Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

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

What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing

studies in an English as a lingua franca world
Kyle McIntosh a, *, Ulla Connor b, Esen Gokpinar-Shelton c
a
University of Tampa, 401 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL, 33606, USA
b
Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis 420, University Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
c
Indiana University, 107 S. Indiana Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

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

Article history: Over the last several decades, the perceived norms of writing in English for Academic
Received 21 February 2017 Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) have been affected by the domi-
Received in revised form 1 September 2017 nance of that language across an array of fields and settings. As writers and audiences
Accepted 5 September 2017
become more linguistically and culturally diverse, the ways that English is composed at the
Available online 14 September 2017
linguistic, rhetorical, and discursive levels are changing, resulting in an ongoing search for
adequate theoretical frameworks to describe the reality of academic and professional
Keywords:
writing practices. Two related frameworks, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and trans-
Intercultural rhetoric
English as a lingua franca
lingualism, propose more flexible patterns of communication between users of different
Translingualism varieties of English, with negotiation and accommodation being keys to success. In this
Writing studies paper, we argue that the efforts to introduce ELF and translingualism into EAP and ESP
contexts can benefit from Intercultural Rhetoric (IR), or “the study of written discourse
between and among individuals with different cultural backgrounds” (Connor, 2011, p.2),
which has adopted a dynamic view of culture, while continuing to stress the importance of
genre comparability. Finally, we make recommendations for research and pedagogical
applications that draw from IR, ELF, and translingualism to promote the growth of EAP/ESP
in an ever-changing, globalized world.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the last several decades, the perceived norms of writing in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) have been affected by the dominance of that language across an array of fields and settings. As writers
and audiences become more linguistically and culturally diverse, the ways that English is composed at the linguistic,
rhetorical, and discursive levels are changing, both in print and online (L. Flowerdew, 2015). Such changes have resulted in an
ongoing search for adequate theoretical frameworks with which to describe the reality of academic and professional writing
practices in an English-dominated world.
One framework that has gained some traction in EAP/ESP writing studies is English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), which Firth
(1996) defined as “a ‘contact language’ between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national)
culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign [emphasis in original] language of communication” (p. 240). More recent

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kmcintosh@ut.edu (K. McIntosh), uconnor@iupui.edu (U. Connor), egokpina@iupui.edu (E. Gokpinar-Shelton).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001
1475-1585/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20 13

definitions (Seidlhofer, 2004) have repositioned ELF as a linguistic resource or tool of communication for speakers of Kachru’s
(1986) Outer and Expanding Circle varieties of World Englishes (WE), as well as so-called “native English speakers” (NES)
from the Inner Circle (i.e., traditional Anglophone countries), thus crossing all boundaries in the WE paradigm. The pro-
ponents of ELF envision a world in which rigid NES norms are replaced by more flexible, internationally-oriented patterns that
facilitate communication between users of different varieties of English, with negotiation and accommodation being keys to
success.
Another framework emerging primarily from composition studies in the United States is translingualism, which also
stresses the need for effective negotiation strategies when communicating across linguistic and cultural boundaries
(Canagarajah, 2011, 2013b, 2016; Horner, Lu, Royster, & Trimbur, 2011; Lu & Horner, 2013). Unlike ELF, however, trans-
lingualism seeks to challenge the dominance of English in the writing classroom e and in society at large e by promoting
linguistic heterogeneity via “codemeshing” (i.e., a mix of languages and varieties), as a way for multilingual writers to exert
their rhetorical agency. According to advocates of translingualism, the use of codemeshing supports innovation and “may
even lead to more elegant and locally appropriate language” (Jordan, 2012, p. 68).
The growing influence of ELF in applied linguistics and translingualism in composition studies has led to productive
discussions about developing new research and pedagogical orientations for the fields of EAP and ESP. Recent studies have
addressed the acceptability of non-standard grammar and rhetorical structures in research articles published in international
English-medium journals (Lore
s-Sanz, 2016; Rozycki & Johnson, 2013), the influence of ELF and WE on the teaching of EAP/
ESP writing courses (L. Flowerdew, 2015), and the need for localized assessment that is attuned to the linguistic diversity and
language needs of those applying to and attending English-medium institutions (Leung, Lewkowicz, & Jenkins, 2016).
Not everyone, however, has viewed these developments in a positive light. Tribble (2017) predicted that the widening gulf
between ELF and traditional genre-based pedagogies could escalate into a full-blown “paradigm war,” although he did not
discount the possibility of reconciliation between the two sides, provided that the focus remained on helping students to
achieve their academic goals. Meanwhile, Atkinson et al. (2015), in an open letter to the editors of writing studies journals,
expressed concern about how translingualism was being positioned as a replacement for second language (L2) writing,
despite the fact that the latter has long promoted intercultural awareness and linguistic diversity in composition classrooms
(see, for example, Matsuda, 2006).
In this paper, we propose that the efforts of ELF and translingualism can, in fact, lead to actionable practice in EAP and ESP
settings without exacerbating conflicts with genre studies or L2 writing, especially if they are informed by lessons learned
from intercultural rhetoric (IR), which can be broadly defined as “the study of written discourse between and among in-
dividuals with different cultural backgrounds” (Connor, 2011, p. 2). By adopting a situated, dynamic view of culture while
asserting the need for comparability of genres across languages, IR has made valuable contributions to EAP/ESP writing
studies with an emphasis on student needs, teacher preparation, and curriculum design in particular contexts (see, for
example, Abasi, 2012; LoCastro, 2008; Petri
c, 2005; Xing, Wang, & Spencer, 2008; Xu, Huang, & You, 2016; Yang, 2012). As
Lynne Flowerdew (2015) noted, “The field of intercultural rhetoric has already been flagged as being of increasing importance
for ESP studies. However, as yet, it has not been widely informed by, or, informed, studies of ELF” (p. 16). This paper takes
initial steps toward bridging that gap.
First, we will review the current state of IR and its contributions to EAP/ESP writing studies. Next, we will discuss the
present and potential impacts of ELF and translingualism on the aforementioned fields, and then express some reservations
about adopting these frameworks. Lastly, we will make recommendations for future research and pedagogical applications
that draw from the combined knowledge of IR, ELF, and translingualism to promote the disciplinary growth of EAP and ESP in
an ever-changing, globalized world.

