We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
7,100
189,000
205M
Open access books available
International authors and editors
Downloads
Our authors are among the
154
TOP 1%
12.2%
Countries delivered to
most cited scientists
Contributors from top 500 universities
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter
Multilingualism and Specialized
Languages: A Keyword-Based
Approach to Research Publications
Alejandro Curado Fuentes
Abstract
LSP (Languages for Specific Purposes) research can be represented by publications in a highly ranked international research journal, Ibérica, belonging to AELFE
(European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes), and the international
AELFE conferences. The present study explored these two research outputs as sample
resources in order to describe specialized language research foci and directions
integrating multilingualism over the past decade (2012–2022). The methodology for
this study followed a keyword analysis, based on comparing the journal articles and
conference papers with a larger reference corpus of academic writing. The results
highlighted LSP research-related keywords at the top of the wordlists and salient
thematic denotations derived from the contexts of these keywords. It was found that
four main dimensions are distinctive in relation to multilingualism in these texts
extracted from the journal articles and conference papers: Methodology, English as a
lingua franca, groups of learners, and collaborative projects. While research articles
tend to focus on methodological issues, conference papers describe more multilingual
projects taking place in LSP contexts. It was also found that multilingualism especially
stands out in teaching methods, translation, and lexicology. Findings indicate that
multilingual conceptualizations are important, even though English dominates, in
LSP research.
Keywords: LSP, specialized languages, keywords, collocations, co-texts,
multilingualism
1. Introduction
LSP (Languages for Specific Purposes) began to form as an academic area of teaching and research in the 1960s and 1970s, as linguists recognized the need for specialized language analyses. Approaches were made to specialized vocabulary, grammar,
discourses, genres, and needs analysis in academic and professional settings [1]. By
the early 80s, given the bulk of scholarly work, a first specialized language journal
was launched internationally: The Journal of English for Specific Purposes. In Spain, a
seminal research article was written by professor Monroy in 1983 [2], reflecting on the
importance of integrating these new approaches in Spanish universities; one decade
1
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
later, different LSP projects would materialize via scientific conferences, journals,
and associations [3]. One key association, founded in Madrid in 1992, was AELFE
(European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes). It was first conceived
as a Spanish association, with annual conferences held in Spain and Portugal, but it
started to incorporate more European countries in 2001, when it began to organize
international conferences in different parts of Europe.
In 1999, AELFE began publishing its journal, Ibérica, welcoming articles written
in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, or German. However, during these
early years (1999–2003), the articles in Ibérica were mostly written in English and
Spanish, with almost at a 50/50 ratio [4]. These percentages would gradually change
during the following years, as English dominated from 2003 to 2012 (76.8 percent)
[4] and from 2012 to 2022 (96 percent) [5]. In the AELFE conferences, Spanish was
more widely used during the early years (58 percent), but since 2012, the tendency of
publishing papers in English has also noticeably increased in conference proceedings
(78 percent) [5].
This research background of AELFE can thus provide a suitable scenario where
specialized languages can be analyzed in relation to multilingualism. In this scope,
multilingualism refers to the languages targeted and analyzed by LSP researchers in
miscellaneous academic and professional settings. ESP (English for Specific Purposes)
is a major focus, but encompassing languages other than English is a must in LSP
circles; in fact, according to scholars and journal editors, multilingual perspectives
should be prioritized in LSP [5–7]. A main argument is that collaboration between
experts coming from different specialized language backgrounds can improve not
only language and translanguaging learning (i.e., the ability to compare and reflect on
different languages in use) but also communicative discipline-specific strategies and
resources among LSP learners [8, 9]. Furthermore, multilingualism in LSP should be
complemented by multimodal practices, as “everyday workplace literacies are complexly and jointly mediated by a complex array of languages, genres, actors, tropes,
objects, media, and modes” [10].
The present study was conceived as a way of dissecting multilingualism in
LSP according to two main collections of research published in Spain: AELFE’s
high-impact quality research journal, Ibérica (Q1 in language and linguistics in
2022, H-index 24), and its international conference proceedings (published by the
universities hosting the events). The fact is that multilingualism is being researched
extensively in Europe and other regions, and yet, it is observed that English is often
camouflaged “behind a call for multilingualism” [11]. This phenomenon could also
be happening in LSP, where English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is frequently the nexus
language analyzed in multilingual practices [6].
For this study, two research text collections were made: Articles from Ibérica and
papers from AELFE’s conference proceedings between 2012 and 2022 (including both
years) in order to apply a keyword analysis. This process meant that the top, widely
dispersed keywords in the texts, occurring in at least 50 percent of the texts, were
extracted using lexical software. These widely dispersed keywords amounted to five
in each collection of texts. The keywords’ lexical collocations (i.e., words that significantly co-occur with each other over a collection of texts) were then analyzed within
their different co-texts (surrounding texts) throughout the text sources, and thus,
four main dimensions or thematic strands could be identified in relation to a multilingual scope examined in these texts: Methodology, the role of ELF, groups of learners,
and collaborative projects.
2
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
These co-texts enabled the visualization of key issues because the textual chunks
are derived from highly dispersed keyword information [12, 13]. This information was classified into thematic categories, detailing significant ideas, concepts,
and developments on multilingualism in LSP. It was thus found that multilingual
approaches are relatively often made and/or cited by LSP scholars, whereas ELF is
frequently the conductor of these approaches. Various languages are explored too,
with a noticeable concentration of multilingual aspects analyzed in the areas of
teaching methods, translation, and lexicology. These findings will be contrasted and
discussed in order to examine factors and reasons for multilingualism in this chapter.
First, a literature review on multilingualism in specialized languages will be provided
in the next section. Then, the methodology for this study will be explained in Section
3, followed by findings (Section 4), discussion (5), and conclusions (6).
2. Literature review
According to the literature reviewed (mostly books, chapters, and journal articles
over the past 10 years or so), multilingualism is explored in specialized language
research, teaching, and learning from several angles. A major perspective is the
integration of multilingualism in academic settings where English is the main foreign
language exploited. In 2008, the Commission of the European Communities issued a
“policy framework for multilingualism” with the objective of enabling multilingual
discipline-specific literacies in universities so that more non-native speakers of
English could be integrated [6]. Learners may thus become capable of working effectively in English and LOTE (Languages Other Than English) within their disciplinary
communities. This legislation scope has generally brought about improvements in
terms of language access and development at educational and professional levels in
different parts of Europe. However, due to the diversity of Europe, there is still considerable variation across regions in terms of access to language learning. Adhering to
one’s native language as a sign of national identity and culture (versus outside factors
such as globalization, immigration, and cultural hybridity) also diminishes the need
for multilingual foci. This reactionary tendency clashes with pro-multicultural/multilingual approaches in Europe, not only lingua-culturally but also socio-politically.
