Abstract
Literacy, knowledge and meaning are not neutral domains and the processes of knowledge creation and meaning making are situated in societal realities that are shot through with ideology and power relations. Institutional beliefs and practices pertinent to EMI and EAP are strongly influenced by different conceptualizations of academic literacy. Also important is the fact that EMI and EAP programs cannot be thoroughly understood without an appreciation of the complicity of ideology, power and social surveillance on policy decisions concerning medium of instruction. Through this discussion, it will become apparent that the concerns of EMI and EAP are not just over language per se but also over the manner in which language and different understandings of academic literacy are implicated in the enactment and perpetuation of dominant hegemonies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Apple, M. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Aspinall, R. (2012). International education policy in Japan in an age of globalisation and risk. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies. London: Routledge.
Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723–738.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brandt, D. (1990). Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers, readers, and texts. Carobondale: Southern Illinois University.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Addressing issues of power and difference in ESL academic writing. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 117–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualisations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 71–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Globalisation and pedagogy: Space, place and identity. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman Pearson.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (trans. from French by A. Sheridan). New York: Vintage Books.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary edition). New York: Continuum.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.
Hyland, K. (1996). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1997). Is EAP necessary? A survey of Hong Kong undergraduates. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 7, 77–99.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman Pearson.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Lea, M. (1999). Academic literacies and learning in higher education: Constructing knowledge through texts and experience’. In C. Jones, J. Turner, & B. Street (Eds.), Students writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (2000). Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: An academic literacies approach. In M. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds.), Student writing in higher education (pp. 32–46). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Lillis, T. (1999). Whose ‘common sense’? Essayist literacy and the institutional practice of mystery. In C. Jones, J. Turner, & B. Street (Eds.), Students writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lillis, T., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 57–68.
McVeigh, B. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Nozaki, Y. (2008). War memory, nationalism and education in postwar Japan, 1945–2007: The Japanese history textbook controversy and Ienaga Saburo’s court’s challenges. London: Routledge.
Phipps, A., & Guilherme, M. (2004). Why languages and intercultural communication are never just neutral. In A. Phipps & M. Guilherme (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Political approaches to language and intercultural communication (pp. 1–6). Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in heory and ractice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toh, G. (2012). Having English as a resource for multicultural understanding: Exploring possibilities in Japanese ELT. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(3), 301–311.
Toh, G. (2013c). Where realities confront ideals: The personal, professional, philosophical and political in the teaching of academic English in a Japanese setting. Policy Futures in Education, 11(5), 589–605.
Toh, G. (2013d). Towards a critically and dialogically mediated EAP. Asian EFL Journal Special Edition, 15(4), 211–229.
Toh, G. (2014a). English for content instruction in a Japanese higher education setting: Examining challenges, contradictions and anomalies. Language and Education, 28(4), 299–318.
Toh, G. (2014b). English for academic purposes in Japan: Wherefore and where to? In D. D. Qian & L. Li (Eds.), Teaching and learning English in Asian Universities: Global visions and local practices (pp. 402–414). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Toh, G. (2014c). The cosmetics of teaching English as an international language in Japan: Critical reflection. In R. Marlina & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers, and students (pp. 175–188). London: Springer International.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 45–58.
Williams, R. (1989). Hegemony and the selective tradition. In S. de Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority and criticism: Readings on the school textbook (pp. 56–60). London: Falmer Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Toh, G. (2016). Literacy, Knowledge and Meaning Construction: Implications for EMI and EAP. In: English as Medium of Instruction in Japanese Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39705-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39705-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39704-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39705-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)