Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros86RecensionsAlex Ding and Michelle Evans, Soc...

Recensions

Alex Ding and Michelle Evans, Social Theory for English for Academic Purposes. Foundations and Perspective.

Bloomsbury
Manon Bouyé
p. 173-182
Référence(s) :

Social Theory for English for Academic Purposes. Foundations and Perspective. Alex Ding and Michelle Evans (Eds.). 2022. London: Bloomsbury, 189 pp. ISBN: 9781350227668.

Texte intégral

1This book interrogates the theoretical foundations of English for academic purposes (EAP) in relation to social theory. The objective of the volume is to invite EAP practitioners and researchers to incorporate a “sociological imagination”, as Alex Ding explains (p. 2), and to adopt a reflexive understanding of their field by considering how social theories are directly or indirectly present within familiar EAP theoretical frameworks, but also to show how under-examined social theories can be usefully operationalized within EAP.

2Although Bourdieu is one of the most referenced authors in EAP, Hyland and Jiang (2019) highlight that EAP authors rarely exhibit in-depth engagement with social theory. The aim of this volume is to address this gap and to propose insightful epistemological considerations which have been paid relatively little attention in the EAP literature. It is made up of two parts: the first part, Foundations, revisits central concepts, authors and theories of EAP through the lens of social theory, while the second part, Perspectives, offers insight into how specific social theory frameworks or approaches could be fruitful for EAP.

3This 220-page book (plus bibliography and index) is a dense and thought-provoking volume for both EAP researchers and practitioners. The introduction is presented by Ding (for the editors) as part introduction, part manifesto, and explains how the volume sets out to cover a variety of approaches, advocating for a reframing of EAP into sociological terms.

4In Chapter 1, Michelle Evans revisits the concept of genre within EAP. First, Evans traces back the intellectual sociological heritage of three genre traditions, namely Swales’ EAP-based approach (1990), the Sydney School genre pedagogy (Martin 2004) based on Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (SFL), and the Ccomposition-based approach put forward by Devitt (2004). Thus, the author highlights the diversity of influences that characterize genre theory. To take only one of the examples presented, Evans recounts that Swales was not only influenced by the US composition-based approach, but also by Bakhtinian or Hallidayan concepts, such as genre literacy, or Bazerman and Prior’s social situation approach to texts (Bazerman and Prior 2004), itself influenced by cognitive theories, which themselves drew on Goffman’s theories to analyze moves and counter-moves in verbal interactions. Evans notes that what is important is the extent to which these influences are used, for what purpose and how aware authors are of it. Evans then moves on to the influence of sociological functionalism, which, although it has been criticized, has been highly influential in all the considered approaches to genre. More particularly, the section discusses diverging views on the study of genres and language as social constructs rather than psychological and mental processes. For instance, Evans explains that Durkheim influenced Halliday’s theory of language as behaviour, while Swales’ approach to language was influenced by Parson, who viewed language as instrumental knowledge (Parsons 1964). This section also shows how seminal authors of EAP may sometimes have opposing views of whether or not private intentions and individual motivations have to be explored in academic genre studies (Swales 2004 v. Bhatia 1993). Evans then offers a welcome illustration of how these reflections can be applied in the classroom, in this case to a genre analysis activity offered in UK universities. She shows how questions on social purposes or personal intentions of writers and readers can be used to encourage students to examine wider questions, such as empirical contributions to their field. Such questions can also launch discussions on how certain types of publications can move authors’ careers forward. Ethnographic approaches are also mentioned, to extend students’ understanding of contexts and purposes. The final section of this chapter addresses the way in which the tensions between language and social context have been debated in genre studies and genre-based pedagogy. After discussing varying views of genres and some criticisms of systemic functional linguistics, Evans moves on to explain Miller’s hierarchical model (Miller 1984) to account for genre as including substance, form and context, based on the notion of substance put forward by Burke (1967).