In academic and professional areas, this double-sided scenario can be observed in
the fact that most institutions converge on a multilingual scheme, but few actually
apply it [6, 14]. Also, when a foreign language is targeted, English is still the only
principal foreign language, often occluding or diminishing the need for other languages [14]. In Spain, for example, although LOTE such as French, Italian, German,
Portuguese, Basque, and Catalan are promoted in some contexts, ESP occupies a
hegemonic position [6].
ESP and ELF are connected in this approach to multilingual issues in academic and
research situations. ELF refers to the use of English by all types of speakers (native
and non-native speakers of English) in everyday situations, whereas ESP involves the
use of English in order to communicate effectively in academic and professional contexts so that the community of speakers/practitioners, regardless of their nationality,
can communicate and transfer/share knowledge within their disciplines and/or work
areas [15]. One example is the dissemination of scientific research, where there is a
crucial need for “research networking and scientific communication across different
cultural contexts and different languages” [16].
3
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
Scientists/scholars tend to value English as the main language for the dissemination of science in high prestige research journals and in reputed, widely internationalized monograph series [15]. This leads to ERPP (English for Research Publication
Purposes) as an important area of study in ESP. Therefore, the presence of LOTE in
these scenarios is marginalized if not suppressed all together, since high-impact publications and international collaborations (where English dominates) are essential for
academics so that tenured positions can be secured [17, 18]. The presence of multilingualism also differs according to regions. For example, parallel languages are extensively used in academia and scientific contexts of Scandinavia (e.g., English, Swedish,
Finnish) [19], whereas in other regions, such as southern Europe (e.g., France, Spain,
Italy), English is not generally used at such proficient levels, and while it is greatly
emphasized for high-prestige publication writing, its use decreases in other academic
situations, where monolingual L1 communication tends to be the norm [20].
Another important facet of multilingualism in LSP deals with the type of science
dissemination. Essentially, there are two types: Global and local. In the first case,
high-prestige international journals and books are favored, where linguistic restrictions impose the use of English. In the second case, so-called “periphery” regional
journals (usually with less international recognition and/or lower dissemination)
tend to be considered as a “graveyard for papers rejected by international (Englishwritten) journals” [21]. A potential reconciling strategy for this unequal status is
the dissemination of science in Open Access (OA) media/channels. In this OS (Open
Science) approach, more OA journals can be accessed both locally and globally, OS
information is readily available and shared worldwide, and scientific blogging can
foster the use of more than one language [21].
Researchers favor the use of different languages depending on miscellaneous
variables, such as national, institutional, and disciplinary contexts [10, 22]. For
example, scientists may describe projects to their peers in their local language in a
conference but submit the English version for a wider audience [23]; also, there exists
a linguistic differentiation between hard science and social science researchers, as
the former write more in English across international contexts, whereas the latter
produce more content locally and using their native languages [24]. The so-called
phenomenon of “glocalization” tends to occur when specialized languages, deployed
in non-anglophone regions, co-exist with the mainstream use of English across all
types of academic circles [25]. This co-existence often causes linguistic tensions,
especially in so-called semi-periphery countries (i.e., countries where English is less
common in daily life, e.g., France, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Poland, and so on), and yet,
in these locations, research institutions and agencies tend to require publications in
English-written journals for tenure and project concessions [18].
A factor impacting multilingualism positively in LSP is the widespread use of digital genres. These devices incorporate both texts and contexts on the internet, meaning
that different languages can be integrated. This phenomenon has been greatly accelerated by digital technologies over the past decade [26]. Such genres, digitally mediated,
can appeal to diverse audiences from multiple lingua-cultural backgrounds worldwide, since internet can be accessed almost anywhere. In contrast with non-digital
dissemination (e.g., TV or printed material), online genres have provided engaging,
dynamic, and versatile means of communicating science to diverse audiences within
short time spans [27]. Two examples in OS are the video abstract, where researchers
explain their scientific work to semi-expert and lay audiences in different languages,
and the research blog, where experts and non-experts from miscellaneous academic
contexts can interact [27]. This process of “science mediation” allows for alternative
4
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
linguistic and epistemic approaches, making access to science more democratic
[28]. This democratization process has enabled, for example, traditional epistemic/
academic-cultural divides between Western and Eastern regions gradually that dissolve as a result of scientific knowledge updating and sharing (e.g., via OS research
platforms, online science videos, vlogs, and academic blogs). In the Humanities, this
OA process can also work effectively: For example, online repositories and digital
collections are increasingly shared openly across institutions, OS data is provided by
research groups and shared via inter-disciplinary projects, and so on. However, for
the dissemination of research, the transmission of knowledge tends to be less versatile, being made, to a great extent, via local and international conferences, monographs, and restricted access journals [24]. Additionally, the L1 in most Humanities
(non-foreign language related) degrees is often the only language used for academic
purposes both online and offline, slowing down diversified, multi-lingual audience
engagement practices such as the ones exhibited by digital OS genres today [24, 28].
The expansion of digital communication contributes to the placement of “greater
attention on multilingual communication and translanguaging and polylanguaging
phenomena” [29]. In this multi-digital scenario, English is de-centered, and LOTE
occupy diversified media where “plurilingual genre repertoires” are created [29]. This
contribution of online scientific genres to multilingualism is achieved by multidisciplinary and multilingual research collaborations, which can materialize in the form of
genre ecologies [29]. For example, research group blogs are often co-constructed by
international researchers, who use the digital medium in innovative ways to promote
their projects and scientific findings. Thus, by linking research group blogs with
other online genres, such as personal websites and video projects in other languages,
scholars can enhance information, engage different nationalities, and promote their
work. Another example is “citizen science” [29], where multiple languages are used
to target diversified participation in scientific projects/causes (e.g., the use of crowdfunding, online surveys, and webinars can enrich and promote research initiatives).
Among these digital affordances, machine translation and AI (Artificial Intelligence)
resources can increasingly enhance multilingual foci [23]. An example is subtitling in
several languages, an embedded feature in online video streaming [23].
Additionally, multimodal practices can be combined with digital literacies in
specialized communication and professional discourses. For example, in corporate
cultures, semiotic resources, such as visual elements (icons, emoticons, images, and
so on), are integrated in written and oral modes (e.g., emails, chats, or live video
sessions) in order to enhance communication. In these contexts, speakers of different
languages may use either English or LOTE depending on the different tasks carried
out and for what purposes. Thus, multimodal literacies are needed in multilingual
scenarios so that communication is delivered effectively (e.g., in videoconference
meetings with multicultural participants) [10].