2. IR and EAP/ESP writing studies

The origins of IR can be traced to Kaplan’s (1966) seminal work on contrastive rhetoric (CR), which initiated the systematic
analysis of the influence that one's first language (L1) and culture has on the structure of L2 writing. Connor (1996) defined CR
as “an area of research in second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by second lan-
guage writers and, by referring to the rhetorical strategies of the L1, attempts to explain them” (p. 5). Although ground-
breaking at the time, CR was based on the assumption that all speech communities have their own distinct cultures that can
be compared, and thus was criticized for ignoring different writing patterns within languages and language families, as well
as variations in the writing of individuals (see Kubota, 1999; Spack, 1997).
Connor (2002) responded to these criticisms by presenting a series of advances in CR inspired by Atkinson’s (1999) call for
a dynamic view of culture in TESOL. To further develop a more comprehensive theory, Connor (2004) renamed the field
intercultural rhetoric and advocated for greater sensitivity to the contexts in which writing occurs and to the complex in-
teractions that take place between readers and writers through texts. She also called for making use of corpus data and
conducting ethnographic studies to supplement text analysis. The change in preferred term from CR to IR signaled a move
away from looking at two pieces of writing as culturally and rhetorically disparate and toward viewing them as negotiations
within and between cultures. The evolution of IR established three basic tenets for the study of writing (Connor, 2008):

(1) texts must be understood as part of the social contexts in which they were written;
14 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20

(2) culture is complex and dynamic; and

(3) written discourse encounters necessitate negotiation and accommodation.

