In this chapter, I suggest three distinct aspects of disciplinary literacy that require consideration when embarking on EMI. The first of these aspects is the type of discipline at hand. Here, I explain how a discipline’s knowledge structure affects disciplinary attitudes to language use. The sciences generally have the least objection to EMI, whilst humanities often have much stronger preferences for local languages. The second aspect of disciplinary literacy for consideration is the importance of semiotic resource systems other than language (such as mathematics, diagrams, graphs, hands-on work with physical tools, etc.) in the creation of disciplinary knowledge. The degree of reliance on these other semiotic systems necessarily affects the role played by language in the discipline. Finally, I suggest that disciplinary literacy is developed to function within three specific sites: the academy, society and the workplace. Different disciplines place different emphasis on these three sites, and I demonstrate how this can be problematized using a disciplinary literacy triangle. I finish the chapter by proposing a disciplinary literacy discussion matrix as a heuristic tool for disciplinary needs analysis in EMI.