Finally, multilingualism is a key objective in various institutions, leading to
national and international collaborative LSP projects. One example is the integration
of other languages in EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction) and CLIL (Content
and Language Integrated Learning) programs in tertiary and secondary education,
which can foster discipline-specific literacies [6, 8, 9, 19, 30]. Another type of collaboration is networked academic cooperation among ELF participants from different
institutions across Europe and the USA, helping each other in PBL (Problem-based
Learning) and TBL (Task-based Learning) situations demanding cross-linguistic,
socio-cultural, and disciplinary competences [15, 31]. These experiences enable
LSP practitioners to “understand how language and understanding are effectively
5
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
negotiated in diverse contexts of intercultural communication” [31]. Other projects
for the exploitation of academic literacies in different languages focus on Primary and
Secondary Education. Here, CLIL can motivate the use of more than one language
inside and outside of class, which may lead to linguistic improvement and plurilingual/pluricultural profitability during schooling. An example can be found in international programs fostering students’ capabilities to amplify their L2 scope, such as
trilingual education programs in Spain of English, Spanish, and a third language (e.g.,
French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Basque, Catalan) for academic exchanges and
collaboration, depending on the region and its cultural and political interests [32–34].
A final type of international collaboration in LSP can be observed in multilingual/
multicultural corporate settings, where organizations deal with partners across international borders and engage in international interactions for a variety of purposes
[10, 35, 36]. In these contexts, ELF becomes BELF (Business English as a Lingua Franca),
and it must be mastered by both native and non-native speakers of English. Diverse
linguistic devices and paralinguistic resources are deployed, shaping a common translingual/transcultural scenario where participants operate [35]. The focus is world business
communication, and in professional sectors of tourism, these communicative exchanges
often take place multi-linguistically, with professionals and customers having to accommodate to a common mode where code-switching often occurs [36].
3. Methodology
In this section, the analysis of keywords adopted in this study is described. For this
analysis, a lexical software was used: LancsBox 6.0, whose main function is to process
electronic texts in a specific collection of texts, also called a representative corpus
[37]. The texts were therefore collected, forming such a corpus, representative of
specific topics and/or types of discourses for the analysis of discipline-specific lexical
items [38]. The present study thus selected all the research journal articles in Ibérica
(2012–2022), considered as a first target corpus (i.e., targeted for keyword analysis),
with a total of 2,210,290 words; secondly, the AELFE conferences (forming a second
target corpus) were selected within the same time period, totaling 263,717 words.
These sizes fall within the suitable ranges of words in LSP to analyze key phraseology
as rich linguistic information for specific purposes [39].
In the journal corpus, the articles amounted to 214 sources (revistaiberica.org), and
in the conference corpus, there were only 75 papers, since only 3 years were selected:
2013 (A Coruña), 2017 (Mérida), and 2021 (Barcelona) (aelfe.org). The reasons were
that some conferences did not publish the proceedings (2014, 2016, 2019), and that the
resulting publications were made in the form of selected papers, special issues, or monographs (2015, 2018, 2022); additionally, the 2012 volume had been published mostly in
Spanish and Portuguese, and in 2020, the conference was not held due to COVID.
Secondly, a crucial step was the choice of a suitable larger reference corpus that
could serve as a yardstick for linguistic comparison. The texts in Ibérica and the
conferences were academic corpora. Therefore, the reference corpus should be also
academic, in the same main language as the target corpora, and it should encompass
texts across different academic disciplines. Therefore, the reference corpus selected
was BAWE (British Academic Written English Corpus) [40], which contains a total of
8,369,142 words. The corpora were converted into txt format and cleaned of metadata
(page headings, publisher information, and hyperlinks) and bibliographic references
to retain authors’ main texts.
6
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
Then, the first analytical step was to create wordlists from the three corpora by feeding the texts to the software used, LancsBox 6.0. These wordlists appeared in order from
top to bottom according to word frequency in the texts. Next, the wordlists were compared statistically according to the standards of the reference corpus [13]. This procedure
meant that the software compared the word frequencies from the target corpora with the
reference corpus wordlist in order to extract salient target words. Therefore, for example,
the word “the” could never be a keyword because it appeared frequently in both target
and reference corpora. Instead, the resulting keyword lists contained key content words
(nouns, adjectives, verbs) that were highly frequent (distinctive) in the target corpora
but not in the reference corpus by comparison. Keywords, in fact, tend to be content
words, considered indicators of the thematic essence or “aboutness of the texts” [12].
The next step was to organize the keywords in terms not only of word frequency
in the target corpora but also of lexical dispersion, that is, the range of texts where
the words occur. Cohen-d, included in LancsBox, is a statistical measurement that
calculates the means for each word occurrence in the texts [41]. A mean value indicates the proportion of word use in different texts. For example, the word “the” has a
high mean value because it occurs very frequently and across all texts in the corpora.
However, it was not identified as a dispersed keyword because its mean value is similar in both target and reference corpora. Instead, the word “language” has a high mean
value in the target texts, but its mean value is low, by comparison, in the reference
corpus. Therefore, Cohen-d located “language” as a key dispersed lemma (together
with its plural “languages”) and registered them as top keywords in the target texts
(see Table 1 for the top five keywords in each target corpus).
Next, the top five dispersed keywords, occurring in more than 50 percent of the
texts (in both journal articles and conference proceedings), were explored within
“networks of intercollocation, including (…) phraseological terms” [13]. These
Keywords and collocations (Ibérica)
Keywords and collocations (conferences)
Specific:
Specific + purposes
Discipline + specific
Specific information
Students:
Provide + students + with
Number / group of + students
Students from +[country/institution]
Discourse:
Discourse + analysis
Academic + discourses
Disciplinary + discourses
Language:
[language] + as a foreign language
Language + teaching
Second + language
Language:
Language + learning
English + language
Second + language
Contexts:
Cultural + contexts
Professional + contexts
Instructional + contexts (MI2)
Linguistic:
Linguistic + features
Linguistic + analysis
Linguistic + mechanisms (MI2)
Learning:
Teaching + learning
Language + learners
Vocabulary + learners
Genre:
Genre + analysis
Academic + genres
Professional + genres
Courses:
ESP + courses
Within + courses (MI2)
Course + students
Table 1.
Top widely dispersed keywords and collocations.
7
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
collocations are a “network of lexical relations” that contribute to the identification
of the “aboutness of a text” [13]. This view can provide “a way of identifying which
words best distinguish the texts of a particular type from another” [42]. In other
words, lexical collocations and phraseological items extracted from top keywords in
context captured the essence of particular types of discourses and topics [43]. The
span for collocation identification was set to five words to the left and five to the right
of the keyword. A maximum of three collocations were examined with each keyword
(see Table 1). In LancsBox 6.0. [37], T values were used to detect frequent collocation occurrences, whereas M.I.2 scores were applied to reveal the presence of less
frequently occurring words, which also significantly collocated [44].
