Specificity and EAP

What differentiates EAP from general English language is the focus on the use of English for specific purposes. According to Cummins (1982), texts for specific purposes use ‘context-reduced’ language, whose coherence is less dependent on the immediate context in comparison to general English. The specificity of EAP has resulted in the development of some key concepts attributed to this area of English education, including genre and discourse analysis, communicative message, authen- ticity and discourse community. While the specificity is a fundamental aspect of any definition proposed for EAP, controversy remains over how specific EAP should be. Hyland (2016) proposes that the degree of specificity can be seen as two positions

at the end of a continuum. At one end of this continuum is the ‘common-core’ approach to EAP (Bloor and Bloor, 1986), one which includes teaching language forms and study skills common to all disciplines (English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP)), while at the other is a more tailored instruction based on spe- cific discipline needs (English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP)). The EGAP approach claims that, after learning the generic features of academic English, stu- dents are then able to apply this knowledge independently to their discipline-specific needs. This generic academic approach has informed many EAP programmes, no- tably those preparatory courses (e.g. pre-sessional) offered prior to degree courses, which prepare students for a degree programme. While many EAP practitioners propose that an EAP course tailored to the specific needs of a subject or discipline is the most successful of this type (e.g. Hyland, 2002; Sloan & Porter, 2010), ar- guments that advocate employing a generic approach also exist. Hyland (2002), for instance, suggests four reasons why EGAP is preferable.

Firstly, some advocate that EAP tutors cannot effectively identify and teach discipline-specific material, and should therefore mainly provide generic input. Sec- ondly, it is believed that discipline-specific English is difficult for those non-native speakers of English who are at lower proficiency levels, and thus, there is a need for a more general academic English suitable for all disciplines to be assimilated before exposing students to more sophisticated and esoteric discourse. Thirdly, a discipline-specific approach to EAP can potentially de-professionalize EAP tutors and lower the status of EAP provision, for such programmes may solely be con- sidered as a support service to other departments; or, as Raimes (1991) suggests, ‘the butler’s stance’. Finally, as mentioned earlier, an EGAP approach claims that there are generic academic English skills that are transferable across all disciplines. Such common-core knowledge includes listening to lectures and note-taking, writing essays, participating in tutorials, reading textbooks and articles, and examination practice (Dudley-Evans and St John 1998: 41). Such variation, however, does not seem to exist in language forms, functions and the discourse of specific disciplines, thus reducing the need for an ESAP approach (Hutchison and Waters 1987: 165).

As mentioned earlier, while acknowledging the benefits of EGAP, many EAP prac- titioners indicate that EAP provision is mostly effective when tailored to meet spe- cific needs in different disciplines. Hyland (2013), for example, argues that subject specialists are neither familiar with literacy skills nor willing to take responsibil- ity for students’ literacy. In addition, students do not necessarily learn a second language in a step-by-step fashion; rather, they tend to learn those properties of language for which they have an immediate need (Ellis, 1999). In fact, given the

extensive research on discourse and genre analysis, it seems unreasonable to deprive EAP content of disciplinary features.

As for the common-core hypothesis, it is a simplistic approach to define a finite list of common language functions and generalize that across all disciplines, since many functions are heavily dependent on their contexts of use. By incorporating ‘meaning into the common core, however, we are led to the notion of specific vari- eties of academic discourse, and to the consequence that learning should take place within these varieties’ (Hylandet al., 2016; p.20). Indeed, it is not even clear what comprises such common-core knowledge. In a study conducted by Krause (2014), 50 academics were interviewed regarding their views on generic skills; the findings showed many discrepancies between disciplines. Moreover, narrowing the focus on EAP course content to students’ disciplinary needs motivates students, as it enables them to see the immediate relevance to their course content. Equally, treating cer- tain items (e.g. academic word lists) universally, while they have different meanings and uses in different disciplinary contexts, can mislead students to a great extent (Hyland & Tse, 2007). The so-called ‘wide-angle’ view of EAP, therefore, follows a deficit model, in which EAP programmes constitute remedial services, providing support to those students who struggle ‘with the conventions of their disciplines because of their imperfect acquisition of English at school or because they are using these conventions in a second language’ (Hyland, 2016; p.20). An ESAP context, where teachers are required to develop understanding of a specific discipline, en- ables the growth of literacy specialists, whose time and effort in understanding and researching the conventions of the discipline will ultimately be acknowledged by the corresponding departments. This will inevitably add to the credibility of EAP providers within HE institutions.