The first tenet of IR, which stemmed from Fairclough’s (1992) pioneering work on critical discourse analysis and Gee’s
(1999) theory of “big D” discourse, led to texts being viewed in context rather than as isolated products. For example,
when Feng (2008) compared successful grant proposals in the humanities and social sciences written in Chinese and English,
she found a number of structural and stylistic similarities, but also notable differences (e.g., content vs. research orientation,
negative vs. critical evaluation) that could be partially attributed to political and economic conditions within the local
contexts. Likewise, Mur Duen ~ as’ (2011) study of metadiscourse features in a corpus of business management research articles
written in English and Spanish concluded that the former had a greater number of hedges and self-mentions due to a wider
target audience and higher degree of competition for publication, while the latter had fewer of these due to the assumption
that the readers would all be members of a small, well-informed discourse community. These studies underscore the
importance of carefully examining social situations and practices before making claims about underlying cultural factors.
The second tenet of IR (i.e., culture is complex and dynamic) was shaped by Atkinson’s (2004) introduction of overlapping
domains used to map culture, based on Holliday’s (1999) distinction between “large cultures” (e.g., national, ethnic) and
“small cultures” (e.g., corporate, classroom). A detailed picture of intersecting forces emerges whenever one considers the
many cultures present in a given situation. For example, international graduate students in the U.S. bring not only their
national and ethnic cultures to bear on their academic work, but also the cultures of the educational institutions they pre-
viously attended, the universities they are currently attending, and the academic disciplines they are entering. We know from
genre-based approaches to EAP/ESP that discourse communities have goals and expectations that characterize certain genres,
as well as social practices for producing and consuming those genres (Swales, 2004). Thus, a scientist in Beijing writing for
publication in English would likely adopt the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) structure for research
articles (Cargill & O'Connor, 2006), in much the same way that an American business executive working in Hong Kong would
want to know what a corporate disclosure document looks like before meeting with local shareholders (Bhatia, 2008).
Recognizing culture as multiple and dynamic is particularly important in EAP/ESP classrooms, where students from different
countries, language backgrounds, and even fields of study can come together, often with added diversity in terms of age,
gender, and socioeconomic status.
Several studies (Abasi, 2012; LoCastro, 2008; Petri
c, 2005; Uysal, 2008) have adopted this dynamic understanding to
examine how cultures and languages intersect within writing classrooms, but Canagarajah (2013a) insisted that IR still fails to
capture the full extent of fluidity and hybridity that exists in a cosmopolitan world where interactions are “not fully based on
culture” (p. 204). While this may be true, there are obvious problems with following the fragmentation of culture to its logical
conclusion, as Xiaoming Li (2005) pointed out:
If we erase the borders of all group identities, splintering culturally identified and grouped ESL students into unique
individuals (i.e., just as unique as any native speakers), how do we acknowledge, still less attend to, the special needs of
our students who come from non-English-speaking linguistic and educational backgrounds? If we have learned
anything about language and discourse from postmodern theory, we have also learned this: no name, no represen-
tation. (p. 122)
Even the most complex view of culture may fail to explain every aspect of a single intercultural interaction. But without
some awareness of the values and expectations that each participant brings to that moment of contact, the chances for
successful communication are surely diminished.
This bring us to the third tenet of IR (i.e., written discourse encounters necessitate negotiation and accommodation),
wherein texts are understood to be interactions between producers and consumers of information, who must both be willing
to make adjustments in terms of substance and style to understand one another better. The importance of this exchange can
be seen in correspondence between international scholars writing for publication and the gatekeepers (i.e., editors and re-
viewers) of the English-medium journals to which they submit (see Li, 2006; Lillis & Curry, 2010). It is also visible in virtual
communities where global netizens use English to form new subcultures (see You, 2013). IR provides a useful lens for looking
at how multilingual writers can traverse languages and cultures e big and small e in a variety of genres, from newspaper
editorials (Abasi, 2012) and travel brochures (Yang, 2012) to discussion boards for online courses (Temples & Nelson, 2013;
Xing et al., 2008).
With emphasis on negotiation and accommodation, IR is positioned to engage in ongoing conversations about the evo-
lution of EAP/ESP writing. As Connor (2011) indicated, IR can help to expand our understanding of ELF by identifying preferred
writing styles and structures in comparable genres across languages and varieties, as well as providing social, cultural, and
historical explanations for such preferences and highlighting instances where different varieties of English have been used
successfully. A good example is Connor’s (1999) study of an international fish brokerage company in Turku, Finland, where a
local businessperson regularly communicated with both native and non-native English speaking (NNES) buyers and sellers.
Although the initial goal was to gather authentic written communication that could lead to the creation of a business English
textbook, the resulting chapter became a pioneering study of pragmatic competence through negotiation and alignment
strategies in an ELF setting. As previously mentioned, however, the connections between IR and ELF still need to be
strengthened.
 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20 15