The analysis then moved on to explore the concordances of these statistically
significant linguistic items. Concordances are lines of text shown where the collocations and phraseological items occurred in the target texts. The concordance co-texts,
that is, the surrounding wider texts of these lines, were thoroughly read and manually
annotated according to multilingualism-related aspects. By reading and re-reading
these co-texts, and then interpreting them in the light of the full texts (articles and
conference papers), the co-texts where references were made to different aspects of
multilingualism were selected. As a result, four main dimensions were identified:
Methodology, ESL, groups of learners/participants, and LSP projects/collaborations.
In addition, another keyword comparison was made. Texts were categorized
according to six thematic panels established by AELFE in the journal and conference
proceedings: Genre and discourse, lexicology and terminology, teaching methods,
corpus linguistics, use of information technologies, and translation and interpretation studies (aelfe.org). Each category of texts was compared with BAWE, as in the
keyword analysis explained above. Dispersed keywords were extracted from each
thematic panel in order to see whether the terms “multilingual” and “bilingual” (and
their derived word forms) emerged at the top of the lists, which would mean that the
thematic panel texts used these concepts significantly (frequently and across texts).
Consequently, three thematic divisions were observed to contain these terms at the
top of the lists: Translation (in journal articles and conference papers), teaching
methods (in the conferences), and lexicology (in the journal).
In the next section, these linguistic findings will be described.
4. Analysis of results
Research dealing with more than one language in Ibérica amounts to approximately 18 percent of the total number of articles (2012–2022), whereas in the conference proceedings, this number significantly increases to 42.6 percent [7]. In the
journal, studies including more than one language mostly encompassed European
languages (Spanish, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, Basque, Croatian,
Montenegrin, Russian, and Polish), and three papers targeted Arab, Turkish, and
Chinese (in addition to English). In the conference proceedings, in addition to different languages, there were more studies focusing on language pairs (e.g., English and
Spanish, German and Spanish, English and Italian, and so on).
In these texts, references to multilingual aspects were found with the top dispersed
keywords and their collocations/phraseology, as explained in the previous section.
Table 1 displays this key linguistic data, which guided the analysis:
8
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
CATEGORY/Co-texts (Ibérica)
CATEGORY/Co-texts (conferences)
METHODOLOGY
1) The discursive representation of international
students by three Australian universities is discussed
in relation to conceptual shifts in international student
education, diversity management and multimodal
discourse analysis.
2) Implications for cross-cultural genre analysis and
genre and second language education as language is
important for cross-cultural learning
3) Interviews provide enriching participants’ insights
that can support claims about the professional genres
4) Traced in the linguistic features used in the
presentations of Spanish and Russian companies on
their websites
5) Discipline-specific teaching of these collocations
is certainly advisable. This might be especially
important for non-native speakers of English
COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS
12) It also provides graduates and doctoral students
with Erasmus+ mobility programmes for universities
in France, Italy, Romania, Latvia, the Netherlands,
Portugal, Poland, Germany, UK, and Hungary.
13) Virtual collaboration with partners from other
cultural contexts or geographical locations is seen as
an integrated part of educational programmes
14) Integrating media into language teaching
intended for teachers and trainers. The platform,
material, and package were developed by the project
partners in each participating country
15) On the long-standing tradition of ESP courses
at European universities, which place emphasis on
students’ academic and disciplinary knowledge
ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA
6) The English language became a driver to achieve
these ideological objectives since it was felt that an
alternative political and economic ideology could
best be accessed through English. Western business
and management consultant firms set up branches in
Central Europe, and the need for English to act as a
lingua franca.
7) In Chinese journal articles on English language
education, a survey of the Chinese literature indicates
that there has been growing interest in the ESP genre
8) EAL (English as an Additional Language) scholars
may be reshaping rhetorical patterns in innovative
ways and Anglophone norms are merging with
culture-specific linguistic features
GROUPS OF LEARNERS
16) Immigration has favored the teaching of Spanish
as a foreign language, a relatively new subject in our
country for diverse groups of immigrant students.
17) Japanese language learners writing emails would
need to learn the correct forms, meanings, and usage
of common Japanese emails formulaic sequences
in order to convey politeness and familiarity with
the genre. Similarly, English language learners
in academic contexts have a need to learn other
sequences
18) Small international groups formed by 2 or 3
students from each countries. Students participated
in this virtual exchange in their target language (TL)
subjects
GROUPS OF LEARNERS
9) Recognized through the use of hedges, reported to
be more abundant in English than in Spanish groups.
This coincides with previous work on academic
genres in a variety of disciplines.
METHODOLOGY
19) We set out to provide the master’s students of
the Applied Linguistics course with a genre-rich
environment by presenting them with two thematic
guides, each dealing with the teaching and learning
of second/foreign languages.
COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS
10) The project ran from 1991 to 1999, and was
motivated by the post-Soviet Union political changes
in that it was designed to reform the teaching and
language learning of ESP in 16 Higher Education
institutions in Romania and raise English language
levels.
11) The situation started to change in Spain after the
publication of the Framework Document of Language
Policy for the internationalization of universities,
where a linguistic accreditation analysis was carried
out
ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA
20) The great majority of them continue to make
these interferences in their second language writing
skills. One of the reasons for this to happen is the lack
of cultural sensitivity that there exists in the English
language curriculum nowadays
21) Especially the Polish and Spanish writers who use
English as a foreign language in business contexts
should be more aware of a broader range of linguistic
resources that the British use
Table 2.
Examples of textual excerpts/co-texts where keyword collocations occur in each dimension of the two target
corpora.
9
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
The linguistic items in Table 1 appeared more than 20 times in the corpora
except for the cases with MI2 in brackets, which indicates that these collocations
occurred less than 20 times. For example, the word “mechanisms” co-occurred/
collocated with the keyword “linguistic” 18 times. Some derived forms (e.g., the
plural “discourses” and “learners”) were also included because of their significant
use across texts.
Table 2 shows some textual excerpts (co-texts) where the linguistic items from
Table 1 occurred. They are listed under the dimensions of Methodology, ELF,
groups of learners, and collaborative projects. Key collocations (from Table 1)
appear in bold in Table 2. These selected co-texts serve the purpose of exemplification for the discussion in Section 5 below. For the remaining keyword co-text data,
see Supplementary information. The categories are ordered from top to bottom
according to their frequency in each corpus (journal articles and conference
papers).
As displayed in Table 2, the co-texts can consist of one or more sentences and
more than one keyword collocation (e.g., co-text 18). These textual chunks demonstrate the concentration of key linguistic information denoting ideas related to
multilingualism in the texts, which will be discussed in Section 5.