5In the beginning of Chapter 2, “Academic Literacies: Theorising Language as Social Practice”, Jackie Tuck introduces the field of academic literacies (AL), which was developed in the 1990s and adopts an empirical approach to academic reading and writing for teachers-researchers, with the aim to influence pedagogies. This field, Tuck argues, shifts away from the view of academic reading and writing as a set of psychological skills to be transferred to the workplace towards an understanding of academic reading and writing as fundamentally sociological and ideological, as already shown by Lea and Street (1998). Other notable influences that should not be overlooked, the author claims, include the works of teachers-practitioners in EAP and applied linguistics in UK universities as well as in South Africa and in the US, also drawing from research in adult literacy and emancipatory education, which invites students to interrogate and take control of their education. Tuck then locates Academic literacies in relation to EAP, first pointing out that some EAP authors such as Turner (2004) and Wingate (2012) have brought together EAP and AL in a dialogue, but that others have considered them incompatible. Tucks goes on to demonstrate that AL has a social view of literacy at its core, as it considers reading and writing as historically and culturally situated practices. While academic language is viewed as a “neutral and transparent conduit” (p. 46) for academic content (Turner 2011) and the ideal student is seen as the student who erases their “self” from the writing process, AL researchers and practitioners show how academic texts “might push against such conventions” (p. 46, citing Lillis 2011) and make the multiplicity of academic voices and knowledge be heard. What distinguishes AL is not only this view of language as social, but its emphasis on literacy as social practice. AL researchers and practitioners favor ethnographic methods (field observations, interviews and participant diaries) to investigate what people do with written language in their daily activities. The author also emphasizes notions of power and critical approaches, showing that AL, with its focus on ‘transformation’, and although it has been criticized, helps teachers encourage students to exercise their agency. AL also takes into account the fact that not all students have the same starting points, which range from adult literacy learners to doctoral students. To round out their discussion of AL, Tuck then provides three examples of how critical concepts have been used by authors in AL. Critical Discourse Analysis has been used in ethnographic approaches, to study, for instance, feedback documents and comments by academic tutors on undergraduate assignments (Lea and Street 1998), which, Tuck argues, offers rich possibilities for EAP practitioners to explore and engage with. Bourdieu’s notion of habitus has also been used by Lillis (2001) to account for the challenges and conflicting aspirations of “non-traditional students” who arrive at university without the cultural, linguistic or social capital. The concept of recontextualization, developed by sociologist Bernstein (1990), has been applied to AL studies to focus on the curriculum of certain vocational areas in specific contexts. Coleman (2012), for example, used this concept to examine and discuss AL pratices in a web design and development course in South Africa, showing that in this context digital practices are favored over others, which has consequences on different population groups and is linked to broader contextual factors (Coleman 2012). After highlighting that AL can promote reflexivity in EAP (especially conversations on politics and powers), Tuck concludes by stressing how AL can encourage EAP researchers and practitioners to question theory, to work with changes in contemporary academic communication and to open spaces for critique and get out of their academic “comfort zones” (p. 53).

6In Chapter 3, which is entitled “Systemic Functional Linguistics: a Social Theory of Language”, James R. Martin first illustrates the way in which SFL can be used to analyze the different strata of a text—phonology, lexicogrammar, discourse semantics (including cohesion)—by studying a spoken law lecture. He shows how the different strata contribute to meaning. Martin then explains the significance of this stratification for EAP, which allows analysts to focus on text as basic meaning unit, and describes what makes academic discourse academic, namely grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor (a process realized grammatically as a thing), especially in the form of nominalization, is described as a fundamental feature of academic discourse, as it helps adjust information flow and nuance discourse semantics. Martin emphasizes the idea that interpersonal, ideational and textual meanings are construed in a complementary way in EAP discourse (which he shows using the same lecture excerpt), and that EAP should not be reduced to studying technical lexis, as interpersonal and technical dimensions are also crucial for students to master. He also underlines that various fields have evolved differently and use grammatical metaphors differently which is why EAP courses should (in an ideal world) include discipline-specific content.