3. ELF and EAP/ESP writing studies

Much of the EAP/ESP-related ELF research to date has focused on spoken interactions in academic or professional settings
(e.g., Baker, 2009; Firth, 2009; Mauranen, 2012; Mauranen, Hynninen, & Ranta, 2010; Pullin, 2013). This is, in part, because
writing in general e and academic writing in particular e tends to be tied to notions of a Standard Written English (SWE)
based on British or American norms (J. Flowerdew, 2013). In addition, published writing is typically revised and edited to
conform to these standards (Mauranen, 2012). That said, the globalization of business and technology, coupled with the
internationalization of Anglophone universities, academic conferences, and peer-reviewed journals, has prompted a number
of inquiries into the growing presence of linguistic and rhetorical variety in academic and professional texts, including un-
published manuscripts (Mauranen & Carey, 2015) and blogs (Vettorel, 2014).
Using the ELFA (English as a Lingua Franca in Academic settings) corpus of spoken discourse from conferences, lectures,
seminars, and thesis defenses, Mauranen et al. (2010) have shown how to construct a globally effective rhetoric that is not
necessarily tied to NES norms. Jenkins (2011) pushed for the development of written academic English in a similar direction,
which could be used in journals and other publications (e.g., newsletters, conference proceedings) that already have inter-
national audiences. For Baker (2013), such a development appeared to be inevitable:
Given the extensive use of ELF in both business and academic contexts and the accompanying move away from NES
norms that this implies, it seems equally appropriate that this should apply to both spoken and written forms of
communication. Here CR/IR has been of great value in contributing to our understanding of the variety of rhetorical
structures that are employed in the composition of seemingly equivalent texts across different socio-cultural contexts,
discourse communities, and time frames. (p. 31)
To better understand how ELF and IR could together inform the teaching of EAP/ESP writing, Lynne Flowerdew (2015)
conducted a case study of post-graduate science and engineering students in a grant proposal-writing module. First, she
instructed them to use rhetorical moves analysis (adapted from Connor & Upton, 2004) to identify the global and local ex-
pectations of the genre in sample texts and then figure out how to negotiate apparent differences. Next, she had the students
check their queries against two large-scale corpora to determine the frequency and collocations of certain words and phrases
in academic English. By introducing discussions of ELF and WE into the module, Flowerdew (2015) found that the students
became less concerned with adhering to perceived standards and more with the overall quality and communicative effec-
tiveness of their proposals.
The challenge for many writers, then, is to discern which structures and conventions can be modified and which must be
maintained for effective intercultural communication to occur. As a leading figure in the branch of EAP known as English for
Research and Publication Purposes (ERPP), John Flowerdew (2013) cautioned that, while ELF has spread to certain areas of
academia, such as lectures and informal writing (e.g., email), most so-called “international” journals continue to resist
anything other than SWE. He attributed this resistance to the presence of gatekeepers who, regardless of their L1 background,
revert to British or American academic norms as a default when making decisions on submitted manuscripts. Using text
histories, Mur Duen ~ as (2013) confirmed that Spanish finance scholars attempting to publish in English-medium journals
often felt compelled by editors and reviewers to make their linguistic and rhetorical choices conform to Anglophone con-
ventions, even when IR research had shown the features to be common in Spanish academic writing (see Mur Duen ~ as, 2011).
Linguistic and cultural differences can also cause problems with the negotiations that occur as manuscripts move toward
publication. For example, Yongyan Li’s (2006) case study of a doctoral student in the Physics Department at a Chinese uni-
versity uncovered several instances of miscommunication with the gatekeepers of English-medium journals. While
acknowledging that bias against NNES writers may have played a part, Li concluded: “Learning to cope with such sociopo-
litical aspects actually constitutes part of the publication game that all publication-committed people in present-day
academia, no matter what their mother tongues, need to learn to play” (p. 475). Novice scholars must look beneath the
surface-level presentation of research to spot the types of questions, methods, organizational patterns, and findings that are
accepted by journals in a given field, and to see where there may be room to maneuver.
To locate evidence of shifting norms and expectations, Rozycki and Johnson (2013) analyzed a corpus of 14 award-winning
articles published in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Transactions since 2006 e most written by NNES
researchers e and found frequent “non-canonical grammar” use, similar to what has been reported in spoken ELF (e.g.,
subject-verb discord, article omission). A follow-up interview with the editor-in-chief of IEEE Transactions confirmed that “if
the English is ‘good enough,’ it can be published” (p. 165). The authors suggested that teachers of engineering students outside
of Anglophone countries could modify their writing instruction “to focus on the structure or format of the research paper, and
spend less time on text-level grammar” (p. 166). Interestingly, when Lore
s-Sanz (2016) looked at abstracts from the journal
Social Science Research, she found that NNES writers often reduced the number of moves in the traditional IMRaD structure
(e.g., fewer gap statements), while simultaneously articulating them in innovative ways that reflected cross-cultural hy-
bridization. Such studies can provide students with a better sense of the variations already present in their fields, although
Rozycki and Johnson (2013) advised that those “who wish to pursue advanced degrees in Anglophone countries must be
made aware that there are differences between global and local expectations, and that canonical grammar use will be ex-
pected in academia, as a mark of in group identity” (p. 166).
Another concern is that, rather than building on decades of work already done on EAP/ESP writing, ELF seeks to supplant it.
Tribble (2017) expressed frustration with the way that genre-based pedagogies, which have been successfully employed in
16 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20