The second keyword analysis, performed in the six thematic panels of AELFE, as
mentioned in Section 3, discovered the significant presence of some keywords related
to multilingualism. These keywords were only significant in three panels: Translation,
Teaching, and Lexicology. Table 3 provides selected examples of co-texts in each
category (see Supplementary information for more examples); keywords are shown
in bold within these co-texts from the journal and conferences. Implications from
these findings will be discussed in the next section.
PANEL/Co-text (Ibérica)
PANEL/Co-text (conferences)
LEXICOLOGY
1) There is still a considerable number of
bilingual—or plurilingual—dictionaries being
printed that are virtually word lists with equivalents
and almost nothing else
2) A number of promising bilingual specialized
school dictionaries have seen the light in various
countries, especially in multilingual countries like
South Africa and Estonia
3) The labelling of a word as a false anglicism
should be under constant review, and it may very
well happen that what we now consider a slip by
a bilingual dictionary is rather an anticipation of
what the situation might be in the not-so-far distant
future
TEACHING
5) Para enfrentar con éxito las demandas del
mercado laboral actual, multicultural y multilingüe,
hemos clasificado las competencias referidas por
los empleadores internacionales componentes que
conforman la competencia comunicativa intercultural
6) La educación superior no prepara adecuadamente a
los estudiantes para trabajar en contextos empresarios
multilingües y multiculturales
7) Algeria is characterized by an unbalanced Arabic/
French bilingualism at both micro and macro levels.
French is not parcelled out equally across the Algerian
population. It is largely monopolized by the urban and
the rich
8) By means of multicultural and intercultural
language awareness through blended Open Education
resources in multilingual programs
TRANSLATION
4) Los alumnos estudian los textos con diccionarios
bilingües de Inglés y Español como apoyo a su
lectura pero también conceptos a resolver en grupos.
TRANSLATION
9) The starting point is the premises established by the
project WeinApp: Sistema multilingüe de información
y recursos vitivinícolas, focused on the study of the
lexicon from a constructivist perspective.
Table 3.
Examples of co-texts with top keywords related to multilingualism in three thematic panels of AELFE.
10
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
5. Discussion
The results of this study unveil specialized language researchers’ concerns with
and foci on multilingual matters according to a shared usage of top keywords across
texts in the corpora. Important notions and ideas tend to be signaled by this linguistic information. In this discussion, specific factors and features will be clarified in
relation to the analysis of key co-texts (Tables 2 and 3). Hopefully, these glosses and
explanations will provide readers with a detailed description of what constitutes key
approaches in LSP to multilingualism, which may corroborate, contrast, and/or add
conceptual realizations in the literature.
First, key issues are explored in relation to multilingualism across the whole corpora (Table 2). In terms of the methodology employed in these studies, a first major
approach is the analysis of specialized texts/discourses/genres. This type of methodology is more recurrent in the journal, focusing on the use of discipline-specific texts
and genres across cultural and linguistic backgrounds; this focus is also underscored
by the literature [26, 29]. Two examples in Table 2 are co-text 1, pointing to the analysis of multilingual discourses in Australian universities, and co-text 2, which indicates
the importance of analyzing multicultural contexts with a methodology based on
specialized genre analysis.
According to the data, the discourse analyzed in multilingual settings is often
specialized English communication used by native and non-native speakers of
English. Other languages are also compared (e.g., Spanish, Turkish, Montenegrin,
and Russian, among others). These texts/discursive practices can be exploited in the
written mode (e.g., research papers, reports) and/or orally (e.g., lectures, discussions), where multilingual specialists operate.
A second type of methodology in the research deals with ethnographic approaches
to both academic and professional settings where more than one language is
exploited. L2 (second language) developments are generally addressed by classroom
observation, note-taking, recording of professional intercultural communicative
exchanges, and discussions/interviews with participants. While journal articles tend
to encompass both academic and professional contexts, conference papers focus more
on classroom-based research (see co-texts 3 and 19 in Table 2). This distinction may
be one of the reasons for the area of teaching methods to tend to include more practical multilingual explorations (as discussed below).
In some studies, multilingual participants’ specialized linguistic-communicative
resources and strategies can be appraised by analyzing their deployment of digital
technologies and media, where specialized communication takes place. This type of
online genre/discourse analysis unveils significant linguistic and socio-pragmatic
traits according to lingua-cultural factors [10, 23]. Co-text examples reveal that digital communication often involves professional/academic genres (e.g., co-text 4) and
also interactional discourse (e.g., online forums, web-chats), especially in the journal.
Thus, multilingualism can occur in cross-cultural analyses that examine features
of web-based genres in different languages, such as hyper-textual and audio-visual
information in hotel websites for promotion, aiming to appeal to and persuade potential customers from different countries. Other types of online genre communication
include more interactive features to engage audiences, as explained in the literature
review [24, 28, 29]. An example is the online doctor-patient forum, where participants form a diversified audience in terms of nationalities and degrees of expertise. In
these online genres, communicative interactions can take place between experts and
non-experts as well as among non-experts facilitating information and helping each
11
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
other. In spoken genres, an example is specialized communication between multinational company employees from various nationalities in live online video-based
collaborative projects, which may include the development of other genres, such as
project presentations online and corporate reports. Ethnographic approaches are also
included in some studies when, for example, forum or blog experts are interviewed or
when company informants are surveyed by LSP researchers in order to contrast their
feedback and performance with the communicative features being investigated in
these online genres.
Finally, methodological elements are explored at the lexical/terminological level
between languages. This approach can target lexical constructions such as collocations, specialized phraseology, and figurative language (e.g., metaphors). In most
cases, participants are multilingual learners operating in both university and secondary education settings (see co-text 5).
Next, the “English as a lingua franca” dimension can be scrutinized from three
main perfectives. A first major issue being addressed is the conflicting nature of
ELF in multilingual scenarios where most participants are non-native speakers of
English [16, 21]. This tension can be observed in academic and professional/corporate
situations: for example, in the need for learners to have better research/work dissemination skills, higher linguistic competences, and greater capacity for transferring
knowledge (see co-texts 20 and 21).
Secondly, the ELF scenario is regarded as an opportunity for multilingual and
multicultural learning [6]. Generic competences can be thus exploited linguistically
and culturally, and enriching perspectives can be gained in terms of academic and/or
professional developments (see co-texts 6 and 7).
Thirdly, ELF is viewed as an opportune space for academic collaboration where
non-native speakers of English can contribute epistemic and cultural knowledge in
discipline-specific discourses [25]. Two scenarios examined in co-texts are research
writers using different phraseological devices and content lecturers deploying
linguistic-rhetorical strategies that differ from traditional English strategies. Far
from affecting communicative scenarios negatively, these multilingual/multicultural
situations can enrich exposure to translanguaging and transcultural phenomena in
LSP, such as the hybridization of cultural norms for scientific communication (see
co-text 8).