7Chapter 4, the first chapter of part II, introduces Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) as a framework to provide a more integrated understanding of EAP. In the beginning of the chapter “Legitimation Code Theory: Addressing fragmentation in EAP”, Steve Kirk starts the exploration with a definition of LCT, highlighting its key features and concepts that help address fragmentation. By making knowledge more visible and distinguishing knowledge from knowers, by conceptualizing legitimation languages in EAP (as embodied in an EAP textbook or in the practices of students and teachers), Kirk argues that LCT offers conceptual tools to open up a conversation between research and practice. The framework takes its name from the notion of legitimation, conceived in terms of the competition between autonomous fields (e.g., business or education) to obtain status, legitimacy and resources. More particularly, Kirk explains how two contrastive views of academic literacy (grammar-focused vs. discipline-specific) can be construed using LCT, and that LCT is based on concepts that draw on Bernstein (1990), namely knowledge production, recontextualization and reproduction. For example, empirical and theorized insights from Swales’ genre theory have been recontextualized and integrated pedagogically as tasks in student academic writing textbooks (Swales and Feak 2012). Kirk then shows that LCT can help provide a lens to understand how knowledge interacts with knowers and contexts by using the concept of semantic gravity. Semantic gravity can be charted as a spectrum of strengths, ranging from weaker forms of semantic gravity (–), which means meaning making is less dependent on context (e.g., general EAP principles in the curriculum), to stronger semantic gravity (+), which means the meaning-making practices are more conceptualized and dependent on context (e.g. text-mediated student practice). Kirk provides examples of class observations in which the “semantic waves” or profile of the class was traced with the teacher, based on the concept of semantic gravity. In both situations, semantic waves were traced to show teachers that either the content of the class was too conceptual and abstract and related to disciplinary-content (high semantic flatline) or, conversely, too focused on grammar and disconnected from students’ academic practices (low semantic flatline). This concept helped them visualize, explore and integrate EAP course objectives and pedagogic practice. Ultimately, the chapter shows how LCT provides EAP with a powerful common language, enabling discussions across the field’s diversity, as well as informing and shaping its practices.

8The fifth chapter of the volume, “Social Realism and Genre theory: Knowledge-building in EAP”, was written by Ian Bruce. The author first introduces EAP and notes that classic theoretical approaches to genres and genre-pedagogy in EAP (notably SFL and Swales) have mostly been pragmatic, and have had little interest in genre knowledge. To address genre knowledge, Bruce proposes to resituate genre studies within the framework of social realism, a sociological theory of knowledge and knowledge-building. This theory is based on three key principles: ontological realism, epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationality. From an ontological perspective, a genre is considered to have an independent, objective existence beyond the individuals who create or engage with this category. It can be described using various types of knowledge, such as procedural knowledge, including its structure and textual organization (e.g., genre-specific patterns such as problem-solution). From an epistemological perspective, relativism means that contextual factors influence the production of knowledge, as has been emphasized in the second half of the twentieth century. Specifically, theoretical viewpoints and methodological preferences are recognized as culturally situated and subject to change over time. Despite these cultural influences, the third dimension of social realism, judgmental rationality, posits that competing knowledge claims can still be assessed based on rational intersubjective criteria (Maton and Moore 2010, 4). Bruce then distinguishes between two categories. The first is social genres, defined as conventionally recognized categories of whole texts that occur in particular contexts for certain audiences (p. 125), which sometimes involve formulaic patterns in the selection and staging of content. The second category is that of cognitive genres, i.e., segments of texts within larger social genres (cognitive because they involve the use of abstract, procedural knowledge). Cognitive genres realize particular general rhetorical purposes (e.g., arguing, explaining) that influence the micro-level organization of the text, relationships between propositions and linguistic choices. For instance, a personal letter, which is a social genre, might contain several cognitive genres (recounting facts, explanation, argumentation). The final section of the chapter offers a theoretical discussion of how genre-based pedagogy needs to adopt systematic approaches to helping students develop knowledge of and abilities to use genres as complex communicative forms. To do so, he argues, a clear articulation of the genre knowledge to be presented is required, and genre-based pedagogy needs to be implemented using image schemata. Bruce illustrates this by explaining that genre pedagogies can follow a linear progression (SOURCE PATH GOAL) or a more integrative and non-linear hierarchical progression (WHOLE PART/UP DOWN), which begins with presenting genres as operational wholes, then involves top-down analysis and practice. In the analysis phase of genres, students should be encouraged to “identify and deconstruct the contextual, organizational and linguistic features” (p. 129) of the text or sample of texts, before gradually producing new examples of these texts,, without losing track of the genre as a whole. As Bruce argues, a progressive, top-down unpacking of multiple layers of knowledge through social realism can help understand complex discursive and textual categories and, as such, integrate a range of different types of knowledge.

