Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Forum

John Swales's approach to pedagogy in Genre Analysis:

A perspective from 25 years on*
John Flowerdew
City University, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is now 25 years since the publication of John Swales's seminal book, Genre Analysis:
Available online 18 March 2015 English in academic and research settings and it is a good time to take stock of the influence
of this book on language teaching. In this article, I review Swales's approach to the ped-
Keywords: agogic application of genre theory for language teaching and consider how some of his
John Swales major ideas might be developed in the light of present day theory. In the course of the
Genre analysis
discussion I also refer to Swales's own writing since Genre Analysis, where relevant. The
Genre
strands of pedagogic theory I consider are: Vygotskyan theory; genre relations; corpus-
Genre pedagogy
Vygotskyan theory
informed pedagogy; and English as a Lingua Franca.
Genre relations © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Corpus-informed pedagogy
English as a Lingua Franca

1. Introduction

John Swales's Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings (Swales, 1990) (henceforth Genre Analysis) has had a
tremendous effect on writing pedagogy, particularly in academic and, especially, research-related fields, but also more
broadly in the whole area of language pedagogy. In introducing the notion of genre as the basis for programme design and
classroom pedagogy, Swales led a move into new territory as far as the teaching of writing is concerned, away from ap-
proaches and issues which were prevalent at the time, such as process writing, organisation, revision, cohesion and coher-
ence, grammar, vocabulary, and error analysis (see e.g. papers in Kroll, 1990).
The first sentence of Genre Analysis states that ‘[t]he main aim of this book is to offer an approach to the teaching of
academic and research English’. In his second book in the same Cambridge University Press Applied Linguistics series,
Research Genres: Explorations and Applications (Swales, 2004), some 14 years later, the focus was no longer on pedagogy,
Swales now stating that “[he has] left more of the task of articulating the relation of genre to language learning and teaching
to others” (p. 4).1 He says this on the grounds that the genre-based approach to specialised language had become well
established and was no longer in need of justification. It is probably true to say that, since Genre Analysis, Swales's attention in
his publications and his reception in the Applied Linguistics research world has been more on the discourse analysis side of
his work than on pedagogy.2 Within discourse analysis, the aspect of Swales's work that has received most attention is his
CARS (Create a Research Space) model of the rhetorical structure of academic article introductions, as presented in Genre

*
I should like to acknowledge the helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers and of Zak Lancaster, the guest editor of this special issue.
E-mail address: enjohnf@cityu.edu.hk.
1
It should be pointed out however, that, in spite of this comment, the sections on the different research genres covered in the volume often conclude
with rather specific recommendations for pedagogy.
2
Swales's other monograph-length contribution, Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building (Swales, 1998), for example,
presents an approach to discourse analysis combining text analysis with ethnographic techniques, but with no particular focus on pedagogy.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.003
1475-1585/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112 103

Analysis. While the CARS model and the move analysis procedure for developing it is undoubtedly worthy of the attention that
it has gained, at the same time, Swales's contribution to pedagogy in Genre Analysis also needs to be acknowledged.
My purpose in this article is thus to occupy this niche. I will do this in two ways. First I will review what Swales has to say
about genre pedagogy in Genre Analysis e this in itself, I believe, will be an interesting exercise, some 25 years after the
volume's original publication; second, Swales himself having eschewed this option in his 2004 follow-up volume (Swales,
2004), I will consider potential developments of Swales's pedagogic ideas in Genre Analysis, also considering what Swales
has had to say, where he himself has commented elsewhere on the issues I discuss.

2. Swales's views on pedagogy in Genre Analysis

Swales's views on genre pedagogy are conveniently summarised in the first chapter of Genre Analysis. Following the first
sentence of the book, quoted above, stating that his aim is to offer an approach to the teaching of academic and research
English, Swales continues by explaining that his pedagogic approach makes use of three key concepts: discourse community,
genre, and language-learning task. He also states that the book:
[t]ries to show that a genre-centred approach offers a workable way of making sense of the myriad communicative
events that occur in the contemporary English-speaking academy e a sense-making directly relevant to those con-
cerned with devising English courses and, by extension, to those participating in such courses (p. 1).
He furthermore clarifies that the focus is primarily on “post-secondary academic English” and that he wants to get away
from a remediation approach to EAP. He wants to “try and build a bridge between English for Specific Purposes/Applied
Discourse Analysis on the one side and L1 writing/composition on the other” (p. 2) and he is concerned with academic English
“in first as well as second language contexts” (p. 8). The goal of a genre-based approach “is to arrive at sufficient under-
standing of academic discourse outside FL/ESL/L1 classrooms that language learning and development activities with them
can have appropriate shape and purposes” (p. 8). His approach, he argues, “rests on a pragmatic concern to help people, both
non-native and native speakers, to develop their academic communicative competence” (p. 9).
After the above description of the aims of Genre Analysis, making it abundantly clear that the purpose of the volume is
pedagogic, Swales goes on to describe the underpinnings of his theory. Genre Analysis is founded on the three key inter-
related notions of discourse community, genre, and task already referred to (pp. 9e10). These three concepts are elaborated
on in other articles in this special issue, so I will not elaborate on Swales's treatment of them here, except to say that Swales
emphasises how the three terms are inter-related: genres are the property of discourse communities, and the processing
procedures involved with genres can be considered as tasks. An important thread binding the three terms of discourse
community, genre and task is that of communicative purpose:
It is communicative purpose that drives the language activities of the discourse community; it is communicative
purpose that is the prototypical criterion for genre identity, and it is communicative purpose that operates as the
primary determinant of task (p. 10).
Chapters 2e4 of Genre Analysis are devoted to outlining in greater detail the three concepts of discourse community, genre
and task. In Chapter 4, Swales explains that the general framework for programme design should involve four inter-related
stages: ethnography; review of currently available instructional materials; discourse analysis; and methodology (p. 68). It is
worth noting here that this approach has become standard in EAP materials/programme development.3 At the end of Chapter
4, Swales provides an extended example of how the notion of task might be applied to pedagogic activities. The activities
focus on the area of academic correspondence (memos to dissertation committee members, request letters to academics
working elsewhere, and application letters for fellowships assistantships, travel funds, etc.), the rationale being that Swales
had noted that many students have difficulty with genres of this type, particularly with regard to organisation and phra-
seology.4 Swales noted that these genres were required by a group of international students he had identified who, given the
Anglophone turn in the international research community might end up as being part of “the lost generation” of researchers
with inadequate English rhetorical skills (p. 78). The Anglophone turn that Swales refers to here, of course, has become much
greater in the 25 years since Swales was writing (Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Pe
rez-Llantada,
2012; Tang, 2012).
The approach adopted by Swales towards fulfilling this mentoring goal is demonstrated with three short (authentic)
request-for-papers letters.5 In collaboration with the teacher, students are required to perform the following tasks:

