Academic Writing: Critics of the Traditional EAP Approach
https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-2-92-103
Abstract
Through the analysis of the positions taken in the discussion on Academic Writing, the article shows that the experience of Academic Writing adopted from Anglo-Saxon educational practices in many Russian universities is based on the traditional EAP (English for Academic Purposes) methods which have been systematically criticized for text-centricity and cultural universalism. The critical revision of the traditional EAP methods requires implementing a discourse analytical approach and cultural relativism in Academic Writing course. A review of critical studies on Academic Writing concludes that the criticism of the traditional EAP methods is developed on the basis of concepts worked in the Russian rhetoric tradition by researchers of the Bakhtin circle. The article points out that in the Russian educational context the EAP experience is to be implemented through a discourse analytical approach that has been adopted in the EAP practices in response to criticism. The concepts developed in the Russian rhetorical tradition are required to apply a discourse analytical approach in the Academic Writing course in Russian universities.
About the Author
S. A. Sheypak
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana A. Sheypak – Cand. Sci. (Education), Assoc. Prof.
6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198
References
1. Korotkina, I.B. (2018). Academic Writing in Russia: The Urge for Interdisciplinary Studies. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 64-74. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-10-64-74 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
2. Bazanova, E.M., Korotkina, I.B. (2017). Russian Writing Centers Consortium. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 4, pp. 50-57. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
3. Bryan, A., Volchenkova, K.N. (2017). Practical Challenges of the Center of Academic Writing in Russia: South Ural State University Experience. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Obrazovanie. Pedagogicheskie nauki = Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Education. Educational Sciences. Vol. 9, no.1, pp. 36-41. DOI: 10.14529/ped170105
4. Hyland, K. (2018). Sympathy for the Devil? A Defence of EAP. Language Teaching. Vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 383-399. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444818000101
5. Korotkina, I.В. (2013). Academic Writing: On the Way to Interdisciplinary Unity. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 3, pp. 136-142. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
6. Chuikova, E.S. (2016). Academic Writing: Relevant Content for Russia. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 12, pp. 59-67. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
7. Osipova, E.N., Pogrebnaya, I.F. (2016). Improvement of Academic Writing Technologies: Stages of Writing Essay. Perevod i sopostavitel’naya lingvistika [Translation and Contrastive Linguistics]. No. 12, pp. 152-154. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
8. Dobrynina, O.L. (2018). Problems of Academic Writing: Lexical Errors, Their Causes and Correction Strategies. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 75-83. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-10-75-83. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
9. Popova, N.G. (2015). Introductions to Science Research Papers: Basic Principles, Structure and Composition. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 6, pp. 52-58. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
10. Kolesnikova, N.I., Ridnaya, Yu.V. (2016). The Genre Model of a Scientific Paper in the Russian and English Languages. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 6, pp. 98-105. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
11. Prigozhina, K.B. (2015). Preparing Presentations for International Conferences. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 7, pp. 50-55. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
12. Bogolepova, S.V. (2016). Teaching Academic Writing: Process and Product. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 1, pp. 87-94. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
13. Bailey, S. (2014). Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students. London: Routledge, 260 p.
14. Dobrynina, O.L. (2015). Propaedeutics of Errors in Abstracts of Papers Written in Russian. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 2, pp. 42-50. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
15. Dobrynina, O.L. (2017). Grammar Errors in Academic Writing in English: Causes and Strategies of Correction. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 8/9, pp. 100-107. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
16. Kuznetsova, L.B., Suchkova, S.A. (2015). Active or Passive? “I” or “We?”. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 8-9. pp. 143-148. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
17. Kolesnikova, N.I. (2015). What is Important for Postgraduates to Know About the Academic Texts? Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 7. pp. 55-62. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
18. Dijk van, T.A. (2000). Yazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikatsiya [Language. Cognition. Communication: Collection of articles]. Transl. from Eng. Blagoveshchensk: BGK n.a. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay Publ., 308 p. (In Russ.)
19. Makovich, G.V. (2018). Development of the Academic Letters’ Competencies as a Tool for Implementation of the State Program for Increasing the Competitiveness of Science and Education. Voprosy Upravlenia = Management Issues. Vol. 1, pp. 12-18. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
20. Alen’kina, T.B. (2016). Rhetorical Component: From Experience of Teaching Academic Writing Course. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki = Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice. Vol. 1, pp. 174-176. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
21. Mileyeva, M.M. (2018). International and National in Academic Paper. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 114-120. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
22. Robotova, A.S. (2018). Skeptic’s Comment: What Questions ‘Academic Writing’ Does Not Answer. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 71-84. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-11-71-84. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
23. Venediktova, T.D. (2015). The Old New Discipline. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 3, pp. 152-157. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
24. Huckin, T.N. (2003). Specificity in LSP. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos. Vol. 5, pp. 3-18.
25. Swales, J.M. (1993). Genre and Engagement. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire. Vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 687-698.
26. Bruce, I. (2008). Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. 194 p.
27. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge, 270 p.
28. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 154 p.
29. Tardy, C. (2004). The Role of English in Scientific Communication: Lingua Franca or Tyrannosaurus Rex? Journal of English for academic purposes. Vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 247-269. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.10.001
30. Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar Pragmatism, Critical Pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 253-269. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00019-7
31. Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting Rhetorics/Contrasting Cultures: Why Contrastive Rhetoric Needs a Better Conceptualization of Culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 277-289. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002
32. McIntosh, K., Connor, U., Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What Intercultural Rhetoric Can Bring to EAP/ESP Writing Studies in an English as a Lingua Franca World. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 29, pp. 12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001
33. Helal, F. (2013). Discourse and Intercultural Academic Rhetoric. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp.149-156. DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2013.32020
34. Kachru, B.B. (1988). The Sacred Cows of English. English Today. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3-8. DOI: 10.1017/S0266078400000973
35. Busch-Lauer, I.A. (2002). Technical vs. Academic Writing in English – Any Difference for Non-native Writers? ASp. No. 37-38, pp. 37-46. DOI: 10.4000/asp.1454
36. Arosteguy, K.O., Bright, A., & Rinard, B.J. (2019). A Student’s Guide to Academic and Professional Writing in Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 208 p.
37. Kuypers, J.A., King A. (Eds). (2001). Twentieth-Century Roots of Rhetorical Studies. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 308 р.
38. Garret, M., Xiao, X. (1993). The Rhetorical Situation Revisited. Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 30-40.
39. Tyupa, V.I. (2011). [Metalinguistics as New Rhetoric]. In: Zenkin, S.N. (Ed). Intellektualnyiy yazyik epokhi [The Intellectual Language of the Epoch]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 192 p. (In Russ.)
40. Devitt, A.J. (2015). Genre Performances: John Swales’ Genre Analysis and Rhetorical-Linguistic Genre Studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 19. pp. 44-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.008
41. Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in Critical Discourse Analysis. Linguistics and Education. Vol. 4, pp. 269-293.
42. Voloshinov, V.N. [Discourse in Life and Discourse in Poetry]. In: Bakhtin М.М. Frejdizm. Formal’nyj metod v literaturovedenii. Marksizm i filo-sofija jazyka. Stat’i [Freudianism. The Formal Method in Literary Criticism. Marxism and the Philosophy of the Language. Articles]. Moscow: Labirint Publ., 640 p. (In Russ.)
Review
Views:
742
Email this article 