Can some one explain the meaning of this passage? and how different examples relate to each other. EAP and Social Context We now turn attention to research that investigates EAP in its wider social context, including its position as a set of social practices both within institutions and globally. Early work of this type focused on academic discourse as a socially constructed phenomenon and on the student's socialization into the disciplinary community (Bazerman 1 988; Berkenkotter and Huckin 1 995) . More recent studies have employed a variety of approaches, often combining methods to shed light on the social dimensions of EAP practices. Thus Hyland ( 2009) uses corpus investigation together with interview data to examine engagement, as does Pecorari (2008) , who investigates source use and plagiarism. Discourse - based interviews are also employed by Harwood (2009) to look at citation and by Kwan (2009) to elucidate the reading practices of doctoral students.

Does any one teach ESP or EAP? or had the experienced of that? Hi, I'm looking forward to finding an EAP/ESP teacher. I have several questions. If you are one, kindly comment down below. Thanks

Can any one tell me the meaning of this passage? clarify it more just. It is a specialized text. EAP(English For Academic Purposes) teachers recognize that there are dangers in this approach. Prestigious genres are often associated with precedent and proper procedure and this means that they represent an elite of expertise and power. So by ‘helping students to develop their academic communicative competence’ teachers may be simultaneously stifling students’creativity and sacrificing their academic identities to the genres and discourses authorized by the academy.But while academic study privileges certain ways of making meanings and marginalizes others,this is a large part of what disciplinary engagement and participation in the work of an academic community actually mean. Ideas are negotiated within discoursal constraints which help define the boundaries of disciplines and establish valid contributions and argument. We can also argue,however,that an understanding of the genres of the powerful not only provides access to those genres, and so redistributes valued literacy resources, but also allows users to see how they represent the interests of the powerful (Christie, 1987; Hyland, 2004). A pragmatic stance does not, therefore, exclude criticism or imply conformity (Allison, 1996). A pragmatic pedagogy has the potential for helping students to reflect on and critique the ways in which knowledge and information are organized and constructed in their disciplines. Wider understandings of influence and interests in the academy are developed not only by openly challenging existing structures but by studying texts in a comparative and questioning way which explores the relationship between disciplinary practices, institutional contexts and rhetorical preferences.

Hi guys, please share your thoughts about this quote with me

Can any one explain the parts marked with '+'? The concept of the speech community is also somewhat abstract because the particular norms that a community uses may or may not be exclusively linguistic in nature, and along with norms about particular linguistic variables and their social meanings and values, +these norms involve evaluations of ways that language is used as well+. One example of how discourse patterns maybe significant within a speech community is found in Hymes(2004). +He presents analyses of narratives from various native American groups, showing how, even when they are produced in English, there are distinctive features which can be traced back to narrative structures in the Native American languages. in other words, such speakers use English in special ways to maintain their separate identities within the dominant English-speaking community+. Are these two paragraphs trying to convey the same thing? I am confused, I think it tries to say that particular ways of speaking can lead to form certain ideologies. I mean , every speech community has some ideas for themselves, exclusively in terms of how to speak that language. They evaluate and mark other speakers based on their norms if they are not follow them. But I can't understand the next paragraph. Does it want to say the same thing? That every speech community wants to demarcate themselves by special ways of speaking that language?

Can any one tell me the correct answer with a explanation? At first I didn't like my job, but ......to enjoy it now. 1)I'm begining 2)I begin Is it '2' the correct choice? If yes can you tell me why? And the adverb 'now' here doesn't have any influence in choice 1?

Can any professional teacher finally help me with this question? This question is a part of a Cloze passage from MA exam Nealson and Hastings knew the light resulted from chemical reactions........ by the enzyme luciferase. 1)catalyzed 2)were catalyzed 3)was catalyzed 4)when catalyzed The answer key says (1) , because the sentence is in the past form and not in passive . But I can't understand how it knows!. When I want to answer this question I make it complete like this " Nealson and Hastings knew the light which was resulted from chemical reactions was catalyzed by the enzyme luciferase." I mean the adjective clause when begins is in the passive form so how the rest of the sentence shouldn't be in the passive form. The only time I can persuade my self that the choice 1 is correct is in this form . "Which was resulted from chemical reactions that was catalyzed". I really have problem with this sentence and no one really break it down for me .please if you can tell me how can I select the right answer in these situations.

Is this right? Perfect is sir Although the "to be" verb are state verbs and are like an equal sign, I think it's wrong to say "perfect is sir" cause I think "adjective and a noun must go together without any interuption". Furthermore, here we are not describing the 'man' . Am I right? Instead we can say : perfect sir or you are perfect

Can any one tell me the explanation behind these choices? 1. We're ____________________. 1)teaching English. 2)being teach English. 3)being taught English. 4)having been taught. I think if the question was "we are" we could choose "1" but in this form I think it is "3" 2. We're still angry about ____________________. 1)having lied to. 2)having lying to. 3)have been lied to. 4)having been lied to. I think "1" because both are in the same tense Why can't we say "I felt great to have been done that" Also why can't we say "It wasn't easy to have been done that" When should wr use "geround and infinitive perfect?" Is my interpretation wrong? "We done sth hard in the past so It wasn't easy to have been done that"