The third dimension, “Groups of learners/participants”, chiefly reflects the
diversity of multilingual groups targeted in the studies. More frequently, LSP learners
from various countries in Europe are included, but there are also studies integrating multilingualism from the USA and Asia [15, 31]. It is also the case that Spanish
students form the target group and their linguistic abilities are compared with native
English speakers (see co-text 9). In other cases, Spanish is taught as a foreign language
to migrant students, a growing multilingual population, whose work-seeking needs
involve a focus on Spanish for specific purposes (co-text 16).
In most cases, cultural distinctions are examined between groups of participants
from different nationalities in terms of competence variables. Thus, writing strategies (e.g., how to use persuasion in essays), reading/interpretation techniques (e.g.,
appraisals in blurbs), rhetorical strategies (e.g., turn-taking in discussions), and
lexical-grammatical choices (e.g., formulaic language) are explored across linguacultural profiles; an example is co-text 17.
Additionally, a distinct group is noteworthy, mainly in conference papers:
International speakers in virtual communication exchanges for intercultural learning.
These participants are usually university learners and LSP practitioners in academic
12
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
and business contexts exploiting intercultural communication via collaborative tasks
(co-text 18).
As regards the last thematic category, multilingual collaborative projects, more
co-texts were found in the conferences than in the journal. International mobility
programs for LSP teaching and learning were found in various cases (co-texts 10 and
12), and there were also instances of international virtual communication programs.
These online projects aim at exploring linguistic and communicative issues/competences as well as transversal skills such as leadership, culture, and ethical values (see
co-text 13). Another type of multilingual project deals with teaching and learning
material design in LSP, developed online collaboratively between different academic
institutions inside and outside of Europe (co-text 14).
Finally, there is a salient type of international collaboration that focuses on ELF
and EMI, while it also draws attention to other languages in academic and business settings [19, 35]. In these cases, specialized language courses are identified as a
common ground where international students can be trained for discipline-specific
cooperation (co-text 15). In similar situations, EMI can help to consolidate language
policies both globally and locally. This phenomenon can motivate the configuration
of multilingual opportunities, such as linguistic accreditation programs for academic
purposes (see co-text 11).
In the second keyword analysis (Table 3), the lemmas “multilingual” and “bilingual,” being widely distributed in lexicology and translation articles in the journal
and in the teaching methods and translation sections of conference papers, led to the
observation of pivotal notions about multilingualism in these contexts.
In the journal, an important methodological issue regarding multilingual dictionaries is raised in relation to a perceived lack of rigorous lexicographic approaches to
specialized language study (see co-text 1 in Table 3). Therefore, there seems to be a
need for further scrutiny of linguistic analysis and explorations into how languages
influence each other across disciplines and professional areas [7]. Another type
of lexicological research into bi- and multi-lingual dictionaries compares various
minority languages with English in specific fields, such as industry and engineering
(see co-text 2). Anglicisms are also addressed as problematic occurrences when ELF
dominates specialized language contexts, since translating such anglicisms may be
more or less feasible depending on the subject, for example, computer science versus
art (see co-text 3).
In the teaching methods section (conferences), authors seem to be more interested
in investigating classroom dynamics (see comments on methodology above). Various
studies focus on the role of intercultural dynamics for multilingual communication;
for example, in business settings, corporate cultures tend to demand specific linguacultural competences from the workforce (co-text 5). This focus on multiple cultures
is exploited in the LSP classroom, including digitally mediated, discipline-specific
communication such as virtual exchanges for multilingual project development.
Project-based learning performance observation is crucial for multilingual assessment (see the discussion of the “groups of learners” and “collaborative projects”
dimensions above). In digitally mediated multicultural communicative exchanges, the
use of translanguaging and translation is observed as important for LSP development.
Participants tend to appraise e-learning resources positively for language learning and
translation in university settings. Thus, this type of teaching methodology seems to be
well-received for multilingual purposes in specialized contexts.
In contrast, a potential obstacle for multilingualism is noticed in the lack or
deficiency of multilingual/multicultural training for students prior to entering the job
13
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
market (co-text 6). Such lower linguistic proficiencies are often observed in semiperiphery regions (e.g., Spain and Italy), where parallel linguistic performance is less
common [18]. Also, in some international contexts, bilingual speakers, most often of
English, tend to belong to privileged socioeconomic groups (e.g., studying in private
academic institutions and/or working in multinational companies). This class-based
distinction also exists in other languages, for example, in French in some contexts of
Northern Africa (co-text 7). This tension tends to cause socio-cultural divisions in
terms of bilinguality (i.e., the trained capacity for simultaneously communicating in
two languages fluently) and multilingual leverage.
As previously stated in the literature, in terms of educational programs and collaborations across regions and institutions, the European Language Policy Division
supports LSP in Europe with a focus on multilingual EU citizens with intercultural
abilities. The reality is that a more monolingual Europe still prevails, adhering to
nationalistic and mono-cultural factors, often acting as a centripetal force against
multilingual perspectives. Therefore, in order to push forward a multilingual agenda,
blended teaching and learning programs at different educational levels (e.g., university, vocational schooling, and so on) can encourage multilingualism through
international projects (co-text 8). In universities, these developments often take place
by working on bilingual blended projects via open access platforms.
Finally, as regards the area of translation, mainly European languages are targeted: English, Spanish, Italian, German, French, Portuguese, Basque, Catalan, and
Galician. The disciplinary areas where multi- and/or bilingual approaches are made
also vary: Health sciences, Art, Industry, Economics, and Engineering. Translation
projects are described by classifying multilingual lexicons semantically and conceptually (see co-text 9). The purpose is often to provide users/professionals/learners with
bilingual resources that they can use online.
In other cases, multilingual translation studies address the need for lexicological
and terminological refinements in specialized areas to improve and update terminology equivalents. The need for coping with effective methods in specialized translation
is highlighted (see co-text 4). An example described in different sources is medical
communication, where medical jargon is examined in English and other languages.
For instance, metaphors in German are analyzed as rich linguistic devices for translators in order to convey medical concepts to the lay public.