EAP/ESP programs for decades (e.g., Cargill & O'Connor, 2006; Swales, 2004), are cast as “assimilationist” by researchers like
Jenkins, while ELF is held above reproach due to its “critical” stance. He also felt that the distinction between experts and
apprentices, vital to the genre approach, was being falsely equated with the highly problematic NES/NNES dichotomy, and
thus in danger of being abandoned. Hyland (2016) argued that divide between NES and NNES has made scholars from non-
Anglophone countries who seek to publish in English-medium journals feel at a linguistic disadvantage, when in fact the
process of socialization into academic discourse communities can be protracted and painful for anyone, regardless of their L1.
Relief comes from gaining familiarity with the goals and expectations of the community through its available cultural re-
sources (e.g., journals) and experience with writing and revising for publication.
That is not to say that English-medium journals could not do more to accommodate a steady influx of international
contributors. Lillis and Curry (2010) observed that, too often, recommended revisions reshape not only the language of NNES
writers, but also their intended meaning. As a counter-measure, they called on gatekeepers and other “literacy brokers” (e.g.,
teachers, colleagues, proofreaders) to be more mindful of preserving diverse perspectives. Haberland (2011) also urged
tolerance of variety on the part of gatekeepers and readers, but recognized that highly proficient writers have invested
significant time and effort in mastering academic discourse and, thus, may wish to see certain standards maintained.
Multilingual scholars may also choose to write in English to attract a wider audience, as Bocanegra-Valle (2014) found in her
study of the LSP journal Ib
erica, which publishes in five languages: English, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Yet,
nearly 70% of its submitted manuscripts are written in English, despite the majority of submissions coming from non-
Anglophone countries. Furthermore, “native-like” proficiency in English may be positively associated with development
and Westernization in certain parts of the world. As a result, it can generate local resistance to more internationally-oriented
perspectives on EAP/ESP writing, as Gonerko-Frej (2014) found while promoting ELF in her native Poland.
To counter some of the criticisms and mischaracterizations of ELF, Jenkins (2015) proposed a re-theorization that moves
beyond the previous focus on form (or what she dubbed “ELF 1”) and, later, variability (“ELF 2”) to enter a new phase that
positions multilingualism at the center of all research endeavors (“ELF 3”). In doing so, she made gestures toward other
theoretical frameworks, such as translingualism (Canagarajah, 2013b), that accentuate the flow between languages and the
emergent, unstable aspects of communicative repertoires that occur in global communities.

4. Translingualism and EAP/ESP writing studies

While ELF has focused its attention largely on the non-Anglophone world, translingualism set its sights squarely on the
American university, where the number of international students enrolled continues to grow every year and composition
classrooms have become more linguistically and culturally diverse. According to Canagarajah (2013b), a key concept in
translingualism is that “communication transcends individual languages” (p. 6). That is, languages mutually influence and
complement one another, often in creative ways that allow unique voices to emerge. The use of multiple languages in the
same context is not to be seen as interference or evidence of incomplete mastery. Rather, the pursuit of linguistic hetero-
geneity should be valued, with differences taken as “resources to be preserved, developed, and utilized” (Horner et al., 2011, p.
304).
Of course, not all users of English have the same communicative repertoires at their disposal, but they can remain engaged
in making meaning through the mobilization of multiple linguistic resources via codemeshing. In written language, code-
meshing has been characterized by multilingual writers’ tendency to create new words and phrases through their negoti-
ations with SWE and other codes, sometimes weaving together two or more varieties of English (e.g., African-American
Vernacular English, Indian English) or other languages (e.g., Spanish, Arabic) in a single text. This act can involve individual
lexical items, as well as larger syntactic and rhetorical structures that serve a communicative purpose (Canagarajah, 2011).
Rather than asking whether or not it is appropriate to draw from different linguistic resources, translingualism asks
writers e and readers e to consider how, when, where, and why to do so. According to Krall-Lanoue (2013), this requires
starting a dialogue with students to negotiate meaning rather than correcting perceived errors: “Regardless of what might be
more appropriate or correct, the significance of translingual reading is that it opens up a conversation for talking about
reading, language choices, and meaning making” (p. 230). To that end, Canagarajah (2013b, pp. 135e152) offered four
negotiation strategies to help with the use and interpretation of codemeshing in written texts: envoicing, recontextualization,
interaction, and entextualization. Each of these strategies represents different aspects of the negotiations that take place
between readers and writers. Envoicing strategies address what motivates writers to codemesh and set the stage for
negotiation to begin; recontextualization strategies evaluate the target genre and discourse conventions to establish a solid
basis from which to negotiate meaning; interactional strategies are adopted as writers and readers co-construct meaning; and
entextualization strategies involve the shaping of a text over time and space in response to negotiations. The enactment of
these strategies is dynamic and reciprocal, and interlocutors can adopt the ones that advance their rhetorical objectives and
disregard those that do not. The primary aim of translingualism is to find productive ways for students and teachers to go
against the grain of dominant systems of discourse and to explore alternative ways of reading and writing (Lu & Horner, 2013).
Despite growing popularity in composition studies, translingualism has only begun to delve into the pedagogical appli-
cations of its theories (see, for example, Canagarajah, 2016; Krall-Lanoue, 2013; Pandey, 2013), with many teachers and
students left struggling to balance the expectations of dominant discourses with their own rhetorical sensibilities as they
strive to develop translingual awareness. As Matsuda (2014) explained:
 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20 17

