36.677, Reviews: English for Academic Purposes: Alharthi (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-677. Fri Feb 21 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.677, Reviews: English for Academic Purposes: Alharthi (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 21-Feb-2025
From: Ahmad A. Alharthi [aaalharthi at ksu.edu.sa]
Subject: Applied Linguistics: Alharthi (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-2498

Title: English for Academic Purposes
Subtitle: Perspectives on the Past, Present and Future
Series Title: New Perspectives on Language and Education
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Multilingual Matters
           http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
Book URL:
https://www.multilingual-matters.com/page/detail/?K=9781800414471

Author(s): Douglas E. Bell

Reviewer: Ahmad A. Alharthi

SUMMARY
Douglas Bell’s book titled English for Academic Purposes: Perspectives
on the Past, Present and Future is a welcome addition to the field of
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in general  particularly in the
context of the United Kingdom , where the author is from. Together
with his article (Bell, 2018), this work represents an important text
to outsiders of those two contexts. The book in question, which is
originally based on the author’s doctoral thesis, stays true to its
title, taking a historical approach that outlines issues that the
field has grappled with in the past, are still disputed at the present
time, or are likely to arise in the near future. Besides the short
preface at the beginning, where the author explains his motive for
writing the book (to chart a history that outlines the theoretical
basis of the field) and his expected audience (both prospective and
experienced EAP practitioners), the text consists of eight chapters,
followed by a long and thorough list of references from which the
author draws his discussions. Each chapter starts with a brief
introduction explaining its goal and closes with a short summary
highlighting the main points discussed in the chapter, followed by a
list of “points for further discussion and critical reflection.”
In Chapter 1, “EAP’s Birth and Early Historical Development,” the
author makes a case for the importance of examining EAP through a
historical lens, because this approach can help us discover a shared
knowledge base which the field is generally lacking (p. 2). Arguing
for a historical approach to improve the broad field of writing
studies is in keeping with several other works (e.g., Matsuda, 2001;
Ruecker & Shapiro, 2021; Shapiro, 2022) discussing writing instruction
and making the point that history can be a powerful tool in helping us
better engage with contemporary issues and predict future
developments. Bell notes that EAP can be traced back to English for
Specific purpose (ESP)—and its earlier manifestation, English for
Science and Technology (EST)—which, in turn, can be traced back to
English for General Purposes (EGP) or mainstream English Language
Teaching (ELT). This point is important to bear in mind as the history
of EAP requires by necessity a discussion of ESP, since the latter
represents the earliest beginning of the former (p. 5). The chapter
then discusses factors that led to the emergence of EAP as a field:
some of which are political (e.g., English becoming the language of
science and technology post-World War II), while others are
socio-economic (e.g., the rise of the number of international students
desiring to learn English for personal goals and professional
purposes).
Chapter 2, “Core Issue and Debates 1960-1999,” discusses the real
beginning of EAP, with the 1960s being the departure point in the
discussion. The chapter is divided into two main sub-headings: the
first covering the decade of 1960-1970; the second covering the decade
of 1980-1990. Under the first sub-heading, the author discusses such
topics as register analysis, rhetorical analysis/discourse analysis,
needs analysis, and the notion of authenticity. Under the second
sub-heading, the author critically engages in ten core debates in the
field, including, for example, genre analysis and the binary of
so-called accommodationist EAP and critical EAP. While there is
certainly some  accuracy to this chronology (register analysis, for
example, was so limited as to view language as a system, thus paying
attention only to individual language forms, whereas rhetorical
analysis is considered an improvement, viewing language as a
communication tool), the author is quick to caution against the
tendency to view history as merely a linear progression. More
accurately, history is as much “recursive” as it is progressive (p.
43), and some of the core topics in the field (e.g., needs analysis
and genre analysis) continue to have some currency even as we speak.
In fact, in the following chapter, the author  again discusses
developments in both needs analysis (p. 55) and genre analysis (p.
56).
Chapter 3, “Core Issues and Debates 2000-2004,” spans the period from
the beginning of the new millennium to the present time and explores a
total of thirteen major themes and topics in the field. Some themes
(e.g., genre analysis) recur from previous chapters. Others (e.g., EAP
practitioners and the privatization of EAP) are discussed in this
chapter for the first time, but are discussed again in, respectively,
Chapter 4 and Chapter 8. Other themes discussed in the chapter include
critical thinking, contrastive/intercultural rhetoric, academic word
lists, academic literacies, and the concept of communities of
practice, to name only a few. Various aspects of each theme are
highlighted, e.g., the  theme’s sub-types, as well as its limitations
and the charges of its critics.  Critical thinking, for example, can
be viewed either as a pedagogical issue that relates more to teachers
or as a learning issue that relates more to students. The author
closes the chapter by reminding us again that history is cyclical
rather than linear. More importantly, he acknowledges the overlap and
crossover between some of the themes discussed in the chapter and the
fact that his selection of those themes is necessarily subjective and
undeniably impressionistic.
