for what they term ‘soft systems methodology’. Tim Moore and Janne Morton (Australia) consider whether preparation for writing on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) could be judged as falling within the broad realm of ‘EAP’ work. Bronia So (Hong Kong) considers whether working with newspaper editorials can help ESL learners in their work in academic contexts. Finally, Wendy Sutherland-Smith (Australia) returns to the controversial issue of student plagiarism.
4
From the Editors / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4
As usual in the first issue of a new volume, the Editors would like to express special thanks to the additional reviewers who have helped us in the past year; their work is very important and a significant professional contribution: Rita Simpson Svetlana Tchigaeva David Qian Noriko Iwashita Margaret van Naerssen Paige Ware Yu Ren Dong Alan Hirvela Rosemary Clerehan Annie Brown Liz Hamp-Lyons University of Melbourne/University of Hong Kong E-mail address: [email protected] Ken Hyland Institute of Education, London E-mail address: [email protected]
From the Editors
Editorial for 4,1: Some further thoughts on EAP and JEAP In our Editorial for the first issue of JEAP in 2002, we referred to EAP as ‘language research and instruction which focuses on the specific communicative needs and practices of particular groups in academic contexts.’ We also listed some weaknesses of EAP: ‘a tendency to work for rather than with subject specialists, a vulnerability to claims that it ignores students’ cultures, and a reluctance to critically engage with the values of institutional goals and practices.’ As we enter our fourth year, it seems appropriate to re-visit that definition and the range we proposed for the field and the journal, and explore how far we have succeeded in representing those concerns and proposing antidotes for the problems. Our definition was broad enough to encompass pretty much everything that was sent to us; however, it seems there are still some authors who do not distinguish English for academic purposes from English taught in an academic environment. It has been necessary occasionally to explain to would-be authors that JEAP does not consider articles that are about ways of teaching grammar, or reading, or whatever just because the teaching and learning take place in an academic institution: teachingrelated articles for JEAP have to focus on the specific language needs and practices arising from the academic context. Context and purpose are fundamental elements of EAP: what it is and what drives the teaching and research which is done under its umbrella. As we build an archive of articles and the journal acquires a history, this problem should solve itself. We hope, in fact, that the papers which are published in JEAP will not only help to clarify such distinctions but will contribute to defining the field of EAP itself. Some areas that seemed to be on the margins for EAP have been brought closer to the centre. In 2002 we said the following: ‘In recent years the term ‘academic literacy’ has come to be applied to the complex set of skills (not necessarily only those relating to the mastery of reading and writing) which are increasingly argued to be vital underpinnings or cultural knowledge required for success in academic communities, from elementary school on. The discourse of academic literacy is more usually found outside English Language Teaching.’ In 2005, it can be seen that we 1457-1585/$ - see front matter q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.10.001
2
From the Editors / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4
were correct that ‘it (is) increasingly argued’ and wrong to imply that academic literacy might remain outside the spheres of ELT and EAP. Academic literacy is now a much more widely known term, and indeed this journal will have a special issue later this year focussing on advanced academic literacy. But while the term has been adopted from the critical discourse school closer into the EAP mainstream so that ‘academic literacy’ is now an accepted term in ELT and EAP, its plural form seems to remain as controversial as ever and the ‘critical’ component continues to be absent from the discussion. Similarly, the uncertainty of the role we saw for needs analysis in EAP as opposed to ESP has become clearer through several papers in the first three volumes of this journal. Authors have used genre and discourse studies to identify and deconstruct needs for particular groups and contexts, and we are beginning to understand some of the ways that EAP can be seen as specialist discourses and practices, and what may be overlapping and general. However, while studies of discourse variation have been frequent in JEAP, so far studies of successful communication between and among participants in academic contexts remain rare in our pages, and we hope that this gap will be remedied in the next few years. In the academic context EAP often sits rather awkwardly in the middle of a three-way interaction of disciplinary specialist—EAP teacher–student. But so far in JEAP we have seen little evidence that EAP researchers, or EAP teachers, are moving out of the adjunct role and working with subject specialists. EAP is still too often regarded as playing a secondary, supporting role to what is conceived as ‘real’ academic work—the disciplinary content that students are expected to control. The fact is, however, that the ways this content is structured, argued and expressed is inseparable from the content itself. The separation of meaning from form is largely an artificial one, of dubious theoretical value and impossible to maintain in practice. We only successfully articulate our meanings through the selection of appropriate forms. Language is a resource for making meanings, not something we turn to when we have worked out what we are going to say. Control of language remains the main way of legitimizing knowledge, evaluating students, and making an impact in one’s field, and this is the domain of EAP specialists. Until we can work together with the disciplines rather than for them, EAP will remain on the margins of academic respectability, with its future and that of academic staff working in the field under threat. Closely related to this is the field’s continuing vulnerability to claims that EAP ignores students’ cultures, since if this is true it cuts off EAP researchers and teachers from the other side of the conversation. As we said then, ‘By regarding academic literacy practices as something abstract and decontextualised, communication difficulties are too easily regarded as learners’ own weaknesses and EAP becomes an exercise in language repair’. The implication there of course was that English for academic purposes is more than that, and we continue to hold that position. We hope to see a re-balancing of focus and responsibility within this three-way relationship emerging in the EAP literature, and we hope it will prove the case that the special issue this year will make some progress in that direction.
