Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

Purpose: The study aims to develop a framework allowing the systematic investigation of the various dimensions of the approaches for teaching business English (BE) in an ESL environment. Design/Methodology/Approach: This study is based on the mixed method approach of non-empirical and qualitative observation of the existing theories and practices put in use for teaching business English across several universities of different cultures and continents. The role of the structural method, functional method, and interactive methods for effective business English teaching shall be investigated in this study. Findings: The importance of ethnolinguistics and cultural pluralism have been ignored in teaching Business English, especially in the cultural setup other than the natives. No pedagogical approach and teaching methodology shall reckon with any effective course learning outcomes for a specific occupational purpose. Research Limitations: The study focuses more on the critical analysis and observation of the wide-ranging theoretical articles, and previous works of literature dealing with Business English. Managerial Implications: The adequacy of the findings can be established only after the findings are implemented in a cross-cultural pedagogical setup and then evaluated through mixed methods of research findings. Originality/Value: The study focuses on the core issue of the neglect of the cultural and ethnic aspects involved in the teaching methodology of Business English in non-native cultural set-ups.

Keywords

Business English, Dogme, and ESP.

1. Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, Method, and Technique. ELT Journal, 17(2), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XVII.2.63
2. Bhatia, V. K. (2014). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in professional writing. In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp. 21-39). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840390-2
3. Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today, 24(2), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026607840800014X
4. Bruner, J. (1974). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/ 9780674897014
5. Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic Structures. In Syntactic Structures (2nd ed.). Walter de Gruyter. https://tallinzen.net/media/readings/chomsky_syntactic_structures.pdf
6. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assess- ment. In New Cambridge Modern History (Vol. 13). Council of Europe Publishing. www.coe.int/lang-cefr.
7. D.K. (2017). English for Everyone Business English Course Book Level 1: A Complete Self Study Programme. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.
8. El-Moffock, N. (2021). English for economic and business use. University of Algiers 3. https://dspace.univ-alger3.dz/jspui/handle/123456789/6501
9. Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and Education. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. Continuum.
10. Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. Indiana University Press. https://www.abebooks.com/Linguistic-Sciences-Language-Teaching-M.A.K-Halliday/20328840555/bd
11. Hyland, K. (2018). English for Specific Purposes: Some Influences and Impacts. In The International Handbook of English language education (pp. 379-390). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328725376_chapter_26_english_for_specific_purposes_some_influences_and_impacts
12. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings by J. B. Pride & Janet Holmes (pp. 269-293). Penguin.
13. Kapur, R. (2020). Understanding the Meaning and Significance of Pedagogical Approaches. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345317896_Understanding_the_Meaning_and_Significance_of_Pedagogical_ Approaches
14. Lopez, T. C. (2021). Unity in Diversity: Practicing Trans- lingualism in First-Year Writing Courses. In Translingual Pedagogical Perspectives: Engaging Domestic and International Students in the Composition Classroom (p. 16). Utah State University Press.
15. MacClintock, P. L. (2011). The Essential of Business English. La Salle extension University.
16. Marinescu, R. E. (2018). English for Business and Economics: Challenges and Opportunities. Ivth International Conference on Globalization and Higher Education in Economics and Business Administration – Geba 2010, 77-81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324057836_English_for_Business_and_Economics_Challenges_and_Opportunities_Roxana_Marinescu
17. Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The Myth of Linguistic Homo- geneity in U.S. College Composition. Cross-Language Relations in Composition, 68(6), 637-651. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/i25472172
18. Sharma, G. (2021). Addressing Monolingual Dispositions with Translingual Pedagogy. In Translingual Pedagogical Perspectives: Engaging Domestic and International Students in the Composition Classroom (pp. 17-38). https://doi.org/10.7330/9781646421121.c001
19. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global Issues and Local Interests. World Englishes, 16(1), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00054