{"id":5140,"date":"2026-07-10T17:38:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T15:38:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/matbury.com\/wordpress\/?p=5140"},"modified":"2026-07-12T15:07:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T13:07:05","slug":"addressing-the-disconnect-pre-sessional-eap-instruction-vs-functional-disciplinary-language-requirements-in-humanities-social-sciences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/matbury.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/2026\/07\/10\/addressing-the-disconnect-pre-sessional-eap-instruction-vs-functional-disciplinary-language-requirements-in-humanities-social-sciences\/","title":{"rendered":"Addressing the disconnect: Pre-sessional EAP instruction vs. functional disciplinary language requirements in humanities & social sciences"},"content":{"rendered":"

Haga clic aqu\u00ed para la traducci\u00f3n al espa\u00f1ol (Google Translate)<\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Preparation courses for students entering English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) programmes need to address a common misalignment between English for Academic Purposes (EAP) pre-sessional preparation vs. disciplinary expectations. While EAP tuition (& therefore students) often focus on abstract communicative & linguistic competence & related vocabulary & grammar, frequently addressed in explicitly form-focused activities, disciplinary tutors prioritise situated, contextualised, functional language use, e.g. argumentation, justification, & dialogic knowledge construction in the specific genres & registers of their respective disciplines (Dippold et al., 2020). In EMI contexts, this gap is particularly apparent in the humanities & social sciences, e.g. philosophy, history, English literature, anthropology, economics, & applied linguistics, where meaning is interpretative, contested, & negotiated through co-constructed discourse.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this summary, I will examine the genre family of student-led seminars, a common instructional format in humanities & social sciences, which are therefore central for students to learn to co-construct knowledge & acculturate themselves into their respective disciplinary discourse communities. Faculty require that students participate in extended, negotiated discourse & deploy discipline-specific linguistic resources, particularly discourse-organising patterns (rhetorical moves) & formulaic phrases, to construct & position their knowledge (Aguilar, 2016; Basturkmen, 2002). This summary will address two particularly prominent aspects of seminar participation: discourse patterns & formulaic phrases.<\/p>\n

Framework for analysis<\/h3>\n

To this end, a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theoretical lens provides a comprehensive framework for analysing seminar discourse as contextualised, situated, purposeful speech, focusing on the following dimensions of meaning-making:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Ideational<\/strong>: constructing philosophical concepts & arguments;<\/li>\n
  • Interpersonal<\/strong>: expressing stance, agreement, disagreement, & evaluation;<\/li>\n
  • Textual<\/strong>: organising discourse coherently & cohesively across turns.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Text genre & purpose<\/h3>\n

    Seminar discourse in humanities & social sciences is a dialogic, student-led spoken genre family grounded in the principles of the Socratic method. Its instructional purpose is to move learners from novice to expert thinking by engaging them in collaborative reasoning, critique, & problematisation (Aguilar, 2016). Unlike monologic genres, such as lectures, seminars:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Emphasise multi-party interaction & turn-taking;<\/li>\n
    • Require real-time processing & response;<\/li>\n
    • Position students as co-constructors of disciplinary knowledge (Charles & Pecorari, 2016).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      However, EAP students face barriers including:<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Limited access to interactional norms, i.e. How seminar discussions typically unfold in terms of dialogic rhetorical moves;<\/li>\n
      • Difficulty managing disagreement while maintaining face, i.e. understanding & having command of the appropriate expressions, e.g. how to concede or affirm, & when & how to use them;<\/li>\n
      • Reduced confidence & lacking the necessary fluency to participate in high-stakes EMI environments (Aguilar, 2016; Dippold et al., 2020).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Genre features: Seminar discourse patterns<\/h3>\n

        Within SFL, seminar interaction can be modelled through exchange structure, particularly the Initiation^ Response^ Feedback<\/i> (IRF) & the extended Initiation^ Response^ {Feedback as initiation^ Response^}<\/i>*<\/i> (IR {F\/IR}) discourse patterns. This aligns with empirical findings that seminar discourse is structured but flexible, with recurrent & recursive patterns that support negotiated meaning-making (Basturkmen, 2002).<\/p>\n

        * Curly brackets ‘{}’ denote that the stages may be recursive & result in extended to-and-fro exchanges.<\/em><\/p>\n

        Simple pattern: Initiation^ Response^ Feedback<\/i> (IRF)<\/h4>\n

        The IRF sequence represents relatively common exchanges (about two thirds), which reflects exchange of pre-formed ideas rather than deep co-construction (Basturkmen, 2002):<\/p>\n