Asking students to mix languages for an audience who does not share those resources e in some cases, the teacher e
therefore requires additional considerations. If the teacher is a monolingual user of the dominant variety of English
who does not normally code-mesh, asking linguistically diverse students to do so in the teacher's presence would not
go over well. The reverse is also true: imagine someone who grew up speaking the dominant variety of English trying to
speak African American English; the result would likely be embarrassing, if not offensive. (p. 483)
Unlike composition classes in the U.S., which are designed for undergraduates to familiarize themselves with a range of
genres and modalities, some of which may be rather personal (e.g., literacy autobiography), EAP/ESP courses typically focus
on highly technical forms of writing (e.g., lab reports, letters of application) with specific discourse community expectations
in mind. In either case, writers must understand that “translanguaging is a rhetorical choice. It is not a mechanical activity
independent of the specific communicative situation. One has to carefully assess the extent to which one can codemesh in a
given context” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 404). Codemeshing occurs in many different public spheres, but the current conception
of successful writing in most academic and professional domains continues to be measured, at least in part, by the extent to
which a writer abides by certain conventions (e.g., constructing and supporting arguments, citing sources).
As Ruecker (2014) suggested, educators need to take students’ perspectives into consideration before introducing
translingual practices into the classroom. If students want to engage in codemeshing, then the teacher should create space for
that. But if they wish to learn dominant discourses, then that choice needs to be respected too. We must acknowledge that our
students face social, economic, and educational pressures to compose in SWE. At the same time, we would be remiss if we did
not provide them with the negotiation strategies needed to succeed in a globalized world. Below we make recommendations
for how IR could help to strike a balance between these seemingly divergent goals when introducing translingualism and ELF
into EAP/ESP writing classrooms.

5. IR as a bridge between EAP/ESP and ELF/translingualism

We live in a world in which English has become a lingua franca for people across linguistic, cultural, and national
boundaries. However, the way we respond to the differences that emerge from encounters with speakers and writers from
various backgrounds remains unsettled. Both ELF and translingualism open up the possibility that, despite the continued
dominance of American and British English in many academic and professional fields, other varieties e and even other
languages e are having a sizeable impact on how written and spoken communication is carried out in these settings. Such
developments should be viewed in a positive light rather than dismissed as “bad English.” Thus, scholars and educators need
to advocate for greater tolerance of linguistic and rhetorical variety in their own institutions and disciplinary communities. At
the same time, we recognize that the needs of students remain paramount, especially in the fields of EAP and ESP. Here, we
echo Harwood and Hadley (2004) call for a “critical pragmatism” that strikes a balance, or at least manages the tension,
between teaching dominant discourse conventions and critiquing those same conventions with an eye toward improving
them.
Discourse communities are undoubtedly altered by new membership, but that does not change the fact that dominant
discourses can stand as barriers to entrance into many of those same communities. Learning how e and when e to
accommodate, modify, or resist these discourses can have serious consequences for writers once they leave the classroom.
Although the negotiation aspect of language is significant, the grounds upon which negotiations are based also retain value in
IR; for example, one cannot successfully codemesh without borrowing from relatively stable, pre-existing languages that are
combined in some novel way (Atkinson & Matsuda, 2013). While the extended negotiation strategies described by
Canagarajah (2013b) can draw attention to diversity in EAP/ESP writing practices, IR and its established tenets can prepare
writers to start using those strategies in specific academic and professional contexts. By analyzing the rhetorical features of
texts in comparable genres across languages and cultures at different stages in the writing process, scholars and students can
gain a better sense of where variations occur, which ones constitute lingua franca or translingual phenomena, and which of
these phenomena can be successfully deployed in particular contexts for specific purposes. In many ways, this reflects Lea and
Street’s (1998) academic literacies approach, which encourages students and teachers to understand discourse practices in
context rather than making a priori assumptions as they move into e and between e disciplines or fields.
As an ELF scholar, Gonerko-Frej (2014) accepted the criticisms leveled against traditional CR (e.g., that it could lead to
stereotyping), but considered it useful for helping writers to identify unique rhetorical features, such as the “polot” (i.e.,
stylistic flair) in Polish, that may be considered desirable in one language or culture, but easily dismissed in another (pp.
80e82). Awareness of such differences could help students to gain new perspectives on their own writing. Gonerko-Frej
added that CR/IR could foster cross-cultural understanding and enrich English by helping multilingual writers to locate
spaces where new concepts and values can be introduced and eventually integrated into the language.
Also coming from an ELF perspective, Baker (2013) favored IR research that concentrates less on the distinct languages and
cultures that interlocutors bring with them and more on the subsequent interactions that may produce new forms of both. For
EAP/ESP writing studies, that would mean focusing on texts that display a degree of hybridity, which could, in turn, further
the development of ELF in academic and professional settings. By recognizing the presence e or absence e of cultural factors
in the creation of such texts, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities involved whenever two or more
languages converge.
18 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20