9In chapter 6, entitled “Critical Realism: What Can It Do for EAP?”, Julia Molinari’s purpose is to describe the framework of critical realist theory and how it can be used to account for transformations in the field of EAP. To this end, Molinari first explains the history of EAP by introducing the concept of retroduction, which proposes an explanatory rather than causal account of social phenomena, which are said to emerge rather than result from structures and mechanisms. For example, the emergence EAP can be explained in three different terms. In linguistic and pedagogical terms, as a field devoted to helping students succeed; in ideological terms, as a market for international students; and in sociological terms, with EAP being both a field of study and a pedagogical service. This approach, known as abduction, helps obtain a multitude of interconnected ways of understanding what seems to be a single but complex phenomenon, offering a more complete account than solely deductive reasoning which could lead to incomplete explanations. Molinari then uses a memorable metaphor for EAP, comparing it with a “hermit crab” (p. 139) which has no shell and is thus vulnerable to the elements. Similarly to the animal, because of tensions between its identity as a field and institutional struggles, EAP tends to crawl under the shell of identifying as either “a ‘service’ offered by university libraries” (p. 139) or ‘support’ for students in English language departments or private language centres. This leads to a fragmentation of identities and has practical consequences across the field. In the following section, Molinari introduces critical realism, a philosophical and sociological theory that posits that although humans are constrained by history and the social structures they are born into and change can be difficult to enact, social structures can also be transformed despite their ontological stability. For example, students can take alternative tests or comply with this one until they are in a position to challenge the system. In the field of EAP, Ding and Bruce (2017, 158–61) have demonstrated how practitioners can utilize their agency to resist the commodification, casualization, and marginalization of EAP within the UK academia. By recognizing these “levers of change”, EAP practitioners, as active agents, can be empowered to influence and reshape the socio-economic structures that both sustain and pose challenges to the EAP industry. To show how relevant critical realism is to EAP, Molinari introduces a three-tier classification from this model: first, the micro-level, i.e., the empirical, where subjective events and experiences happen; then, the meso-level, which corresponds to the actual, the domain where events may or may not take place, such as the theoretical approaches to EAP; finally, the macro-level, that is to say the REAL, which corresponds to deep structures and mechanisms—for example, in the context of EAP, laws and policies and the gender and racial gaps that prevent social mobility. In the remainder of Chapter 6, Molinari applies this three-tiered classification to account for the apparent contradictions in EAP as a field. At macro level, she explains, the ideology of English is inherently linked to that of a capitalist economic imperative; at the actual/meso level, EAP is not seen as—nor does it see itself as—anything other than a service industry—but there is potential for change. Finally, at empirical/micro level, the field tends to focus on grammatical accuracy and transferable skills. The chapter ends by concluding that critical realism can provide a conceptual and practical toolkit to help transform EAP across these three dimensions.

10The seventh chapter of the book, written by Alex Ding, is entitled “Bourdieu and Field Analysis: EAP and its Practitioners”. Its purpose is to propose an analysis of EAP as a field using Bourdieu’s network of conceptual tools, namely field, habitus and capital, and to convince practitioners that EAP needs much more sociological reflexivity, based on previous work that examines how the lives of EAP practitioners affect their status, roles, positions and practices). Ding focuses on field practitioners and EAP centers in the UK. He first recalls that in Bourdieu’s view, EAP is, as any other field, is a structured social space with agents (people and institutions) who dominate others and who are dominated, struggling to transform or preserve the field and harnessing their own power. In the case of EAP, there is a lack of autonomy because of changes in higher education, which is increasingly subjected to the economic and political yoke of neoliberalism. This is linked to the commercialization of teaching and managerial assessment of universities (especially through ranking), which has reduced the autonomy of the field. Ding first mentions the difficulties faced by EAP practitioners and centres because of the constraints that bear on them to generate profit. Because of the overall struggle for economic capital in higher education, EAP, he explains, is positioned as a service rather than an academic endeavor. He describes power relations between practitioners and EAP center directors. The latter have social and economic capital, which gives them power over practitioners and can lead them to show a lack of support for research endeavors that practitioners might undertake. Ding then moves on to practitioner habitus, highlighting that because the conditions of access to EAP are vague—as there is no specific qualification for access to the field—there tends to be a mismatch between the field and the habitus. Regarding linguistic capital and EAP practitioners’ habitus as language educators, EAP practitioners are perceived as “sub-academic language fixes” who merely provide service to the disciplines, which, he argues, is also related to students becoming consumers. Ding then highlights the complexity that can be seen in the relationship between practitioners and scholarship. The mercantile orientation and the need for time and resource to engage with EAP research alone cannot explain the lack of engagement with EAP research, as even when resources and conditions are favorable, Ding remarks, many EAP practitioners tend not to engage with it. This can be explained through the concept of hysteresis, defined as a lag between habitus and field changes. Although there has been recent emphasis on engagement with scholarship, Ding explains that there are however more orthodox ways of obtaining distinction, power and economic capital in EAP, by developing a range of skills (for example, in digital technology or assessment), developing course materials or taking on course leadership in institutions. Some practitioners may even tend to reject more academic identities to conform to the neoliberal doxa and dismiss scholarship, Ding argues.

