《大学英语读写》课程教学资源（B）Ⅱ_大学英语读写（B）Ⅱ_Ken's book.pdf_P26-P30

Specific or general academic purposes? A literary texts and culture to add a humanities dimension to students'experience and elevate the status of the field There are generic skills which are said to differ very little across the disciplines Among those most often mentioned in this regard include skimming and scanning texts for information,paraphrasing and summarizing arguments, conducting library and Internet searches for relevant texts and ideas,taking notes from lectures and written texts,giving oral presentations and contributing to seminars and tutorials(e.g.Jordan,1997). EAP courses should focus on a common core-a set of language forms or skills that are found in all,or nearly all,varieties and which can be transferred across contexts.Most EAP and study-skills textbooks are based on this notion.and there are numerous courses organized around themes such as'academic writing'and 'oral presentations,or general functions like'expressing cause and effect'or'presenting results,and so on.Hutchison and Waters(1987:165), for example,claim that there are insufficient variations in the grammar, functions or discourse structures of different disciplines to justify a subject specific approach.Instead which characterise all good writing'(Zamel,1993:35). Task A1.2 ★ >Which of th earguments in support of the wide-ang approach do you find most persuas why?Wh esearch data could be used as evidence to support or rel ese arguments? REASONS FOR SPECIFIC EAP In response,there are a number of objections to the EGAP position specialists to teach disciplinary liter skills a as the the des re to d ole that la s in thei discipline or the time to dev lop this unde standing nts.The are often too bu y to address l issues in ny detail and r rely have the und,training or unders o to off eat deal of assistance lea and Street(1999),for instance,found that subject tutors saw academic writin conventions as largely self-evident and universal,and did not usually even spel out their expectations when setting assignments The argument that weak students need to control core forms before getting or to specific,and presumably more difficult,features of language is not supported by research in second language acquisition.Students do not learn in a step-by- step fashion according to some externally imposed sequence but acquire features of the language as they need them,rather than in the order that teachers 11

literary texts and culture to add a humanities dimension to students’ experience and elevate the status of the field. ■ There are generic skills which are said to differ very little across the disciplines. Among those most often mentioned in this regard include skimming and scanning texts for information, paraphrasing and summarizing arguments, conducting library and Internet searches for relevant texts and ideas, taking notes from lectures and written texts, giving oral presentations and contributing to seminars and tutorials (e.g. Jordan, 1997). ■ EAP courses should focus on a common core – a set of language forms or skills that are found in all, or nearly all, varieties and which can be transferred across contexts. Most EAP and study-skills textbooks are based on this notion, and there are numerous courses organized around themes such as ‘academic writing’ and ‘oral presentations’, or general functions like ‘expressing cause and effect’ or ‘presenting results’, and so on. Hutchison and Waters (1987: 165), for example, claim that there are insufficient variations in the grammar, functions or discourse structures of different disciplines to justify a subjectspecific approach. Instead, EAP teachers are encouraged to teach ‘general principles of inquiry and rhetoric’ (Spack, 1988) and the common features which ‘characterise all good writing’ (Zamel, 1993: 35). Task A1.2 ➤ Which of these arguments in support of the wide-angle approach do you find most persuasive and why? What research data could be used as evidence to support or refute these arguments? REASONS FOR SPECIFIC EAP In response, there are a number of objections to the EGAP position: ■ EAP teachers cannot rely on subject specialists to teach disciplinary literacy skills as they generally have neither the expertise nor the desire to do so. Rarely do lecturers have a clear understanding of the role that language plays in their discipline or the time to develop this understanding in their students. They are often too busy to address language issues in any detail and rarely have the background, training or understanding to offer a great deal of assistance. Lea and Street (1999), for instance, found that subject tutors saw academic writing conventions as largely self-evident and universal, and did not usually even spell out their expectations when setting assignments. ■ The argument that weak students need to control core forms before getting on to specific, and presumably more difficult, features of language is not supported by research in second language acquisition. Students do not learn in a step-bystep fashion according to some externally imposed sequence but acquire features of the language as they need them, rather than in the order that teachers Specific or general academic purposes? 11 A SECTION ★