1. compare and contrast (discourse) features of the three texts

2. discuss how to improve the texts to make them more effective and get a better response
3. evaluate the appropriateness of various rewordings

3
It is true that Swales does not include needs analysis in his curriculum model (and indeed this term is not used at all in Genre Analysis), but the
ethnography stage can be considered as a particular approach to that procedure.
4
It is to be noted that these tasks would mostly be conducted by email nowadays.
5
Again, these would most likely be done by means of email today.
104 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112

4. write their own request letter

5. search for similar short letters participants have written or received for class discussion

The procedure is described as follows by Swales:

The emerging sociorhetorical situation is that of moving towards membership of a chosen discourse community via
effective use of established genres within that community. The ‘relatable’ procedures include rhetorical analysis, dis-
cussion, and anticipation of audience reaction seen as a way of meeting discoursal expectations (p. 81).
The activities are differentiated across two parameters: “first, they variously involve critique and composition and, second,
they differ in the extent to which the text-task synergies are controlled or controllable by the instructor” (p. 81). In an
affirmation of his situated approach to pedagogy, Swales notes that the texts used and their rhetorical effects “have been
taken from an external world that has nothing directly to do with the actual teaching of academic English” (p. 81). He
furthermore notes that “Student contributions are a continuing source of enlightenment for all the parties concerned” (p. 82)
and that “the contributory activity continually adds to the repertoire of genre-centred tasks available for future courses” (p.
82). Finally, Swales concludes that “a genre-centred approach is likely to focus student attention on rhetorical action and on
the organizational and linguistic means of its accomplishment” (p. 82).
Chapter 5 of genre analysis is primarily concerned with the question of genre acquisition and the role of schemata. Of
particular interest for this article is Swales's attention to two controversial issues in genre pedagogy: the danger of a
formulaic approach to such a pedagogy and the danger of ideological indoctrination (p. 91). Swales's response is that,
while not denying these dangers, they can be lessened by the adoption of a discursive and critical approach. This leads
him into the description of a task concerning language and the location of research. After some preliminary
consciousness-raising concerning the materials and data students will be working with, students then go on to a project-
based activity:
Matters are now ready for a real task orchestrated as a class project (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). The class divides into
self-selecting fields of interest. The groups go to the library to obtain data from journals in their fields on origin of
articles and language of publication. Group results are tabulated and presented orally; cross-group figures are
assembled and discussed; comparisons are made with previous research methodological procedures (and problems)
are written up, as are suggestions for further research. A multi-author small research paper is constructed. NS col-
leagues are invited to attend a formal conference-type discussion on the issues of language barriers in research
communication (pp. 108e109).
We can see in the description of this activity a rather sophisticated pedagogy involving situated group-work and the
simulation of a real-world communicative (research) activity.
In Chapter 9 of Genre Analysis, Swales focusses on the issue of rhetorical consciousness-raising, which is a fundamental
feature of his pedagogic approach. He does so first of all by describing the individual cases of a number of graduate students
and their rhetorical development. From this analysis he draws the conclusion that “there may be pedagogic value in sensi-
tizing students to rhetorical effects, and to the rhetorical structures that tend to recur in genre-specific texts” (p. 213).
Although it may be argued that there is nothing new in this and that the IMRD structure is too obvious to need teaching,
Swales argues that:

[w]e can still recognize that students are helped if they can also schematize the structures of the sections themselves
and so further develop an understanding of what it is that allows them to recognize a section as Method or Discussion,
and what it is that allows them to argue that one section is more or less effective than another (p. 213).
On this basis, Swales concludes that “[i]t is likely that consciousness-raising about text-structure will turn out to be as
important as it has been shown to be for grammar” (p. 213). Indeed, it can be noted that within genre-based pedagogy and
EAP more generally, as evidenced in the literature (e.g. Hyland, 2004, pp. 140e141; Paltridge, 2001, pp. 66e69),
consciousness-raising about text-structure has become a preferred methodology. Swales lists the benefits of a rhetorical
structure focus as follows:

1. The problem of heterogeneous content interests in the class (medics and economists) is partially if temporarily
sidestepped.
2. Insight into rhetorical structure is useful for both the reading and the writing of research.
3. General features are examined before specific details.
4. Discussion of rhetorical structure usefully develops in participants an increasing control of the metalanguage (negotiation
of knowledge claims, self-citation, metadiscourse, etc.) which in turn, provides a perspective for critiquing their own
writing and that of others.
5. Rhetorical structure may have ‘novelty’ value, and may thus identify the class as being different from others that par-
ticipants have experienced.
6. The rhetorical element is likely to present the instructor as having something to contribute over and above methodology
(p. 215).
 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112 105