11Chapter 8, “Ethnography: Expanding the boundaries in EAP”, discusses ethnographic approaches to EAP. Haynes Collins and Adrian Holliday first discuss the nature of ethnography and its potential contribution to EAP, especially to raise critical language awareness. The ethnographic possibilities for EAP are examined through a creative non-fictional study of three students who, over the course of roughly an academic year, begin to develop an ethnographic perspective and critical language awareness as they observe and navigate their lives within the university and a shared hall of residence. Their observations are not always tied to specific ethnographic assignments, as their EAP practitioner has deliberately chosen to expand the learning focus beyond traditional EAP boundaries. As a result, not all of the students’ reflections are centered on academic practices or writing specifically. The specific type of ethnography chosen here is creative nonfiction, which is based on ethnographic reconstructions to make data and themes emerge, in this case in a UK higher education context. This perhaps unfamiliar methodology offers the reader new perspectives into the students’ experience of EAP courses and more generally academic lives. One salient finding is that the discussions between the three students offer insight into the student experience, especially that of international students, which tends to contraict the image of international students marketed by the university. To conclude, the authors argue that it is only through an ethnographic approach to understanding how academic writing is situated within the broader discourses of the university and society that EAP practitioners can bridge the gap between text and context (Lillis 2008). This approach emphasizes that academic writing involves far more than grammar.

12The ninth and final chapter of this volume is “Feminism: Affordances and Applications for EAP” by Yolanda Cerda. The aim of this chapter is to advocate for feminism(s) as a productive theoretical framework or lens for analyzing English for academic purposes. This approach is grounded in a political focus on understanding power dynamics and their related inequalities in a field that has faced criticism for its limited engagement and for treating texts as autonomous objects (Hyland 2018). The first section of chapter 9 provides an overview of feminism, emphasizing the critical feminist approach which is adopted here. Cerda then reviews the feminist and gender approaches to EAP, which are scant but offer critical perspectives. Cerda identifies a number of key themes that have been explored, such as the re-examination of teaching praxis, advocating for more collaborative approaches to academic writing—which is usually seen as a form of verbal “assault”—or reflecting on the concept of voice in academia, and attention to power relations. In the following section, Cerda adopts a feminist critical discourse analytical (FCDA) perspective to examine a segment of Navigating Academia: Writing Supporting Genres (Swales and Feak 2011), to demonstrate how the FCDA lens can reveal hidden aspects that could be explored when introducing students to the conventions of academic practice. Statements of purpose for course applications are analyzed. It is striking, Cerda argues, that the choice of student examples is both stereotypical and gendered. While the male student is depicted discussing a sports injury in an application to a STEM course, the female student is portrayed describing how she overcame her own hesitation by asking a question at a social science conference. Although both example texts share some features, such as a narrative structure, some linguistic characteristics also differ between the male and female students. This example is used by Cerda to support the idea that more attention should be drawn to gender and other elements of identity, for EAP practitioners to interrogate their beliefs about students and pedagogical practices. To conclude this chapter, Cerda opens the discussion with a series of questions, which include the following: “Is the production and consumption of knowledge and learning in EAP gendered? How do equality discourses in HE interact with EAP theoretically and practically? Is EAP labour gendered, and, if so, (how) is this reflected in terms of employment conditions? What is the proportion of male to female practitioners, and how does this compare in different subject disciplines?” (p. 216). A point of particular interest in chapter 9 is its experimental writing style, as the academic discussion is interspersed with personal notes showing the author’s own writing process and personal reflections on what appears to be a highly personal topic.

