Disciplinary differences
in the use of English
John Airey
Department of Languages
Linnaeus University, Sweden
University Physics Education Research Group
Uppsala University, Sweden
Each discipline has different goals and different
ontological
and
epistemological
assumptions
Ontology
A set of assumptions about the nature of
reality and existence
Epistemology
A set of assumptions about how
knowledge is obtained
Disciplinarity
Bernstein (1999) classified disciplinary knowledge
structures as
hierarchical
or
horizontal
Hierarchical knowledge structures
Progress by integration of new knowledge with
existing knowledge
Horizontal knowledge structures
Progress by introducing new perspectives that
do not need to be coherent with existing
perspectives
Disciplinary knowledge structures
Hierarchical knowledge structures can be
viewed as
developing an agreed “language”
Horizontal knowledge structures can be viewed
as
introducing new ”languages”
Disciplinary knowledge structures
Progression in knowledge structures
L
1
L
2
L
3
L
4
L
5
L
5+1
hierarchical
horizontal
Martin (2011)
Disciplinary knowledge structures
hierarchical
knowledge
structure
horizontal
knowledge
structure
“warring
triangles”
physics
biology
science
L
1
L
2
L
3
L
4
L
5
...
social science
humanities
history literary studies
linguistics sociology
Adapted from Martin (2011) and Wignell (2004)
John Airey Universitat Jaume I
Natural sciences Social sciences Humanities and Arts
Disciplinary differences and language
Least objection
to English
Most objection
to English
Kuteeva & Airey (2013)
Show a disciplinary bias in attitudes to
English
language use
based on Bernstein’s knowledge
structures
English language PhD theses
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nat.
Ma
t.
Me
d.
Te
k.
Fil.
Eko
.
Sa
m.
Sp
r.
Ark.
Lit.
Et
n.
Geo.
H
is.
Rel.
Ko
n.
Upp.
%
Salö (2010:24)
John Airey Universitat Jaume I
Teaching in English
Adapted from Bolton & Kuteeva (2012)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Science Social Science Law Humanities
All/almost all None/almost none
Everyone is a language teacher!
Northedge (2002) claims that the fundamental
role of a university lecturer is to introduce
students to the
specialist discourse
of the
discipline.
Building on this, Airey (2012) argues
all
teachers are
to some extent
language teachers
even in monolingual settings
.
Disciplinary Literacy
The goal of any degree programme is the
development of
disciplinary literacy.
Airey (2011b)
Disciplinary literacy refers to the ability
to appropriately participate in the
communicative practices of a discipline.
What is disciplinary literacy?
Disciplinary Literacy
Disciplinary literacy is developed for three
sites
society
,
workplace
and the
academy
Disciplinary Literacy Triangle
Society
Disciplinary Literacy Triangle
Society
Academy
Workplace
Each of these
sites places
different demands
on language
Each site has the potential to be divided into an
international and a local form
.
Creates different language demands
The
international forms
will almost certainly
involve some
English
, whilst the
local forms
probably involve
one or more other languages
.
Disciplinary Literacy
Society
Academy
Workplace
L1
In the Nordic countries the concept of
parallel
language use
is widespread.
Two or more languages used alongside each
other at universities.
Does parallel mean doing everything in all
languages?
What do we want students to be able to do in
each language?
Parallel language use
Each discipline has its own knowledge
structure. These knowledge structures
do not
appear to be language−neutral.
Each discipline fosters a unique form of
disciplinary literacy for three sites:
Society,
Academy and Workplace.
The demands placed on language in these
three sites are very different.
Summary
A
top down, “one-size-fits-all” language policy
that deals with language in anything more than
a ”general recommendations” sense will be
problematic.
Need
locally decided, disciplinary-specific
decisions
about what to teach in which
language(s)
Conclusion
Questions?
Airey, J. (2009). Science, Language and Literacy. Case Studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala Retrieved 2009-04-27, from
http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=9547
Airey, J. (2011). Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education: Disciplinary Literacy and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections (pp. 57-65). Cape Town, South Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
Airey, J. (2011). The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating Collaboration in Higher Education. Across the disciplines, 8(3).
Airey, J. (2011). Talking about Teaching in English. Swedish university lecturers' experiences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica, 22(Fall), 35-54.
Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. In E. Lundqvist, L. Östman & R. Säljö (Eds.), Scientific literacy – teori och praktik (pp. 41-58):
Gleerups.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157-173.
Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.
Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2013). Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Policy Developments Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6.
Martin, J. R. (2011). Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity (pp. 35-61). London: Continuum International Publishing.
Salö, L. (2010). Engelska eller svenska? En kartläggning av språksituationen inom högre utbildning och forskning [English or Swedish? A survey of the language situation in higher education and research]. Stockholm: Språkrådet.