An inevitable issue that arises in research process courses such as those focussed upon by Swales is the issue of content.
Swales takes issue with Spack (1988), who argues that English teachers are not able to deal with rhetoric as it cannot be
divorced from content. For Swales, this issue is one:
of consciousness-raising, of discussing texts, and of offering e to the best of our abilities e prototypical examples of
relevant genres. Much of our teaching then is directed to getting students to understand how and why discourse is
important, to getting them to see “that ‘sounding right’ is the key to admittance (Ronald, 1988: 133)” (p. 25).
In a final section of Chapter 9 of Genre Analysis, Swales turns his attention to the process approach to writing, arguing that
attention needs to be paid not only to the cognitive dimension of such an approach, but also the external, social dimension of
the writer's world. Here, he recommends “reformulation” as a good pedagogical practice, where an expert rewrites a novice's
text, thus enabling a class to compare an apprentice text (both NS and NNS), writing instructor texts and those “reworked by
full members of the relevant discourse communities” (p. 221).
In the final chapter of Genre Analysis, Epilogue, Swales addresses what he considers to be the most important question
arising from the genre-based approach, the potential for skills acquired with regard to one genre to be transferred to another.
For Swales, based on one of the case studies he described in a previous chapter, where the participant was able to transfer
skills acquired in academic letter writing to job interviews and dissertation writing, the answer is yes, but on three conditions:

1. All the communicative activities (in the different genres) are directed to the same discourse community or to discourse
communities with overlapping characteristics.
2. The direction is from the more rhetorically-accessible (e.g. application letters) to the less rhetorically-accessible (e.g. job
interviews).
3. The acquired genre skills involve not only competence with the product but also a raised rhetorical consciousness; in other
words there is a perceived rationale for the communicative behaviour (p. 234).

On this basis, Swales concludes that “[all] transfer … travels downhill. There is independent value, therefore, in the small-
scale rhetorical mastery effects that a genre approach is particularly and peculiarly able to foster” (p. 234). Swales's final
comment in Genre Analysis is that the conditions under which such genre mastery comes about are an important issue for
further investigation. Indeed, it may be noted that this has come about with publications such as the series of articles of Cheng
(e.g. 2007) and Tardy's (2009) research monograph, among others.
Having reviewed Swales's approach to pedagogy, how can it be summed up as a single paragraph? Such a paragraph might
be as follows. The goal is to help students (both L1 and L2) succeed in the academic world. The approach is motivated by the
concept of genre, which embodies rhetorical action, on the one hand, and a focus on organisational and linguistic means of its
accomplishment, on the other. Genre interacts with two other phenomena: task and discourse community. Genre, task and
discourse community are linked together by communicative purpose. As seen through the lens of the pedagogic tasks Swales
describes, the approach can be characterised as a task-based, consciousness-raising one, with a notable emphasis on
consideration of audience (discourse community). In terms of teaching materials, the emphasis is on authentic real-world
texts (often contributed by students). Classroom activities emphasise discussion, critique, evaluation of wordings (phrase-
ology), group work, class projects, and simulation of real world academic tasks. In addition, there may be out-of-class ac-
tivities such as library research, and other academic experts might be invited to participate in the class. The approach is at all
times student-focussed, students taking on the roles of informants, discussants and researchers, with a place for fun and
entertainment and an awareness of the need to avoid an over-formulaic approach.

3. Possible developments of Swales's approach

In this section, I will consider potential developments of Swales's pedagogic ideas in Genre Analysis, at the same time
reporting what Swales himself has had to say on these issues, where he has commented upon them. The four issues I will
develop are as follows: Vygotskyan theory, relations between genres, corpus-informed pedagogy, and English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF).

3.1. Vygotskyan theory

Since Genre Analysis, there has been a lot of interest in the educational theories of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky
(1896e1934). As Smagorinsky (2007) points out, Vygotsky's complete works are now available in English, and his ideas have
been used to justify a whole plethora of pedagogical ideas. In this section, I am using the term Vygotskyan in a very general
sense, therefore. I will be drawing on his ideas on the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), which, as Smagorinsky (2007)
warns again, represents only a few pages out of six volumes of Vygotsky's total output. I will also be drawing on the notion of
“scaffolding”, which does not come from Vygotsky himself, but is inspired by his work, the concept originating in the work of
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976).
The ZPD refers to the cognitive gap between what a child can do without any assistance and what the child can do with the
assistance of a parent, sibling, teacher or other more skilled person. The notion is summed up in the celebrated dictum “what
106 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112