13Overall, the volume on social theory in EAP is a stimulating book, which opens the field to underexamined frameworks and methodologies. The variety of approaches presented offers a captivating glimpse of the ways social theory could be operationalized theoretically and methodologically in EAP research in various contexts. This volume covers many approaches to social theory, which some readers and EAP practitioners might not be familiar with—one could say that they lack the cultural capital required to fully grasp the frameworks presented in the different chapters—which makes the volume arduous to read at times. Similarly, the strong theoretical orientation of the volume requires high levels of engagement on the part of the reader, who might not be familiar with some of the sociology references cited. Although all authors strive to illustrate their points using concrete examples and stress the practice-oriented dimension of their positions, some of the concepts might at times appear highly abstract and difficult to integrate into practice. Despite these challenges, which only reflect the ambitious goals set for this volume, Social Theory for English for Academic Purposes offers invaluable insight into sociological perspectives for EAP and the volume is sure to inspire many reflections and discussions for both EAP researchers and practitioners.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bazerman, Charles, and Prior, Paul. (Eds.). 2003. What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. London: Routledge.

Bernstein, Basil. 1990. Class, Codes and Control, Volume IV: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge.

Burke, Kenneth. 1967. The Philosophy of Literary Form. Oakland: University of California Press.

Coleman, Lynn. 2012. “Incorporating the Notion of Recontextualization in Academic Literacies Research: The Case of a South African Vocational Web Design and Development Course”. Higher Education Research and Development 31(3): 325–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.631519

Bhatia, Vijay Kumar. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.

Devitt, Amy. J. 2004. Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.

Ding, Alex, and Ian Bruce. 2017. The English for Academic Purposes Practitioner. Operating on the Edge of Academia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hyland, Ken. 2018. “Sympathy for the Devil? A Defence of EAP”. Language Teaching 51(3): 383–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000101

Hyland, Ken, and Feng Jiang. 2019. “Points of Reference: Changing Patterns of Academic Citation.” Applied Linguistics 40(1), 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx012

Lea, Mary and Brian Street. 1998. “Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach’” Studies in Higher Education 23 (2): 157–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364

Lillis, Theresa. 2001. Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge.

Lillis, Theresa. 2008. “Ethnography as Method, Methodology and “Deep Theorising””: Closing the Gap between Text and Context in Academic Writing Research’. Written Communication 25 (3): 353–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308319229

Moore, Rob, and Karl Maton. 2010. Social Realism, Knowledge and the Sociology of Education: Coalitions of the Mind. London: Continuum.

Martin, James Robert. 2004. “Genre and Literacy”. In Literacy: Major Themes in Education, 3, edited by David Wray, 297–325. Abingdon: Routledge/Falmer.

Miller, Carolyn R. 1994. Genre as Social Action. In Genre in the New Rhetoric, edited by Aviva Freedman, and Peter Medway. London: Routledge.

Parsons, Talcott. 1964. Social Structure and Personality. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, John M. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., and Christine B. Feak. 2011. Navigating Academia: Writing Supporting Genres. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J. M., and Christine B. Feak. 2012. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, vol. 1, 3rd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Turner, Joan. 2004. “Language as Academic Purpose”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00054-7

Turner, Joan. 2011. Language in the Academy: Cultural Reflexivity and Intercultural Dynamics. Bristol: Multilingual matters.

Wingate, Ursula. 2012. ‘Using Academic Literacies and Genre-based Models for Academic Writing Instruction: A “Literacy” Journey’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (1): 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Manon Bouyé, « Alex Ding and Michelle Evans, Social Theory for English for Academic Purposes. Foundations and Perspective.  »ASp, 86 | 2024, 173-182.

Référence électronique

Manon Bouyé, « Alex Ding and Michelle Evans, Social Theory for English for Academic Purposes. Foundations and Perspective.  »ASp [En ligne], 86 | 2024, mis en ligne le 18 novembre 2024, consulté le 17 décembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/asp/9240 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/12ry7

Haut de page

Auteur

Manon Bouyé

Université Jean Moulin

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search