Introduction present them.So while students may need to attend more to sentence-level features at lower proficiencies,there is no need to ignore specific language uses t any stage. The issue of generic skills and language also raises the question of what it is tha students are actually learning.EAP professionals are concerned not simply with teaching isolated words,structures,lexical phrases and so on,but with exploring the uses of language that carry clear disciplinary values as a result of their frequency and importance to the communities that employ them.An awarenes of such associations can D developed only through familiarity with the actua the view courses relegates EAP to t the opposite is core here ng lit differe and th the home perspec en D ablgnt to stude nts as a set of de-t echn ght by relatively u s.It the lies th ted by English cla EAP th nd-ai efc:a ntrast.an esap vie P se who understand and te ch th lite rious doubts core'of la cakness is that it foc ms.A major nd ig t at a has many possible meanings de ending on its context of use.Defining what is n is relatively easy if w with grammatical fo rms that rise a finite set but becomes im e meaning and porating meaning i into the common core we are led to the notion cties of academic discourse,and to the consequence that learning may not be an extension of general literacy to handle academic disc urse,but a range of literacies to handle disciplinary variation in academic discourse EAP classes don't just focus on forms but teach a range of subject-specific communicative skills as well.Participation in these activities rarely depends on students'full control of 'common core'grammar features and few eap teachers would want to delay instruction in such urgently demanded skills while students perfected their command of.sav.the article system or noun-verb agreement. Unfortunately for teachers and materials designers,then,it is difficult to pin down exactly what general academic forms and skills,what Spack calls the genera principles of inquiry and rhetoric,actually are.Ann Johns,a prominent EAP writer, puts it like this: 12

present them. So while students may need to attend more to sentence-level features at lower proficiencies, there is no need to ignore specific language uses at any stage. ■ The issue of generic skills and language also raises the question of what it is that students are actually learning. EAP professionals are concerned not simply with teaching isolated words, structures, lexical phrases and so on, but with exploring the uses of language that carry clear disciplinary values as a result of their frequency and importance to the communities that employ them. An awareness of such associations can be developed only through familiarity with the actual communicative practices of particular disciplines. ■ We can dispute the view that teaching specialist discourses relegates EAP to the bottom of the academic ladder. In fact the opposite is true. The notion of a common core assumes there is a single overarching literacy and that the language used in university study is only slightly different from that found in the home and school. From this perspective, then, academic literacy can be taught to students as a set of discrete, value-free rules and technical skills usable in any situation and taught by relatively unskilled staff in special units isolated from the teaching of disciplinary competences. It therefore implies that students’ difficulties with ‘academic English’ are simply a deficit of literacy skills created by poor schooling or lazy students which can be rectified in a few English classes. EAP then becomes a Band-aid measure to fix up deficiencies. In contrast, an ESAP view recognizes the complexities of engaging in the specific literacies of the disciplines and the specialized professional competences of those who understand and teach those literacies. ■ There are serious doubts over a ‘common core’ of language items. A major weakness is that it focuses on a formal system and ignores the fact that any form has many possible meanings depending on its context of use. Defining what is common is relatively easy if we are just dealing with grammatical forms that comprise a finite set, but becomes impossible when we introduce meaning and use. By incorporating meaning into the common core we are led to the notion of specific varieties of academic discourse, and to the consequence that learning should take place within these varieties. As Bhatia (2002: 27) observes:‘students interacting with different disciplines need to develop communication skills that may not be an extension of general literacy to handle academic discourse, but a range of literacies to handle disciplinary variation in academic discourse’. ■ EAP classes don’t just focus on forms but teach a range of subject-specific communicative skills as well. Participation in these activities rarely depends on students’ full control of ‘common core’ grammar features and few EAP teachers would want to delay instruction in such urgently demanded skills while students perfected their command of, say, the article system or noun–verb agreement. Unfortunately for teachers and materials designers, then, it is difficult to pin down exactly what general academic forms and skills, what Spack calls the ‘general principles of inquiry and rhetoric’, actually are. Ann Johns, a prominent EAP writer, puts it like this: 12 Introduction A SECTION