the child is able to do in collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 211). Learning
takes place, according to Vygotsky, as a problem solving process where the child interacts with a parent, teacher or other more
experienced person. The person interacting with the child initially guides the process, but gradually relinquishes control as
the child becomes more proficient. This process is labelled as “scaffolding” by Wood et al. (1976). Scaffolding is thus the
support provided by the more expert person in the process of learning. The scaffolding does not have to be the support of a
person, however; it may consist of various other cognitive “tools” such as texts of various types, various realia, electronic
media, and motivational tasks.
At about the same time as Genre Analysis appeared, work was going on in North America which developed ideas on the
ZPD and scaffolding in a model which, with Vygotsky, viewed learning as a type of cognitive apprenticeship. This model,
developed contemporaneously by Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989), and Lave and Wenger (1991), was referred to variously
as “cognitive apprenticeship”, “situated learning”, “situated cognition” or simply “apprenticeship” (Cope, 2005). Of interest
from a pedagogical point of view was Collins et al.'s (1989) classification of scaffolding into three categories: modelling
(where a task is demonstrated explicitly): coaching (assisting learners to achieve a goal and giving feedback); and fading (the
process whereby a scaffold is gradually withdrawn). In each of these stages it can be seen how learning is conceived of as a
collaborative approach. Collins et al. (1989) incorporated these ideas into a complete instructional design framework con-
sisting of content, methods, sequence and sociology, where content refers to content knowledge and learning strategies; where
methods embodies the scaffolding strategies listed above; where sequence specifies a movement from global to local skills and
from simple to complex; and where sociology calls attention to the situated, contextual, and collaborative nature of learning.
If we turn now to Genre Analysis, it is interesting that no mention is made of the work just reviewed. Swales does introduce
the term “Vygotskyan”, twice (p. 51 and p. 90), but these references are merely en passant. If we consider Swales's pedagogic
approach, as described in Genre Analysis, however, although it is not theorised in Vygotskyan terms, there are many features of
a Vygotskyan, apprenticeship, or situated, approach to be found. Consider the activity reported above, as described in Chapter
4 of Genre Analysis as part of the course “Dissertation, thesis and prospectus writing for non-native speakers”, which ex-
emplifies Swales's concept of task with three short request letters for papers. First, one of the characteristics included in
Swales's definition of task is that it is “sequenceable” (p. 81) and thus matches up with Collins et al.'s (1989) category
sequence. Second, the task involves authentic letters drawn from what Swales refers to as a real “sociorhetorical situation” (p.
78) and which are identified by him as problematic in the academic lives of his students; the activity can thus be said to have a
situated aspect to it. Third, using an apprenticeship approach, the teacher scaffolds the students' work by comparing and
contrasting the discourse features of the texts and evaluating their appropriateness (p. 81); indeed, Swales tells his students
in the introductory material that he believes that “the more a person engages in such correspondence the more easily and the
more quickly that person can correspond” (p. 80); further emphasising this apprenticeship nature of the activity, Swales tells
us that “the text-task synergies are controlled or controllable by the instructor” (p. 81). Fourth, as another aspect of the
situated dimension of the activity, the students write their own letters, which they send to academics in their field and
(hopefully) receive a response, as well as bringing their own letters into class for discussion; moreover, Swales tells us, “… in
all cases in this fragment, both the illustrative texts and their rhetorical effects have been taken from an external world that has
nothing directly to do with the actual teaching of academic English” (p. 81), a final emphasis of the situated approach.
In spite of these many features of a Vygotskyan approach, it seems to me that a more formal consideration of genre
pedagogy in terms of Vygotskyan theory along the lines outlined above might be of value. Such a framework might then be
applied systematically to the design of instructional materials or an instructional cycle. Although many of the features
specified by Collins et al. (1989) are to be found in the activities described by Swales, as well as not being done in a systematic
way, neither do they break down Collins et al.'s (1989) method into modelling, coaching, and fading. A more systematic
approach to the application of these pedagogic modes might be of value.
One approach to genre pedagogy that does do something on these lines is that of the “Sydney School” of genre analysis
(Rose & Martin, 2012), one of the three schools identified by Hyon (1996) in her seminal categorisation of different ap-
proaches to genre pedagogy.6 The Sydney School model of learning involves learners working with texts of gradually
increasing complexity. It works with a teaching/learning cycle consisting of three main stages: “deconstruction” (where a
successful text or texts is/are analysed by the teacher interacting with the learners); “joint construction” (where the teacher
and learners collaboratively put together a text, based on the model from the deconstruction stage); and “independent
construction” (where the learners individually create a text modelled on those developed in the previous stages). At all stages,
a key concern is “setting context” (putting texts into their socio-cultural contexts), as is “building field” (content knowledge).
Space precludes a more detailed exposition of this model, although a much more exhaustive account is provided by Rose
and Martin (2012), who include detailed examples of each of the stages and their rationale, along with authentic classroom
discourse extracts to illustrate the model in action.7 These authentic classroom discourse extracts effectively highlight the
fundamental role of “modelling” in the Sydney School approach and how teachers and learners are involved in interactions
involving not only modelling, but also coaching and fading (although the two latter terms are not used).

6
The other two were the “ESP school”, based around Swales, and the “New Rhetoric school” (now referred to as “North American Rhetorical Genre
Studies”).
7
See also Gibbons (2009, pp. 114e121) for a range of classroom activities that go with each of the stages.
 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112 107

The Sydney School approach is based in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the model of language development of
Halliday and Painter (Rose & Martin, 2012, p. 61). However, Rose and Martin (2012) note the affinities with Vygotskyan theory
(p. 14, p. 61). The model of teaching and learning is very much an apprenticeship one (p. 29), with its cycle of teaching and
learning activities involving strategies which, as Cope (2005, p. 54) has noted, resonate with the modelling, coaching and
fading of Collins et al. (1989) and with the notion of scaffolding. Rose and Martin (2012: p. 14), indeed, invoke the Vygotskyan
notion of the ZPD as follows:
Practising at a higher level with the guidance of a teacher is a more effective method of acquiring skills than practising
at a lower level. Of course, when students attempt a similar task on their own, they will not be able to acquire quite the
same level of achievement as they did with the teacher's support. This is precisely what Vygotsky (1962) meant by his
ZPD, namely the difference between what a learner can do with and without a teacher's support.
The Sydney School model was developed primarily in the context of the Australian school system. What might its value be
in an academic literacy context such as the one in which Genre Analysis was developed at a leading North American research
university (The University of Michigan), or indeed in other contexts? The most obvious benefit would be that it allows for a
more systematic approach to classroom pedagogy, instructors systematically working through the cycle of activities. The
consciousness-raising and task-based nature of Swales's approach and its basis in genre analysis are still there, but the
application is more systematic. Some might argue that the Sydney School is rather dogmatic and takes away the freedom of
the individual teacher, but the approach does not exclude other activities alongside it. At any rate, it raises issues to be
considered by those involved in any sort of genre-based teaching and encourages a cross-over of different genre traditions.