A few studies have hinted at how IR and translingualism can inform each other. You (2013) looked at an online bulletin
board system (BBS) that was part of an English language learning website based in Japan to see how various small cultures
interacted in virtual space to construct individual and collective ethos. He found that those who posted on the BBS both
followed and broke the rules of SWE, mixing in Japanese expressions as a way to bring members of the online community
closer together. Similarly, Xu et al. (2016) showed how students majoring in translation studies at a Chinese university drew
equally from what they had learned about argumentation in English and in their local languages when writing a BA thesis. The
authors recommended introducing more diverse styles of reasoning in EAP/ESP courses, as well as exploring the social and
cultural forces behind students’ preferred styles.
One promising tool for analyzing professional texts written in different varieties of English, which Pandey (2013) dubbed
STEPS [Structure, Theme(s), Etiquette, Purpose, and Style], seeks to remedy the “absence of globally applicable and multi-
dimensional framework of analysis that provides a comprehensive understanding of translingual discourse across linguistic
levels” (p. 219). She used this method to examine the lexical and discourse features of emails written in Indian English and
concluded that having “access to a preliminary list of words and expressions frequently employed in different linguistic
contexts” (p. 224) could help to broaden our understanding of audience. While this method seems promising for IR research, a
fuller narrative of how to successfully deploy STEPS in the classroom is required.
As these studies indicate, IR has the potential to move toward the practice-based pedagogy advocated by Canagarajah
(2013a) if, as Belcher (2014) suggested, it can “continue to complicate, problematize and enrich our understanding of what
community membership means for and to writers (and readers), not just with respect to the communities they are born into,
but those they choose to join or hope to change or decide to create” (p. 66). Future studies should make use of corpora like
WRELFA (Mauranen & Carey, 2015) and of online communities to paint a clearer picture of how multilingual writers embrace,
alter, and/or resist specific conventions. Although text analysis remains central to IR research, it can be complemented with
case studies or mini-ethnographies that provide insight into the myriad ways cultures are enacted through writing (Connor,
2011). We believe that by adopting an IR framework, scholars and educators alike can help multilingual writers to better
understand and implement the linguistic and rhetorical options available to them in the discourse communities that they
seek to enter and enrich.

6. Conclusion

IR has an important role to play in conversations regarding the intersections of EAP/ESP writing studies with ELF and
translingualism. Following its three major tenets (i.e., texts must be studied in the social contexts in which they were written;
culture is complex and dynamic; written discourse encounters necessitate negotiation and accommodation), IR aims to
account for the complexities involved in the production and consumption of texts, in multiple intergroup and intragroup
behaviors, and in the face-to-face and long-distance interactions of members of various discourse communities. By allowing
theories of negotiation and accommodation to enter into its analysis, IR underscores the dynamic nature of genres. However,
this side of IR has not been explored fully in its research and practical applications. In globalized academic and professional
spheres, EAP/ESP writing students and practitioners are confronted not only with the prioritization of certain goals and
expectations, but also with negotiations between local and global concerns that arise from the multiple communities in which
they dwell. Therefore, the negotiation aspect of IR must be revisited and reinforced with help from ELF and translingualism.

Acknowledgments

We extend our sincere gratitude to Dwight Atkinson and our two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on
previous drafts of this article.

References

Abasi, A. R. (2012). The pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric: A report from a Persian-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21, 195e220.
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625e653.
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 3, 277e289.
Atkinson, D., Crusan, D., Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., Ruecker, T., Simpson, S., et al. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and
translingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English, 77, 383e386.
Atkinson, D., & Matsuda, P. K. (2013). Intercultural rhetoric: A conversationdthe sequel. In D. Belcher, & G. Nelson (Eds.), Critical and corpus-based ap-
proaches to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 227e242). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 567e592.
Baker, W. (2013). Interpreting the culture in intercultural rhetoric: A critical perspective from English as a lingua franca studies. In D. Belcher, & G. Nelson
(Eds.), Critical and corpus-based approaches to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 22e45). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Belcher, D. (2014). What we need and don't need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 25, 59e67.
Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 161e174.
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2014). ‘English is my default academic language’: Voices from LSP scholars publishing in a multilingual journal. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 13, 65e77.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of Translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95, 401e417.
 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20 19

