“Филологические науки”

Козубська Світлана Володимирівна

Чернівецький Національний Університет ім. Юрія Федьковича

Definition of ESP

As old proverb says :” so many men, so many minds.” Number of definitions refers to the number of linguists who have defined it. Various characteristics of this approach mentioned in these definitions ( Sifakis, 2003 cf. Rogers, 1989; Rogers, 1996). Anthony (1997,p. 1) mentioned the “clear differences in how people interpreted the meaning of ESP ”at "The Japan Conference on ESP” held on November 8th, 1997 at Aizu University in Aizuwakamatsu. He pointed out that the participants were divided into two groups. One group held the view that ESP was teaching of English for any purpose that could be specified whereas the other group of participants ascribed to it as “the teaching of English used in academic studies or the teaching of English for vocational or professional purposes” (ibid., p. 1). This particular example of differing views regarding its definition offers clear insights about the general truth in relation to this controversy. Hutchinson and Waters (1987) have defined ESP as an “approach” rather than a “product”– meaning that ESP does not necessarily involve any particular kind of language, teaching material or methodology. The fundamental function of ESP is: “Why does this learner need to learn a foreign language”( Milavic, 2006 cf. Hutchinson and Waters, 1987)? The rationale of learning English, thus, became the crux of ESP. Robinson (1980) has defined it as the teaching of English to the learners who have specific goals and purposes. According to him, these goals might be professional, academic, scientific etc. Mackay and Mountford (1978, p. 2) have referred to it as the teaching of English for “clearly utilitarian purposes”. These specific purposes are the above-mentioned academic, professional or scientific ones that clearly depend on the learners’ needs. Both these definitions do not confine ESP to any specific field, discipline or profession and recognize its broader area of action. A rather comprehensive approach to define ESP has been tried by identifying its absolute and variable characteristics. Strevens ' (1988) definition makes a distinction between four absolute and two variable characteristics:

I.

Absolute Characteristics:

ESP consists of English language teaching which is:

•designed to meet specified needs of the learner;

•related in content (i.e. in its themes and topics) to particular disciplines, occupations and activities;

•centered on the language appropriate to those activities in syntax, lexis, discourse, semantics, etc., and analysis of this discourse;

•in contrast with General English.

II.

Variable characteristics:

ESP may be, but is not necessarily:

•restricted as to the language skills to be learned (e.g. reading only);

•taught according to any pre-ordained methodology (Gatehouse, 2001 cf. Strevens, 1998,pp. 1-2).This definition tries to identify ESP in contrast with General English. Therefore, the emphasis is on “Specific English” that belongs to some particular discipline, occupation or activity. This definition makes it mandatory that ESP courses should concentrate on the language, i.e. syntax, lexis, discourse, semantics etc., which is appropriate for some particular discipline, occupation or activity .Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998, p. 4-5) have presented a modified definition of ESP which is also comprised of absolute and variable characteristics of ESP that are as follows:

I.

“I. Absolute Characteristics

•ESP is defined to meet specific needs of the learner;

•ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities of the discipline it serves;

•ESP is centered on the language ( grammar, lexis, register ), skills, discourse and genres appropriate to these activities.

II.

Variable Characteristics

•ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines;

•ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that of general English;

•ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level institution or in a professional work situation. It could, however, be for learners at secondary school level;

•ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students;