3.2. Relations between genres

In Genre Analysis, there was no notion of the way genres inter-relate. The focus was on the RA and various types of aca-
demic correspondence, but Swales did not demonstrate how these genres interact. Although Swales's focus was on “rhetorical
action and on the organizational and linguistic means of its accomplishment” (p. 82), he did not show how such actions and
realisation patterns might be inter-related across genres. This issue was taken up in Research Genres and indeed is one of the
main foci and impetuses for that volume, Swales writing that “[o]ne of the important current issues in a genre-based English
for Research Purposes approach remains the relationships and links among the various genres” (p. 12). Swales's involvement
in the MICASE project (see below) was one of the reasons for his interest in genre relations, because that project allowed him
to study spoken genres and to consider the similarities and differences between written and spoken academic language (p. 3).
Another impetus was the work of forerunners in this area, most notably Devitt (1991) (p. 12).
Swales (2004) uses the cover term constellation (p. 12) to refer to the systems according to which genres inter-relate. He
identifies four different systems. A genre hierarchy (p. 13) is how genres are ranked one against each other and in terms of
their perceived qualitative differences. A genre chain (p.18) refers to the chronological ordering of genres. Drawing on Devitt
(1991), a genre set (p. 20) is the grouping of genres that an individual or class of individuals engages in as part of their normal
occupational or institutional practice. A genre network (p. 22) is defined by Swales as “the totality of genres available for a
particular sector (such as the research world) as seen from any chosen synchronic moment” (Devitt, 1991). Swales introduces
the notion of intertextuality here, citing Bakhtin (1986): “… each utterance is filled with various kinds of responsive reactions
to other utterances of the given sphere of speech communication” (p. 91). He points out that one area of intertextuality that
has been “massively discussed” (p. 22) is that of plagiarism, especially in US undergraduate education.
I mentioned above, in the section summarising the pedagogical contribution of Genre Analysis, that Swales stated that
Research Genres was less concerned with pedagogy than the earlier book. Although the chapters on the specific academic
genres in Research Genres do have some quite specific recommendations regarding the pedagogical applications of Swales's
insights concerning those genres, he does not draw any pedagogic conclusions from his analysis of genre constellations and
the activities he recommends are limited to the individual genres in focus. I will now consider what the implications of a
particular focus on genre constellations might be.
One general application of the constellations concept would be as a tool for course design. The different systems could be
inter-related in the selection, sequencing and inter-relating of a genre-based course. The starting point would be the network
(the totality of genres available for the field of activity targeted). Within that network, genres can be further selected ac-
cording to set (those genres likely to be engaged in/needed by the learners) and prioritised according to hierarchy (how the
genres are ranked in terms of importance for the learners). The sequencing of the genres could be done according to chain
(how the genres are sequenced in real life).
Another general application would be that a focus on the inter-relation of genres might open up the way to more situated
activities of the type that Swales exemplified in Genre Analysis, but here different genres might be inter-related one to another,
instead of being focussed on individually. For example, the writing of an introduction for an RA might be based on a previously
created power-point presentation rather than writing it from scratch (and such a power-point presentation might itself be
based on a reformulation of notes). Similarly, a conference presentation activity might be based on a written paper. Such tasks
would have the potential to correspond to a more likely real-world task and would involve intertextual skills that would not
otherwise be brought into play where the focus is on a single genre.
A further application, this time in terms of classroom pedagogy, might be developed from the notion that the writing
process inherently fosters intertextuality. Might it not be possible to guide students' intertextual practices e such as how to
108 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112

draw from their own words in notes as they write e as one way to build a. their awareness of the intertextual acts in which
they already engage; and b. their strategies for drawing on their own language as they articulate their ideas?
The notion of intertextuality highlights the dialogic nature of texts and how they draw on each other. Intertextuality,
however, may also present a danger for learners, the possibility of plagiarism. As noted above, Swales briefly refers to this, but
he does not develop the idea, suggesting that plagiarism is primarily an undergraduate problem. That may be the case at a
leading research university in the United States such as the University of Michigan, but my experience and those of my
colleagues internationally is that this is still a problem at post-graduate levels (see, for example, Pecorari, 2008). The problem
arises because there is a tension in the expectations placed on novice writers; they are expected to use language which is
appropriate to the discipline into which they are being socialised, on the one hand, but at the same time, they are expected not
to copy from published sources, with the result that their writing does not appear to be “professional”, on the other. In my
study with Li (Flowerdew & Li, 2007) focussing on the writing practices and beliefs of a group of doctoral science students at a
major research university in China, we found widespread “borrowing” of language from published articles, which we termed
“language re-use”, a practice which the students believed to be to a certain level acceptable. Some writers have argued that
such language re-use, also referred to as “patchwriting” (Howard, 1993, 1995), is a legitimate developmental stage in learning
to write (Casanave, 2004; Currie, 1998; Pecorari, 2008; Shi, 2004). If this is the case, then students need guidance on just how
much they may or may not use this practice. They need to know that the ultimate goal is to be able to write without resorting
to copying and to develop their own personal voice. In addition to explicit teaching, this is an area where corpora may come in.
Students may be encouraged to compare their own writing with that in a corpus of research articles in their discipline. This
may raise their consciousness of the extent to which they might be “borrowing” too much from published sources. Students
might also be encouraged to see how frequent multi-word chunks of language are used in the corpus and in their own writing,
to see what might be an acceptable degree of formulaicity in their writing. Over time they might be set targets aimed at
reducing their language re-use and developing their own individual voices.