In Chapter 4, “The EAP Practitioner,” the author looks closely at the
term “EAP practitioner,” making the point that while it is fairly
common in the EAP community, it does not really feature in job
advertisements and descriptions. Other terms, including “teacher,”
instructor,” and “tutor,” are usually used instead. The author holds
that while the term “practitioner” implies the “practice of applied
knowledge” (p. 66), it suggests more than the mere act of teaching,
and has more positive connotations than an “administrator” or
“manager.” A practitioner, according to the author, is someone
occupying a third space between a teacher and a researcher or—in the
author’s words— “someone who is able to do both; someone who can
extend knowledge and apply it wisely to practice” (p. 66). The chapter
then begins a discussion on the differences between EAP and mainstream
ELT, the clearest of which has to do with content. For example, while
in ELT students might learn how to write a letter to a friend,  in EAP
they will learn how to write an academic essay (p 73). The difference
in content entails a host of other differences, including different
competencies of teachers, different expectations of learners,
different knowledge base, and different classroom pedagogy (p. 75).
When highlighting those differences, the author is quick to disclaim
any intention of making an “expression of elitism” of one side over
the other (p. 72).
Chapter 5, “Approaches to EAP Pedagogy,” continues the discussion of
the differences between EAP and ELT. Bell argues, for example, that
while the knowledge base of ELT practitioners draws on English
grammar, phonology, and lexis (p. 85), that of EAP practitioners’
requires an understanding of rhetorical conventions and an awareness
of discourse. The author attributes this difference to the streams of
research that influenced each side. According to him, EAP is informed
by various subjects but primarily five subject areas: Systematic
Functional Linguistics (SFL), genre theory, corpus linguistics,
academic literacies, and critical EAP. Of these, the author continues,
only corpus linguistics had some influence on ELT (p. 87). Related to
the point about knowledge base, the chapter then explains the
background of the issuing of the Contemporary Framework for Teachers
of English for Academic Purposes, published by the British Association
of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP) (BALEAP, 2008).
This framework, which was the result of a working group of which the
author was a member, consists of four broad categories (Academic
practice, EAP students, Curriculum development, and Programme
implementation), each containing two to four competencies expected of
EAP practitioners. Other highlights of this chapter include the
distinction between pre-service EAP teaching and in-service EAP
teaching, with the latter having higher entry requirements than the
former, and its students having generally a better grasp of EAP.
The first part of Chapter 6, “EAP Materials and EAP Assessment,”
explores the issue of EAP materials design. Here, we can contrast
“commercial” materials with “custom-made” (or “in-house” materials).
The author notes that the latter, although they have  the obvious
disadvantage of requiring a significant amount of time, also  have a
few advantages.  For example, the process of materials creation can be
a form of professional development; and the materials can give
teachers more agency in their work, create collaborative opportunities
between EAP teachers and subject specialists, and finally gain
institutional recognition. The discussion in this section includes
both EAP writing and listening materials, and the issue of material
authenticity is invoked again here, and is contrasted with the element
of pedagogical appropriacy to the level of the students. The author
holds that, while important, the former can sometimes be mistakenly
emphasized at the expense of the latter. The second part of the
chapter examines the issue of assessment. One dimension of assessment
is concerned with students. Here, the author lists TOEFL (Test of
English as a Foreign Language), IELTS (International English Language
Testing System), and PTE (Pearson Test of English) as the three most
widely accepted exams for academic purposes, and continues to discuss
the major criticisms voiced against IELTS in particular. Another
dimension of assessment is concerned with EAP teachers themselves.
Here, the author talks about three possible forms: student
evaluations, classroom observations, and reflective practice. The
author maintains that given the different focus of ELT versus EAP
(where the former, by comparison, pays more attention to student
affect), classroom observations in EAP contexts should have different
criteria from that in ELT contexts.
Chapter 7, “The Role and Status of EAP in the Academy,” surveys three
different theoretical frameworks before drawing out their implications
for EAP as a field of study. The first framework concerns the work of
British sociologist Tony Becher and his concept of “academic tribe.”
The second framework concerns the work of British sociologist Basil
Bernstein and his three concepts of “classification,” “framing,” and
“pedagogic code.” And the third framework concerns the work of French
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his notions of “habitus,” “field,” and
“capital.” The author explains these frameworks succinctly but clearly
before examining EAP through their lenses. As an example, the notion
of academic tribe classifies knowledge structures and academic
disciplines into four types: “hard pure” (e.g., sciences), “soft pure”
(e.g., humanities), “hard applied” (e.g., technologies), and “soft
applied” (e.g., applied social sciences). Without providing an answer,
the author poses the question of whether EAP should be considered soft
pure (like modern languages) or soft applied (like applied
linguistics), positing that pondering questions of the sort will have
“important consideration(s) for longer term academic survival and
prosperity” (p. 128). Using the other two frameworks, the author
concludes that EAP has a “weak classification,” “weak framing,”
“integrated [i.e., weak] code” (p. 130), undefined habitus, and lower
capital. He, therefore, closes the chapter by outlining four essential
recommendations that could help improve the status of EAP. One of
these, for example, is for the EAP practitioner to engage in more
peer-reviewed publication and scholarly activities (p. 140).