Canagarajah, S. (2013a). From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing new challenges in lingua franca English. In D. Belcher, & G. Nelson
(Eds.), Critical and corpus-based approaches to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 203e226). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2013b). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2016). Translingual writing and teacher development in composition. College English, 78, 265e273.
Cargill, M., & O'Connor, P. (2006). Developing Chinese scientists' skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on
genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 207e221.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (1999). How you like our fish? Accommodation in international business communication. In M. Hewings, & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English:
Research into practice (pp. 115e128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 493e510.
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291e304.
Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.),
Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299e316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2004). The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions.
Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 235e255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, U.K: Polity Press.
Feng, H. (2008). A genre-based study of research grant proposals in China. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to
intercultural rhetoric (pp. 63e86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On conversation analysis and ‘lingua franca’ English. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237e259.
Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 127e156.
Flowerdew, J. (2013). Some thoughts on English for research and publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching, 46(2), 1e13.
Flowerdew, L. (2015). Adjusting pedagogically to an ELF world: An ESP perspective. In Y. Bayyurt, & S. Akcan (Eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for
English as a lingua franca (pp. 13e34). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
Gonerko-Frej, A. (2014). Teaching academic writing for the global world in Poland: The ELF perspective. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The semiperiphery of academic
writing (pp. 75e90). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haberland, H. (2011). Ownership and maintenance of a language in transnational use: Should we leave our lingua franca alone? Journal of Pragmatics, 43,
937e949.
Harwood, N., & Hadley, G. (2004). Demystifying institutional practices: Critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific
Purposes, 23, 355e377.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237e264.
Horner, B., Lu, M.-Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73, 303e321.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58e69.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 926e936.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. English in Practice, 2(3), 49e85.
Jordan, J. (2012). Redesigning composition for multilingual realities. Urbana, IL: CCCC/NCTE.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1e20.
Krall-Lanoue, A. (2013). “And yea I'm venting, but hey I'm writing isn't I”: A translingual approach to error in a multilingual context. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.),
Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 228e234). New York: Routledge.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
3, 9e35.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157e172.
Leung, C., Lewkowicz, J., & Jenkins, J. (2016). English for academic purposes: A need for remodelling. English in Practice, 3(3), 55e73.
Li, X. (2005). Composing culture in a fragmented world: The issue of representation in cross-cultural research. In P. K. Matsuda, & T. Silva (Eds.), Second
language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 119e128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Li, Y. (2006). A doctoral student writing a research article: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 456e478.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. New York: Routledge.
LoCastro, V. (2008). “Long sentences and floating commas” Mexican students' rhetorical practices and the sociocultural context. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout,
& W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 195e217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lore
s-Sanz, R. (2016). ELF in the making? Simplification and hybridity in abstract writing. Journal of English As a Lingua Franca, 5, 53e81.
Lu, M.-Z., & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75, 582e607.
Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English, 68, 637e651.
Matsuda, P. K. (2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA, 129(3), 478e483.
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauranen, A., & Carey, R. (2015, April 20). WRELFA 2015: The written corpus of academic ELF [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://elfaproject.wordpress.com/
2015/04/20/wrelfa-written-corpus-of-academic-elf/#more-1050.
Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 183e190.
Mur Duen ~ as, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43,
3068e3079.
Mur-Duen ~ as, P. (2013). Spanish scholars' research article publishing process in English-medium journals: English used as a lingua franca? Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca, 2, 315e340.
Pandey, A. (2013). When “Second” comes first e हिन्दी to the eye? Sociolinguistic hybridity in professional writing. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as
translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 215e228). New York: Routledge.
Petri
c, B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 213e228.
Pullin, P. (2013). Achieving “comity”: The role of linguistic stance in business English as a lingua franca (BELF) meetings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca,
2, 1e23.
Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N. H. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3), 157e169.
Ruecker, T. (2014). Here they do this, there they do that. College Composition and Communication, 66(1), 91e119.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209e239.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765e774.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Temples, A. L., & Nelson, G. (2013). Intercultural computer-mediated communication: Insights from corpus-based analysis. In D. Belcher, & G. Nelson (Eds.),
Critical and corpus-based approaches to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 154e179). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tribble, C. (2017). ELFA vs. genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 30e44.
Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to
educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 183e207.
20 K. McIntosh et al. / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29 (2017) 12e20

Vettorel, P. (2014). English as a lingua franca in wider networking. Blogging practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Xing, M., Wang, J., & Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students' awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e learning course.
Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 71e93.
Xu, M., Huang, C., & You, X. (2016). Reasoning patterns of undergraduate theses in translation studies: An intercultural rhetoric study. English for Specific
Purposes, 41, 68e81.
Yang, W. (2012). A study of students' perceptions and attitudes towards genre-based ESP writing instruction. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(3), 50e73.
You, X. (2013). The arts of swelling places: Building ethos in an online community. In D. Belcher, & G. Nelson (Eds.), Critical and corpus-based approaches to
intercultural rhetoric (pp. 47e71). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kyle McIntosh is an Assistant Professor of English and Writing at the University of Tampa. He received his Ph.D. in English from Purdue University. His
research interests include second language writing, English for Academic Purposes, intercultural rhetoric, and writing assessment.

Ulla Connor is the Barbara E. and Karl R. Zimmer Chair in Intercultural Communication, Chancellor's Professor of English, and Director of the Indiana Center
for Intercultural Communication (ICIC) at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Her research focuses on intercultural rhetoric in academic,
business, and healthcare settings.

Esen Gokpinar-Shelton is a Ph.D. student in Higher Education and Student Affairs in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana
University, Bloomington. She is the former Assistant Director for ICIC. Her research interests include intercultural rhetoric, translingualism, health literacy,
and tailored communication among diverse populations.