3.3. Corpus-informed pedagogy

There is no mention of corpora in Genre Analysis, because corpus applications were only just getting off the ground at the
time, but, since then, interest in the application of corpus linguistics to language pedagogy has grown exponentially. The first
conference devoted to teaching and language corpora (TALC), was in 1994 (four years after Genre Analysis) and this biannual
conference has now taken place eleven times. Following in its footsteps, there are now North American and Asia-Pacific
counterparts for this European conference series. There is now a very large body of literature in this field, including two
comprehensive survey articles (Flowerdew, 2009; Ro € mer, 2011). With regard to applications in ESP/EAP, Tribble (in press)
writes that “some of the most encouraging direct applications seem to be in the area of specialist DIY corpora where stu-
dents identify texts which have high relevance for their learning purposes and assemble and then learn to analyse their own
corpora.” Gavioli's (2005) book on ESP applications of corpus-based work exemplifies a wealth of potential classroom ap-
plications, while Boulton's (2012) review of 20 empirical studies on ESP applications of corpus-based pedagogy demonstrates
that “analysis of the individual papers shows that students can use corpora successfully for ESP and are generally favourable
to the approach, whether as a learning tool (especially for vocabulary and lexico-grammar) or as a reference resource
(especially for writing)” (p. 261; abstract). All of this demonstrates that corpus-based pedagogy is now firmly on the map,
especially in the field of ESP/EAP.
Although it was too early for Swales to consider corpora in Genre Analysis, subsequently, he has involved himself in some of
the most ground-breaking applied corpus linguistics endeavours to date. As testimony to his standing in this field, he was one
of 14 participants to be included in Viana, Zyngier, and Barnbrook's (2011) collection of interviews with the world's leading
corpus linguists, Perspectives on corpus linguistics. Swales's prominence in this field is due to his direction of the projects
leading to the creation of the two widely-used and cited corpora, MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) and
MICUSP (Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers), created at the University of Michigan and also his article with Lee
(Lee & Swales, 2006), where he described an experimental approach to the use of corpora in the teaching and learning of
advanced academic English, an approach commonly referred to as data-driven learning (see e.g. Johns, 2002). Swales's
participation in corpus-based work is hardly surprising, in view of the importance he attaches to phraseology in Genre
Analysis. Phraseology is the “linguistic means of [the] accomplishment” of “rhetorical action” cited above in my summary of
his genre-based approach in the earlier part of this article. Elsewhere in Genre Analysis, Swales states that phraseology (along
with syntactic choice and pronunciation) is something that EAP teachers “can hardly avoid” (p. 4). This is where corpora can
play an important role, one of the main contributions of corpus-based applied linguistics being its findings concerning this
phenomenon (e.g. Meunier & Granger, 2008). It is, curious however, that, in his statements on corpora and the corpus-based
approach, Swales comes over as somewhat ambivalent.
In 2002, Swales contributed a chapter to my edited collection, Academic Discourse (Flowerdew, 2002), which was an
evaluation of his experience in using corpora for EAP materials writing (Swales, 2002). Instead of the very positive stance that
I thought Swales would take, he seemed to dwell more on the negative aspects of the experience than on the positive ones. In
his concluding remarks to the chapter, he cited three published articles emerging from the MICASE project as representing
interesting outcomes. However, he stated, “these are the relatively meagre mature fruit of an investigative harvest in which
the great majority of investigations have died on the vine” and that “[i]n more normal EAP circumstances i.e. ones without the
intellectual and material resources that the MICASE project possesses, the pickings may be even slimmer” (2002, p. 164).
 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112 109

If one turns to Swales's (2004) book, Research Genres, one finds the most positive mention of corpora that I have managed
to find. Thus, although Swales is rather dismissive of work up until that time, referring to “the rather limited EAP results
achieved by corporist research to date” (p. 97), he sees promise in the future:
The use of corpus-concordance packages for teaching research English is still in its early stages, but, with both suitable
doctoral student training and the imaginative development of manageable student tasks, it will doubtless come to play
an increasing part in our mix of research and teaching activities as we move further into the new century.
In his article with Lee (Lee & Swales, 2006), we do see a positive outcome of this experiment in what the researchers refer
to as a case of “technology enhanced rhetorical consciousness-raising” (p. 72), the two authors writing as follows:
Our participants found the use of corpora confidence-building and empowering, as they discovered they do not now
always need access to a native-speaker to check up on certain linguistic issues. Some felt that having access to corpora
was better than using reference books or grammar books. Not only was access possible any time, all the time (“24/7”), it
also allowed for variation across writers/speakers and across disciplines. This access to disciplinary differences is
important for some linguistic structures. Overall, they felt that the exemplification was often much closer to their
contextual and textual circumstances (p. 71)
In spite of this positive outcome, however, the authors nevertheless play down their success, in attributing it to the
exceptional group of students that was involved in the experiment:
As readers will probably concur, we finished up with an exceptional group of students e highly acculturated into the
genres of their discourse communities, mostly on the way to their PhDs, eager to perfect their English, possessing of
advanced computer skills, and perfectly comfortable with quantitative data. Take even one of these positive attributes
away, and the outcomes might have been different (p. 72).
It is perhaps in an interview conducted in 2011 (Swales, 2011) where we see Swales as least positive. Indeed, the chapter
which contains the interview with Swales is headed “A critical view of the use of corpora” (p. 221). The following are some
quotations taken from this interview, where Swales seems to be at pains again to emphasise the negative aspects of corpora
rather than the positive ones:

 Like all methodologies, CL has its own attendant strengths and weaknesses. One strength is its capacity for making
generalisations about language use, but it is much weaker in its capacity to explain the forces that might give shape to
those generalisations (p. 224).
 (Referring to published corpus-based studies) Some of these assays have, in my opinion, proved rather unrewarding at
least in terms of producing insights into the language per se, or usefully pointing the way to pedagogical improvements,
especially some of those appearing in edited collections of papers from the smaller European academic publishing houses
(p. 227).
 Overall, corpus-based analyses have produced some important work, and quite a lot of relatively unimportant work. And I
know this to my cost. Most of my numerous forays into the MICASE database have proved unenlightening or unrewarding,
and have either been discarded, or have emerged in truncated ‘kibitzer’ format on the English Language Institute's MICASE
website. Rather a long tail then (p. 227).

To be fair, Swales does acknowledge three positives of corpus-based work (p. 225): the Longman Grammar of Spoken English
(Biber et al., 1999); the increasing recognition of the key role of phraseology in our understanding of language; and the
discovery of semantic prosodies (that words may have tendencies to be used in positive or negative environments). However,
in all of the cases I have cited where Swales comments on applied corpus-based work, he stresses the negative as much as, if
not more than, the positive. I have perhaps laboured the point, but given his lengthy involvement in the field, Swales's
sceptical attitude with regard to corpora does seem rather curious, especially given his major contribution to the field.