6. Conclusions
This study has presented keyword-inferred information about how multilingualism
is currently addressed and investigated in LSP studies according to two research dissemination channels: the journal Ibérica and AELFE’s conferences. Distinctive concerns
and foci have been covered. These issues often coincide with the literature, and in the
LSP corpora examined, specialized language use is specified by describing and analyzing distinct settings, groups, and situations. For example, multilingual competence
includes intercultural approaches and multimodal skills, and in the corpus texts, this
perspective is often analyzed in relation to virtual environments and genres (e.g.,
corporate conferences, digital blogs, online lectures, and so on). These multilingual
speakers/learners share discipline-specific objectives (e.g., working on international
projects), which increases the need for integrating multi-linguistic and transversal skills
in the curriculum. These contextual traits tend to be emphasized by methods-focused
studies interested in exploring more than one language used in specialized settings.
14
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
In these specialized settings, the role of translation and translanguaging is accentuated for academic and professional/business purposes where ELF is the common
language. Other language pairs (e.g., Spanish and Italian, German and Spanish, and
so on) and multicultural elements (e.g., different nationalities in a multinational
corporate environment) are also targeted. Additionally, a shared demand for collaborative multilingual projects in LSP is put forward on various occasions. A viable way
of putting international collaboration into practice is the implementation of online
platforms for LSP research and teaching.
The gap between predominant English and minimized foci on other languages
is also confronted, as in the literature. However, in some areas, such as lexicology/
terminology and translation studies, this tension is less noticeable, as different studies
analyze the equal status of various languages for specific purposes (e.g., in art, business, and medicine). At this lexical level, collocations, idiomatic constructions, and
metaphorical language are important instruments of analysis. Multilingual scenarios
are also often targeted in LSP course material development (e.g., online resources in
different languages). Additionally, even though internationally, science is primarily
communicated in English and corporate cultures operate under the ELF umbrella,
various research incursions are made into LOTE by analyzing alternate modes of
communication (e.g., academic publishing in open access outlets across disciplines, or
working within multicultural groups in multinational companies).
Despite all these varied contributions of LSP research to multilingualism, the reality is that multilingual communities still constitute a minimized approach in LSP, as
some scholars claim. For example, through online questionnaires, all present and past
Ibérica journal editors stressed the demand for multilingual foci and methods [5, 7],
due to the fact that specific tools for the study of linguistic/paralinguistic components (e.g., lexico-grammar, discourse, text, context) of communication in different
languages, other than English, are limited within academic and professional settings.
Instead, LSP research tends to situate English as the reference model for linguistic
analyses, and by comparison, scholarly projection including analytical methods based
on other languages is marginal. Another example is research about novel communicative situations taking place in social media, the web 2.0, and so on, which are still
mostly conducted by targeting communication in English.
In the present study, the documentation about multilingualism in LSP has not
been exhaustive because only these two publication outlets have been examined.
Additionally, the focus has been placed on texts derived from keywords and collocations/phraseology. Other texts or parts where these linguistic elements do not occur
may have been missed. However, because key linguistic occurrences were widely dispersed, representative notions and approaches have been contrasted across research
sources, going from phraseology to texts. This procedure has enabled a constructive
bottom-to-top perspective of the research by exploring common foci, notions, and
approaches about the use of more than one language for specific purposes.
This analysis was conducted in two publications based in Spain. However,
much LSP research, especially in Ibérica, has been done by international scholars
worldwide. In this way, the scope of the analysis is international even if the research
publications are based in Spain. It is thus a glocalized context, since there were several
Spanish authors, as well as many from other countries. In order to delimit multilingual approaches within Spain only, other journals, conferences, and materials would
have to be consulted, which is beyond the scope of this study. For example, AESLA
(Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics) provides a yearly national event where
the use of different languages is analyzed in all types of communicative situations and
15
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
settings and with different methods (e.g., corpus linguistics, cross-cultural analysis,
and so on). The present study could thus be extended to further investigate these
events and resources.
Thanks
I wish to thank my colleague Guadalupe Aguado for her generous help with the
review of the text classification and keyword information.
Acronyms
AELFE
AESLA
AI
BAWE
BELF
CLIL
ELF
EMI
ERPP
ESP
L1
L2
LOTE
LSP
OA
OS
PBL
TBL
European association of languages for specific purposes
Spanish association of applied linguistics
artificial intelligence
British academic written English corpus
business English as a lingua franca
content and language integrated learning
English as a lingua franca
English as a medium of instruction
English for research publication purposes
English for specific purposes
first language
second language
languages other than English
languages for specific purposes
open access
open science
problem-based learning
task-based learning
Supplementary information
Additional supporting information may be found in the supporting information
tab for this chapter:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LtZrlW0R7NWqB6e9Grm3mNS1U6UvbWIG/
view?usp=sharing
16
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
Author details
Alejandro Curado Fuentes
University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain
*Address all correspondence to: acurado@unex.es
© 2024 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
17
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
References
[1] Swales J. ESP serial publication before
the ESP journal/English for specific
purposes: Recollections and reflections
of an old-timer. English for Specific
Purposes. 2020;60:4-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.
esp.2020.04.002
alternative to English-only hegemony
in university contexts. In: Paulsrud B,
Tian Z, Toth J, editors. English Medium
Instruction and Translanguaging. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters; 2021. pp. 1-14.
DOI: 10.21832/9781788927338
[2] Monroy R. Trayectoria y
[9] Coyle D, Meyer O. Beyond CLIL:
características de una nueva
corriente en la enseñanza del inglés:
El ESP. Cuadernos de Filología. Teoría:
Lenguajes. 1983;1(2):143-160
Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2021. 226 p.
DOI: 10.1017/9781108914505
[3] Domínguez-García C. Reseña
[10] Fraiberg S. Multilingual and
histórica del ESP. Lenguas para Fines
Específicos. 1993;1:9-15
multimodal practices at a global startup:
Toward a spatial approach to language
and literacy in professional contexts.
English for Specific Purposes. 2018;51:5568. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.003
[4] Aguado de Cea G, Curado-Fuentes A.
ESP in Spain: Goals, achievements
and prospects. ASp. 2012;62:1-16.
DOI: 10.4000/asp.3136
[5] Curado-Fuentes A. Evolución de
LFE y multilingüismo: Publicaciones
y congresos. In: Abstracts of the 40th
International Conference of AESLA
(Spanish Association of Applied
Linguistics). 28-30 April 2023. Mérida,
Spain: Centro Universitario de Mérida;
2023. pp. 1-2
[6] Lasagabaster D. The spread of
multilingualism in higher education
and its repercussions for languages for
specific purposes. Ibérica. 2023;45:23-45.
DOI: 10.17398/2340-2784.45.23
[7] Curado-Fuentes A. The importance of
bilingualism in LSP in Spain over the past
two decades: An overview. In: Abstracts
of the 9th International Conference
of Bilingual Teaching (CIEB). 20-22
October 2023. Guadalajara: Universidad
de Alcalá de Henares; 2023. pp. 34-35
[11] Dafouz E, Smit U. ROAD-MAPPING:
English Medium Education in the
Internationalised University. London:
Palgrave MacMillan; 2020. 163 p.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23463-8
[12] Scott M. Problems in investigating
keyness, or clearing the undergrowth and
marking out trails. In: Bondi M, Scott M,
editors. Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 2010. pp. 43-58.