From the Editors / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4
3
Similarly, we have not yet seen the kind of progress in attention to technology in EAP that we hoped for, with the articles we have published in the first three volumes fairly narrowly constrained to a consideration of alternatives; nor have we seen enough attention to visual communication, which as we pointed out in our first Editorial is an area that should not be ignored by EAP researchers or teachers. In fact, we would also like to encourage greater debate around actual classroom practices. There is a danger that theory and research is outrunning practice, or at least that there are too few points of contact between them. What is actually going on in EAP classes around the world? What innovative materials, tasks, courses, and methods of assessment are being used? How can we improve the practical aspects of our trade by making them better informed by theory and research? EAP prides itself on its applied nature which means that EAP specialists are ‘practitioners’ in the sense that we both research and teach. We would like that synergy to be more clearly reflected in the journal. While articles have addressed elements of the questions of whether the EAP endeavour should be pragmatic, critical or both, the central issues remain open to debate. This is a risky venture, and obviously one with no final answer, but it seems to us to be one worthy of continual revisiting and of serious thought by everyone who works in our field. While we see the ‘social-theoretic stance’ running though many of the articles we have published so far, we haven’t yet seen the attention to ‘issues such as individual competitiveness, alliances among particular groups, the role of gatekeepers, and vested interests in institutional reward systems’ which we said we felt then, and still feel, were/are legitimate areas of EAP research. We encourage readers of JEAP to contribute to the conversation, and to enrich it in areas where they feel we have not yet met our own goals—and we remind you that Editors can only publish the best from that which is submitted. Where you see gaps in our conversation, take up the challenge implicit on a conversation participant when the others fall silent! We spoke in our first Editorial about discourse communities and the lack of clarity around this concept; while the concept itself may remain unclear, we do think there are already signs that this journal is beginning to form around itself a discourse community, and to make its contribution to the discourse and community of EAP teachers and researchers. In this issue of the journal, we continue to show the wide interests and provenance of teachers/researchers. Maria Freddi (Italy) employs corpus linguistics to look at genre, register and authorial style in the introductory chapters of linguistics textbooks. Akira Tajino, Robert James and Kyoichi Kijima (Japan) propose and exemplify a useful role in EAP, specifically in needs analysis, for what they term ‘soft systems methodology’. Tim Moore and Janne Morton (Australia) consider whether preparation for writing on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) could be judged as falling within the broad realm of ‘EAP’ work. Bronia So (Hong Kong) considers whether working with newspaper editorials can help ESL learners in their work in academic contexts. Finally, Wendy Sutherland-Smith (Australia) returns to the controversial issue of student plagiarism.
4
From the Editors / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 1–4
As usual in the first issue of a new volume, the Editors would like to express special thanks to the additional reviewers who have helped us in the past year; their work is very important and a significant professional contribution: Rita Simpson Svetlana Tchigaeva David Qian Noriko Iwashita Margaret van Naerssen Paige Ware Yu Ren Dong Alan Hirvela Rosemary Clerehan Annie Brown Liz Hamp-Lyons University of Melbourne/University of Hong Kong E-mail address: [email protected] Ken Hyland Institute of Education, London E-mail address: [email protected]