3.4. English as a Lingua Franca

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is defined by Seidlhofer in her introductory textbook on the topic (Seidlhofer, 2011) as “any
use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and
often the only option” (p. 7). Seidlhofer writes that, when she first announced her intention to create an ELF corpus at a
conference in 2000, many people found it to be a strange idea (p. xii). However, as she also points out (p. xii), by the time she
wrote her book, there were now two spoken corpora of ELF (the ViennaeOxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) in
Vienna (Seidlhofer, 2011) and the Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (ELFA) in Helsinki (ELFA, 2008));
there is also a journal, The Journal of English as a Lingua Franca; there is an annual international conference; and there are
many books, articles, and theses on the topic.
The tremendous spread of the use of ELF is due to the forces of globalisation, of which education is an important
contributor. In 1990, when Genre Analysis came out, those forces of globalisation and their effects were only starting to be
studied. English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) was certainly not on the Applied Linguistics radar. It does not figure in Genre Analysis,
110 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112

therefore. However, if Swales were writing today, then it is highly likely that it would do. Indeed, ELF is acknowledged by
Swales in an article with Anna Mauranen and Carmen Pe
rez-Llantada in the Routledge Handbook of World Englishes
(Mauranen, Perez-Llantada, & Swales, 2010).
Seidlhofer (2011, p. xii) notes that work on ELF has concentrated on spoken language, because processes of variation and
change can most easily be studied there and that it is only when these processes have been understood that more work can be
done on written ELF communication. However, Mauranen has already started to collect a corpus of ELF RAs (personal
communication). Notwithstanding the fact that there is little, if any, research on written academic ELF, the implications of ELF
for the teaching of academic writing are considerable and it is certain that Swales would give them his attention if he were
writing Genre Analysis today.
Written language is generally thought to be more standardised, especially the most prestigious academic genre, the RA,
which is the focus of so much of Swales's work, both in terms of research and teaching, although the division between spoken
and written genres is being broken down by the internet and social media. Indeed new academic genres, such as blogs and
wikis, are being created, genres which Swales would surely have turned his attention to in terms of both research and
teaching. The RA itself is also undergoing profound changes, due to the internet, with various “add-ons” such as “research
highlights”, interactive graphics, embedded videos and the possibility of video summaries coming into being (Pe
rez-Llantada,
2013).
If the RA, the “pre-eminent genre of the academy” (Hyland, 2010, p. 117), is undergoing the changes just mentioned, there
are also signs that it is being affected by ELF. In an interesting recent study, “Non-canonical grammar in engineering articles”
(Rozycki & Johnson, 2013), the authors demonstrated how non-native speaking writers of award winning journal articles
from top international journals in the field of engineering were using “non-canonical” grammatical forms (articles and
subject/verb concord, etc.) in their writing and that this was accepted by the editors and reviewers of the journals concerned,
many, if not most of whom, were themselves non-native-speakers. This development is something predicted nearly fifteen
years ago by Wood (2001), who claimed that it was likely that English would be claimed by international sciences of any
language background as their property and not that of native-English speakers. Wood also wrote as follows:
If ISE [International Scientific English] is not the property of the native speaker but of scientists of any language
background, it can become the property of student scientists as well, who will integrate the language into their
developing practice… in a way which would be impossible if English is seen as the property of the English-speaking
world.
Now, if non-native-speaking scientists and student scientists are claiming English as their property and not that of the
English-speaking world, as predicted by Wood, and empirically demonstrated, at least for top international engineering
journals, by Rozycki and Johnson (2013), this poses a very significant question for teachers of English for Academic Purposes
(such as Swales). Do they continue to try to correct students' “errors” with “non-canonical grammar” or do they no longer
consider such surface errors to be an important problem? Rozycki & Johnson take the latter approach, recommending as
follows:
Teachers will do well to focus on the structure and format of the research paper, and spend perhaps less time on text-
level grammar. This is because engineering gatekeepers exhibit a willingness to accommodate NC [non-canonical]
usage, and readers appear willing to negotiate the meaning of texts with NC usage. Thus, getting students to pay
attention to larger issues of structure, format, transitioning, and content issues will be more rewarding than attention
on such points as the use of articles (2013, p. 166).
I am sure that many EAP teachers will concur with this view, but there is equally likely to be many others who still attach
importance to “standard” grammar. Such a division reflects the two fundamental views that have been argued at least since
1985, when Quirk (1985) and Kachru (1985) argued the case for “standard English”, in the case of the former, and for a
recognition of local varieties, in the case of the latter. My guess is that Swales would side with Kachru and his argument that
different varieties of English are a sociolinguistic reality e the fact that Swales co-authored the article referred to above
entitled Academic Englishes (in the plural) in the Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (Mauranen et al., 2010) seems to
strongly suggest so.
But how does this match up with Genre Analysis? In his focus on consciousness-raising about the generic features of
written academic English, Swales seems to prefer the more macro-focus, as recommended by Rozycki & Johnson in the above
quotation, and does not devote a lot of time to the teaching of grammar. He does, however, repeatedly talk about the
importance of appropriate phraseology. Rozycki and Johnson (2013) do not consider phraseology in their study, but it seems
likely that if “non-canonical” grammar is becoming acceptable, then “non-canonical” phraseologies are also likely to be
appropriate (although an empirical study into this question would be very interesting).
So what course of action should EAP teachers take on this issue? Should they follow the localised varieties position and
accept “non-standard” grammar and phraseology? Should they tell their students that they do not need to worry about
matching their usage to the standard forms, because localised forms will be accepted by their international peers? I think this
would be too radical a position. A more reasonable stance would be a consciousness-raising approach (in true Swalesian
fashion) which would point out to students that there are standard grammatical and phraseological patterns, as used by
native-speakers, but that such patterns are not always insisted upon in international journals. Such a position would be in line
with Swales's emphasis on discourse community and audience. In spite of the research by Rozycki and Johnson (2013), there
 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112 111

are still many journals in other disciplines outside engineering which insist upon standard American or British English. There
are still many journals that advise contributors who do not have English as their first language to have a native-speaker check
it over before submission. To advise students to ignore the international standards would therefore be an irresponsible
approach to take, the move towards a more localised view of usage notwithstanding. At some point, localised usage may
become unintelligible usage (Nelson, 1995). Furthermore, some students may want to target native speech patterns. The
pragmatist that he is, I am sure Swales would have taken such a view.