At one point we thought that we had the answers, based upon a composite of pre-course needs assessments and task analyses. After completing our needs assessments, we offered instruction in notetaking, summary writing, ‘general reading skills’ (such as ‘comprehension’), and the research paper. But as we begin to re-examine each of these areas, we find that though some generalizations can be made about the conventions and skills in academia, the differences among them may be greater than the similarities; for discipline, audience, and context significantly influence the language required. Students must therefore readjust somewhat to each academic discipline they encounter. (Johns, 1988: 55) Nor is it clear even if we could identify a set of common core features how these might help address students’ urgent needs to operate effectively in particular courses. Task A1.3 ➤ What are the main text types and communication or learning strategies in which students are expected to engage in the course you are currently studying? Are they different from those of another discipline you have taught or know about? ACADEMIC REGISTERS AND DISCIPLINE SPECIFICITY This is not to say that there are no generalizable skills or language features of academic discourse. Most students will encounter lectures, seminars and exams, and be expected to make notes, give presentations and write assignments. In terms of language, the fact that we are able to talk about ‘academic discourse’ at all means that the disciplines share prominent features as a register distinct from those we are familiar with in the home or workplace. These concentrations of features, which connect language use with academic contexts, are useful for students to be aware of. One immediately obvious feature of an academic register, and one which students often find most intimidating, is what might be seen as the comparatively high degree of formality in academic texts. Essentially, this formality is achieved through the use of specialist vocabulary, impersonal voice and the ways that ideas get packed into relatively few words. These features of academic writing break down into three key areas: ■ High lexical density. A high proportion of content words in relation to grammar words such as prepositions, articles and pronouns which makes academic writing more tightly packed with information. Halliday (1989: 61), for example, compares a written sentence (a) (with three – italicized – grammatical words) with a conversational version (b) (with thirteen grammatical words): Specific or general academic purposes? 13 A SECTION ★

Introduction (a)Investment in a rail facility implies along-term commitment. (b)If you invest in a rail facility this implies that you are going to be committed for a long term. High nominal style.Actions and events are presented as nouns rather than verbs to package complex phenomena as a single element of a clause.This freezes an event,such as'The train leaves at 5.00 p.m.'and repackages it as o objects in entities. Impersonal constructions.Students are often advised to keep their a ademic le,avor ssions of feeling mmy 'it aeoicnreplhce as h ('it was poss the sub phone' and what are ca things rather than people(the data suggest,Table 2 shows) The extent to which disciplines conform to these features or subject teach ers expe students ary en y linkeda and is ed by,features of its context IMPORTANCE AND IMPLICATIONS Debates about specificity have an important impact on how see the field and carry out their work.influencing both teaching and research ecificity ractice in the classroom.for instance often involve the fapr actitioner working closely with subject specialists to gain an understand- g of students't arget discourses and courses.This collaboration can take various forms and can involve drawing on the subject specialist's expertise as an informant to discuss textbooks,topics and course assignments,or extend to 'linking'an EAP course with a content course (cf Unit 10). In classes where students are more heterogeneous in terms of discipline,specificity can be usefully exploited to highlight disciplinary differences in writing through rhetorical consciousness raising(cf.Swales and Feak,2000).By encouraging stu- dents to explore the ways meanings are expressed in texts and compare similarities and differences,teachers can help satisfy students'demands for personal relevance while revealing to them the multi-literate nature of the academy.This helps students to understand that communication involves making choices based on the ways texts work in specific contexts and that the discourses of the academy are not based on a single set of rules.This undermines a deficit view which sees difficulties of writing and speaking in an academic register as learner weaknesses and which misrepresents these as universal,naturalized and non-contestable ways of partic ipating in academic courses