In Chapter 8, “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: Is
EAP Facing a Bright or an Uncertain Future?”, the author explores
various points that relate to the possible future of EAP. In four
separate sections, those points are phrased in the form of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, to illustrate the broader
point that either a bright or uncertain  future of EAP is possible,
depending on what members of the EAP community choose to do from this
point forward. For example, while the discipline has come of age and
is now well-established in the academy (strength), it still suffers
from a wide gap between research and practice (weakness). Similarly,
while EAP represents a multi-billion-dollar industry (strength), the
profession is characterized by “poor upward career mobility” (p. 146).
As for opportunities, these include, among others, the possibility of
broadening the student target population beyond university settings,
given the increase interest in academic literacy skills in schools, as
well as the possibility of utilizing the knowledge and expertise of
EAP professionals beyond EAP contexts, such as in the introduction of
the PGCHE (Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education) qualification
in British universities. Finally, some of the threats include
neoliberal attitudes towards higher education with their effect on the
privatization of EAP, as well as the new developments in artificial
intelligence.
EVALUATION
For a field that has a long and rich history, Bell’s text is very
accessible, thoroughly enjoyable and concisely written, with lucid
explanations throughout and with well-balanced discussions of issues
that are highly disputed in the field. Its strength lies in its
comprehensive coverage of the topic and in the fact that it combines
the author’s personal reflections on his long experience in the field
with the perspectives of scholars that he interviewed. I find myself
in agreement with much of the book’s central theses. That said, a few
of the minor issues that stood out to me include the following:
In the discussion of the term “EAP practitioner” in Chapter 4, I
wonder if the term “pracademic”—which is a professional identity
performing as a “broker” between a practitioner and academic (Posner,
2009)— could have anything to add to the discussion. I doubt it would
be adopted in official titles and job announcements, but I still feel
that it can capture more than the term “practitioner,” given that the
latter applies to both EAP teachers and EAP administrators alike.
In Chapter 5 I feel that the discussion on the knowledge base of ELT
(p. 85) could have been improved slightly by engaging with the
critical side of applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001). The reality is
that critical applied linguistics, which has a great deal in common
with critical EAP, has now attained a “mainstream status” in language
studies (Kubota & Miller, 2017, p. 1) and is likely to be a core
component of a master’s degree program in Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL).
Similarly, the field of second language writing (SLW)  receives only a
passing mention on page 87; this is rather curious given the fact the
two fields have strong ties in the long history EAP, have various
similarities, and can easily learn from each other. In fact, Tony
Silva, writing in 1990, argues that SLW instruction can be classified
into four major approaches: controlled/guided composition;
current-traditional rhetoric; the process approach; and EAP (Silva,
1990). Finally, Chapter 5 also includes a  minor typo (“Chapter 5” for
“Chapter 6” on p. 90.)
But despite these secondary shortcomings, the book remains a valuable
addition to EAP and can serve as a great introductory text to
newcomers to the field. At various points in the book, the author
laments the fact that there is generally a lack of EAP-specific
qualifications, calling for a change of the status quo. I second the
author’s call, and if I ever find myself teaching in such a
specialized program, I would without hesitation assign his book as a
core reference.
REFERENCES
BALEAP (2008). Competency framework for teachers of English for
academic purposes. Retrieved December 17, 2024, from
https://www.baleap.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/teap-competency-framework.pdf
Bell, D.E. (2018). The practice of EAP in Australia: A rose by any
other name? In Wong, L.T., & Wong, W.L.H. (Eds.), Teaching and
learning English for academic purposes: Current research and practice
(pp. 161-177). Nova Science Publishers.
Kubota, R., & Miller, E. R. (2017). Re-examining and re-envisioning
criticality in language studies: Theories and praxis. Critical Inquiry
in Language Studies 14, 129-157.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of
reading and writing in L2 studies. In Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A.
(Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on second language
reading/writing connections (pp. 84-105). University of Michigan
Press.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical
introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Posner, P. L. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging
practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting and Finance, 29(1),
12-26.
Ruecker, T., & Shapiro, S. (2021). Critical pragmatism as a middle
ground in discussions of linguistic diversity. In Silva, T., & Wang,
Z. (Eds.), Reconciling translingualism and second language writing
(pp. 139-149). Routledge.
Shapiro, S. (2022). Cultivating critical language awareness in the
writing classroom. Routledge.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:
Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In Kroll, B. (Ed.),
Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.
11-23). Cambridge University Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Ahmad A. Alharthi is an assistant professor in the Department of
English at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. He holds a master’s
degree in TESOL and a PhD in English Language and Rhetoric from the
University of Washington, Seattle. His work has appeared in edited
volumes by IGI Global, Multilingual Matters, Routledge, and Brill. His
research interests include critical applied linguistics, second
language writing, and English as a lingua franca.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-677
----------------------------------------------------------