4. Conclusion

In this article, I have reviewed Swales's approach to pedagogy in Genre Analysis in some detail and have then considered
four areas of development which might be considered as adding to Swales's approach in the years since the publication of
Genre Analysis: Vygotskyan theory; relations between genres; corpora; and ELF. Of course, there are other issues which I have
not been able to discuss, such as contrastive rhetoric; critical genre pedagogy; the position of the non-native speaker in the
research world; how Swales's approach compares to North American Genre Studies (although I have touched upon the
Sydney School approach); the role of the L1 in genre pedagogy; the applicability of Swales's model in less advantageous
situations to that of the University of Michigan, where Swales's pedagogy was developed; the possibility of an even more
situated approach than that proposed by Swales, etc. These areas, some of which have been discussed by Swales himself since
Genre Analysis, are a rich field for others to explore. The length of this list does not imply a criticism of Genre Analysis; on the
contrary, it highlights the huge legacy of Swales's seminal volume.
Swales's greatest insight was to bring together three concepts e task, discourse community, and genre e and to unite these
three concepts through the notion of communicative purpose, which all of them shared. A further insight of Swales was that
genres developed as a staged process, and that the various stages, or moves, carried with them typical associated phraseo-
logical patterns. This apparatus set up by Swales (allied, perhaps, with the notion of needs analysis, which is not mentioned by
Swales, but can be subsumed under the notion of communicative purpose) basically laid out the framework for ESP pedagogy
as we know it today. In terms of classroom practice, Swales argued for a consciousness-raising, task-based approach focussing
on generic features, maintaining that that “[such] a genre-centred approach is likely to focus student attention on rhetorical
action and on the organizational and linguistic means of its accomplishment” (Swales, 1990, p. 1). This is the fundamental
basis of Swales's pedagogic theory. The theory is, in essence, quite simple, but its influence has been huge.

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Boulton, A. (2012). Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP: issues and applications. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas, & E. Rowley-Jolivet (Eds.), Corpus
consultation for ESP: A review of empirical research (Vol. 52, pp. 261e292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy
framework. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 287e307.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453e494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Cope, N. (2005). Apprenticeship reinvented: cognition, discourse and implications for academic literacy. Prospect, 20(3), 42e62.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1e18.
Devitt, A. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting. In C. Bazerman, & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 336e357). Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.
ELFA. (2008). The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus, 7 March 2015.
Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243e264.
Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123e145.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1),
127e150.
Flowerdew, J. (2002). Academic discourse. London: Longman.
Flowerdew, J. (2009). Corpora in language teaching. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 327e350). Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Flowerdew, J. (2013). English for research publication purposes. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.
301e321). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440e465.
Gavioli, L. (2005). Exploring corpora for ESP learning (Vol. 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233e245.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788e806.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116e127.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: implications for ESL. Tesol Quarterly, 30(4), 693e722.
Johns, T. (2002). Data-driven learning: the perpetual challenge. In B. Kettemann, & G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis (pp.
107e117). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English
in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11e30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
112 J. Flowerdew / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19 (2015) 102e112

Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora.
English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 56e75.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English (1st ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon; N.Y.:
Routledge.
Mauranen, A., Perez-Llantada, C., & Swales, J. M. (2010). Academic Englishes e a standardized knowledge? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of
world Englishes (pp. 634e652) London: Routledge.
Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Nelson, C. L. (1995). Intelligibility and world Englishes in the classroom. World Englishes, 14(2), 273e279.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.

rez-Llantada, C. (2012). Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalization: The impact of culture and language. London: Bloomsbury.
Pe

rez-Llantada, C. (2013). The article of the future: strategies for genre stability and change. English for Specific Purposes, 32(4), 221e235.
Pe
Quirk, R. (1985). The English language in a global context. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and
literatures (pp. 1e6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ro€mer, U. (2011). Corpus research applications in second language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 205e225.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school.
Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N. H. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3), 157e169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.04.002.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca: A complete introduction to the theoretical nature and practical implications of English used as a
lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171e200.
Smagorinsky, P. (2007). Vygotsky and the social dynamics of classrooms. English Journal, 97(2), 61e66.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go? Tesol Quarterly, 22(1), 29e51.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: Toward textography and beyond. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Swales, J. M. (2002). Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus Linguistics. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 150e164).
Harlow: Pearson Education.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2011). A critical view on the use of corpora. In V. Viana, S. Zyngier, & G. Barnbrook (Eds.), Perspectives on corpus linguistics (pp. 221e227).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tang, R. (Ed.). (2012). Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts.
London; New York, NY: Continuum International Pub.
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Tribble, C. (in press). Teaching and language corpora: Perspectives from a personal journey. In Lenko-Szymanska, A. & Boulton, A. Multiple Affordances of
Language Corpora for Data-Driven Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Viana, V., Zyngier, S., & Barnbrook, G. (2011). Perspectives on corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. N. Minick (Trans.), L. S. Vygotsky. In R. Rieber, & A. Carton (Eds.). Collected works (Vol. 1, pp. 39e285). New York:
Plenum.
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71e83).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89e100.

John Flowerdew is a Professor in the English Department, City University of Hong Kong. His interests include discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, ESP/EAP
and their application to language pedagogy. He has published widely in the leading Applied Linguistics journals. His most recent book is Discourse in English
Language Education (Routledge).