(a) Investment in a rail facility implies a long-term commitment. (b) If you invest in a rail facility this implies that you are going to be committed for a long term. ■ High nominal style. Actions and events are presented as nouns rather than verbs to package complex phenomena as a single element of a clause. This freezes an event, such as ‘The train leaves at 5.00 p.m.’ and repackages it as an object: ‘The train’s 5.00 p.m. departure’. Turning processes into objects in this way expresses scientific perspectives that seek to show relationships between entities. ■ Impersonal constructions. Students are often advised to keep their academic prose as impersonal as possible, avoiding the use of ‘I’ and expressions of feeling. First-person pronouns are often replaced by passives (‘the solution was heated’), dummy ‘it’ subjects (‘it was possible to interview the subjects by phone’), and what are called ‘abstract rhetors’, where agency is attributed to things rather than people (‘the data suggest’, ‘Table 2 shows’). The extent to which disciplines conform to these features or subject teachers expect students to use them will vary enormously. But raising students’ awareness of such features helps them to see how academic fields are broadly linked and how language both helps construct, and is constructed by, features of its context. IMPORTANCE AND IMPLICATIONS Debates about specificity have an important impact on how practitioners in EAP see the field and carry out their work, influencing both teaching and research. Putting specificity into practice in the classroom, for instance, often involves the EAP practitioner working closely with subject specialists to gain an understanding of students’ target discourses and courses. This collaboration can take various forms and can involve drawing on the subject specialist’s expertise as an informant to discuss textbooks, topics and course assignments, or extend to ‘linking’ an EAP course with a content course (cf. Unit 10). In classes where students are more heterogeneous in terms of discipline, specificity can be usefully exploited to highlight disciplinary differences in writing through rhetorical consciousness raising (cf. Swales and Feak, 2000). By encouraging students to explore the ways meanings are expressed in texts and compare similarities and differences, teachers can help satisfy students’ demands for personal relevance while revealing to them the multi-literate nature of the academy. This helps students to understand that communication involves making choices based on the ways texts work in specific contexts and that the discourses of the academy are not based on a single set of rules. This undermines a deficit view which sees difficulties of writing and speaking in an academic register as learner weaknesses and which misrepresents these as universal, naturalized and non-contestable ways of participating in academic courses. 14 Introduction A SECTION

Equally important, the idea of specificity has encouraged EAP to adopt a strong research orientation which highlights the importance of communicative practices in particular contexts. In fact, while EAP has tended to emphasize texts, its remit is much larger, including the three dimensions underlying communication discussed by Candlin and Hyland (1999). These are the description and analysis of relevant target texts; the interpretation of the processes involved in creating and using these texts; and the connections between disciplinary texts and the institutional practices which are sustained and changed through them. The need to inform classroom decisions with knowledge of the target language features, tasks and practices of students has led analysts to sharpen concepts and develop research methodologies to understand what is going on in particular courses and disciplines. Johns (1997: 154), for instance, urges EAP teachers to use their ‘abilities to explore academic worlds: their language, their values, their genres, and their literacies, remembering at all times that these worlds are complex and evolving, conflicted and messy’. Swales (1990) shares this view that EAP should help students to become aware of the centrality of discourse and has championed a genre-based EAP, encouraging a commitment to linguistic analysis, contextual relevance, and community-relevant events in the classroom. Moving beyond the classroom, specificity is also critical to how EAP is perceived and how it moves forward as a field of inquiry and practice. For example, placing specificity at the heart of EAP’s role means that teachers are less likely to focus on decontextualized forms, less likely to see genres as concrete artefacts rather than interactive processes and less likely to emphasize a one-best-way approach to instruction. Task A1.4 ➤ Which of the pros and cons given in this unit do you see as the most persuasive? What do you see as the main challenges of discipline-specific teaching to you as an EAP teacher? Specific or general academic purposes? 15 A SECTION ★