DOI: 10.1075/scl.41.04sco
[13] Bondi M. Perspectives on keywords
and keyness. An introduction. In:
Bondi M, Scott M, editors. Keyness in
Texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins;
2010. pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.1075/scl.41.01sco
[14] Siemund P. Multilingual
Development: English in a Global
Context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2023. 300 p.
DOI: 10.1017/S0047404523000556
[8] Sahan K, Rose H. Problematising the
[15] Bocanegra-Valle A. The perceived
E in EMI: Translanguaging as a pedagogic
value of English for academic publishing
18
Multilingualism and Specialized Languages: A Keyword-Based Approach to Research Publications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004232
among ESP multilingual scholars in
Europe. ESP Today. 2013;1(1):5-25
[16] Pérez-Llantada C. Scientific
Discourse and the Rhetoric of
Globalization. London: Continuum;
2012. p. 243
[17] Hyland K. The past is the future with
the lights on: Reflections on AELFE’s 20th
birthday. Ibérica. 2012;22:29-42
[18] Bennett K, editor. The Semiperiphery
of Academic Writing: Discourses,
Communities and Practices. London:
Palgrave MacMillan; 2014. 282 p
[19] Bolton K, Kuteeva M. English as
an academic language at a Swedish
university: Parallel language use
and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development. 2012;33(5):429-447.
DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2012.670241
[20] Perez-Llantada C, Plo R, Ferguson G.
‘You don’t say what you know, only
what you can’: The perceptions and
practices of senior Spanish academics
regarding research dissemination in
English. English for Specific Purposes.
2011;30(1):18-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.
esp.2010.05.001
[21] Salager-Meyer F. Periphery scholarly
journals: From locality to globality.
Ibérica. 2015;30:15-36
[22] Lei J, Jiang T. Chinese university
[24] López-Navarro I, Moreno I,
Quintanilla MA, Rey-Rocha J. Why do
I publish research articles in English
instead of my own language? Differences
in Spanish researchers’ motivations
across scientific domains. Scientometrics.
2015;103:939-976. DOI: 10.1007/
s11192-015-1570-1
[25] Shrestha PN. Current Developments
in English for Academic and Specific
Purposes: Local Innovations and Global
Perspectives. Reading: Garner Education;
2015. 260 p
[26] Belcher D. Digital genres: What
they are, what they do, and why we
need to better understand them. English
for Specific Purposes. 2023;70:33-44.
DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2022.11.003
[27] Luzón MJ, Pérez-Llantada C, editors.
Science Communication on the Internet.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2019. 242 p.
DOI: 10.1075/pbns.308
[28] Giltrow J, Stein D, editors. Genres
in the Internet. Innovation, Evolution,
and Genre Theory. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins; 2009. 188 p. DOI: 10.1075/
pbns.188.01gil
[29] Pérez-Llantada C. Research
Genres across Languages: Multilingual
Communication Online. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2021. 252 p.
DOI: 10.1017/9781108870528
[30] Doiz A, Lasagabaster D, Pavón V.
faculty’s motivation and language
choice for scholarly publishing. Ibérica.
2019;38:51-74
The integration of language and content
in English-medium instruction courses:
Lecturers’ beliefs and practices. Ibérica.
2019;38:151-176
[23] Luzón MJ, Pérez-Llantada C.
[31] Verzella M, Tommaso L. A new path
Digital Genres in Academic Knowledge
Production and Communication:
Perspectives and Practices. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters; 2022. 224 p.
DOI: 10.21832/9781788924726
for TAPP: Reflecting on communication
strategies used in ELF interactions
between native and non-native speakers
of English. In: Multilingual Academic
and Professional Communication
19
Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions
in a Networked World: Proceedings
of AELFE-TAPP 2021. 7-9 July 2021.
Vilanova i la Geltrú, Barcelona:
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya;
2021. pp. 1-9
[32] Granados A, López-Giménez MD,
Lorenzo F. A longitudinal study
of L2 historical writing: Lexical
richness and writing proficiency
in content and language integrated
learning. Ibérica. 2022;43:129-154.
DOI: 10.17398/2340-2784.43.129
[33] Lorenzo F, Granados A, Ávila I.
The development of cognitive academic
language proficiency in multilingual
education. Evidence of a longitudinal
study on the language of history. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes.
2019;41:100767. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jeap.2019.06.010
example of a marine engineering
word list. Lexikos. 2021;31:259-282.
DOI: 10.5788/31-1-1647
[39] Cheng W. Income/interest/net:
Using internal criteria to determine
the aboutness of a text. In: Aijmer K,
editor. Corpora and Language Teaching.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2009.
pp. 157-178. DOI: 10.1075/scl.33.15che
[40] Hilary H, Gardner S,
Thompson P. British Academic Written
English Corpus. Oxford Text Archive
[Internet]. 2008. Available from: http://
hdl.handle.net/20.500.12024/2539
[Accessed: September 15, 2022]
[41] Lijffijt J, Gries S. Dispersions
and adjusted frequencies in corpora.
International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics. 2012;13:403-412.
DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.17.1.08lij
[34] Galante A. Plurilingual and
pluricultural competence (PPC)
scale: The inseparability of language
and culture. International Journal of
Multilingualism. 2020;19(4):477-498.
DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2020.1753747
[42] Hyland K. Disciplinary Identities:
[35] Kankaanranta A,
[43] Culpeper J, Demmen J. Keywords.
Louhiala-Salminen L. What language
does global business speak?—The
concept and development of BELF.
Ibérica. 2013;26:17-34
In: Biber D, Reppen R, editors. The
Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2015. pp. 90-105.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.006
Individuality and Community in
Academic Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2012. 236 p.
DOI: 10.1017/9781009406512
[36] Goethals P. Travelling through
languages: Reports on language
experiences in tourists’ travel blogs.
Multilingua. 2015;34:347-372.
DOI: 10.1515/multi-2013-0070
[37] Brezina V, Weill-Tessier P, McEnery T.
LancsBox 6.0 [Internet]. 2021. Available
from: http//corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox
[Accessed: September 15, 2022]
[38] Đurović Z. Corpus linguistics
methods for building ESP word lists,
glossaries and dictionaries on the
20
[44] Gablasova D, Brezina V, McEnery T.
Collocations in corpus-based language
learning research: Identifying,
comparing, and interpreting the
evidence. Language Learning.
2017;67(1):155-179. DOI: 10.1111/
lang.12225