Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio-political dynamics of EAP

Abstract This article highlights the potential of academic literacies as a theoretical framework for EAP, encompassing not only work on texts, but the wider, socio-political, geopolitical, and institutional contexts and practices in and with which EAP operates. An academic literacies approach foregrounds social practices, and one particular practice, that has become socio-politically and ethically sensitive with regard to student writing in English in the contemporary university is that of ‘proofreading’. The article looks specifically at the reception of students’ writing by professors in the humanities and social sciences, and the ambivalent and contestatory role that proofreading plays within this.

[1]  Robyn Woodward-Kron,et al.  Tensions in the writing support consultation: negotiating meanings in unfamiliar territory , 2007 .

[2]  Mary R. Lea,et al.  Lecturers' everyday writing as professional practice in the university as workplace: new insights into academic identities , 2009 .

[3]  Janet Whitcut,et al.  The Complete Plain Words , 1989 .

[4]  S. Benesch.  Theorizing and practicing critical english for academic purposes , 2009 .

[5]  Joan Turner.  Language in the Academy: Cultural Reflexivity and Intercultural Dynamics. Languages for Intercultural Communication and Education. , 2010 .

[6]  Alastair Pennycook,et al.  Vulgar Pragmatism, Critical Pragmatism, and EAP. , 1997 .

[7]  D. Allison.  Pragmatist discourse and english for academic purposes , 1996 .

[8]  T. Lillis,et al.  Professional Academic Writing by Multilingual Scholars , 2006 .

[9]  R. Ivanič.  Writing and identity , 1998 .

[10]  Nigel Harwood,et al.  Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing , 2004 .

[11]  B. Street.  Literacy in Theory and Practice , 1984 .

[12]  S. Benesch.  ESL, Ideology, and the Politics of Pragmatism , 1993 .

[13]  Theresa Lillis,et al.  Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire , 2001 .

[14]  K. Hyland,et al.  Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks , 1994 .

[15]  Nigel Harwood,et al.  Ethics and Integrity in Proofreading: Findings from an Interview-Based Study. , 2010 .

[16]  Joan Turner.  Rewriting writing in higher education: the contested spaces of proofreading , 2011 .

[17]  Joan Turner.  Academic Literacy and the Discourse of Transparency , 1999 .

[18]  Nigel Harwood,et al.  Proofreading in a UK university: Proofreaders’ beliefs, practices, and experiences , 2009 .

[19]  Robyn Woodward-Kron,et al.  Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing , 2002 .

[20]  Mary Lea,et al.  Academic literacies: a pedagogy for course design , 2004 .

[21]  S. Benesch,et al.  Critical English for academic purposes , 2001 .

[22]  Maggie Charles,et al.  Adverbials of Result: Phraseology and Functions in the Problem-Solution Pattern. , 2011 .

[23]  R. Woodward‐Kron,et al.  Negotiating meanings and scaffolding learning: writing support for non‐English speaking background postgraduate students , 2007 .

[24]  H. W. Fowler.  A Dictionary of Modern English Usage , 1926 .

[25]  K. Hyland,et al.  Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing , 2001 .

[26]  D. Allison.  Response to Pennycook: Whether, why and how , 1998 .

[27]  L. Thesen,et al.  Academic literacy and the languages of change , 2006 .

[28]  James A. Holstein,et al.  The active interview , 1995 .

[29]  Mary Lea,et al.  Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach , 1998 .

[30]  Hilary Nesi,et al.  Variation in disciplinary culture: university tutors’ views on assessed writing tasks , 2006 .

[31]  Joan Turner.  Supporting Academic Literacy: Issues of Proofreading and Language Proficiency , 2010 .

[32]  Jane Cogie,et al.  Avoiding the Proofreading Trap: The Value of the Error Correction Process , 1999, Writing Center Journal.