Most ESP courses assume some basic knowledge of the language system, but it can be used with beginners ”.This definition also acknowledges that ESP is meant to meet learner’s specific needs but it has removed the characteristic mentioned in Strevens’ definition that “ESP is in contrast with General English”. This modified definition has extended the horizon of ESP by allowing it to encompass the specific needs of the students who do not necessarily belong to any specific occupation or discipline. Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) have also enhanced the list of variable characteristics as well. They have contended that ESP is not necessarily but “may be related to or designed for specific disciplines” and different methodologies “from that of General English” may be employed to cater for the needs of the specific teaching situations for specific disciplines (ibid.). Contrary to the idea of restricting ESP courses for adult learners (Abbot, 1981; Widdowson, 1983; Robinson, 1991; McKayand Tom, 1999), Dudley-Evans and St. John have asserted that ESP courses are “likely to be designed for adult learners” but may be organized “for learners at secondary school level”. They have pointed out that ESP courses may be planned for the beginners along with intermediate or advanced students. It comes out from the above discussion that “S” for specific is central to this approach as was stated by Hadley (2006: 3) that “ the key to teaching ESP is to focus on the “S” for specific. ESP can be differentiated from general ELT by its concern with specialized language and practice”. But this word “special” might apply to special language or special needs / aim. This confusion over these two notions was reported during 1980’s (Gatehouse, 2001 cf. Perren, 1974). Mackay and Mountford (1978, p. 4) defined the idea of special language as follows: “The only practical way in which we can understand the notion of special language is as a restricted repertoire of words and expressions selected from the whole language because that restricted repertoire covers every requirement within a well-defined context, task or vocation” .The second notion, “special aim”, was interpreted as the learners’ special purpose of learning of English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) instead of the nature of the language they intended to learn (ibid.). Barron (1994, p. 3) supported the first notion and confined ESP to specific disciplines and insisted “to place ESP firmly within the multidimensional space that constitutes the students’ chosen disciplinary culture”. It was further explained that the multidimensional space included “social, cultural and political factors as well as functional ones”(ibid.,p. 3). Strevens’ (1998) supported the same notion because one of the absolute characteristics of his definition identified ESP as being "in contrast to General English". Resultantly, ESP should concentrate on the learners’ special needs in particular occupations and activities. Fiorito (2005, p. 1) supported the same belief and declared that “the ESP focal point is that English is not taught as a subject separated from the students' real world (or wishes); instead, it is integrated into a subject matter area important to the learners.” Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) contradicted this restricted view regarding the scope of ESP by including English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in the realm of ESP in their revised definition. They further clarified their contention when they proclaimed that “it is our contention that all courses in specialized language and practice fall under the English for specific purposes rubrics”(Hadley, 2006cf. Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998, p. 3). This specialized (language and practice) mean business, academic, occupational etc. Hutchinson and Waters (1987) also favored the broader notion of ESP and did not restrict it to any specific discipline. They theorized that "ESP is an approach to language teaching in which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner's reason for learning”(ibid., p. 19). According to them, ESP programs insisted on the “learner’s reason for learning” and not on any occupation or profession. Gatehouse (2001, p. 3) reported that “ consequently , the focus of the word 'special' in ESP ought to be on the purpose for which learners learn and not on the specific jargon or registers they learn”. Although the above-mentioned controversy about the definition and scope of ESP is likely to exist to some extent but a vast majority of ESP proponents seems to agree that ESP is a very flexible approach of teaching of English as a second language (TESL) / teaching of English as a foreign language (TEFL) that is integrally linked not only with special disciplines and occupations but also caters for the special needs in the realm of EAP as well. It transpires that ESP is not limited to any specific discipline but meant for the specific needs of the learners because “ESP is (or ought logically to be) integrally linked with areas of activity(academic, vocational, professional) which have already been defined and which represent the learners’ aspiration. The learning of ESP is in consequence an essentially dependent activity, a parasitic process, and it follows that the pedagogy of ESP must be dependent too. It has no purpose of its own; it exists only to serve those that have been specified elsewhere”(Barron, 1994, cf. Widdowson, 1983, pp. 108-109).

[1]Abbot, G., 1981. "Encouraging communication in English: a paradox” ELT Journal

(35, 3), pp.228–230 Retrieved http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/XXXV/3/228

[2] Adamson, C., 1997. "Nursing matters.The Japan Conference on English for Specific PurposesProceedings", Aizuwakamatsu, pp. 59-67. Retrieved http://ericfacility.org (ERIC: EducationalResources Information Center, US department of education: Indiana University, Bloomington.):ED 424774.

[3]Anthony, L., 1997."ESP: What does it mean?”ON CUE. Retrievedhttp://www.interserver.miyazakimed. ac.jp/~cue/pc/anthony.htm

[4] Barron, C., 1994. "A Cultural Approach to Language Tasks. Pp. 1-16. Retrievedhttp://ericfacility.org (ERIC: Educational Resources Information Center, US department ofeducation: Indiana University, Bloomington.): ED 366 228.

[5]Dudley-Evans, T., 1997. "An overview of ESP in the 1990’s",The Japan Conference on English for Specific Purposes Proceedings, Aizuwakamatsu. November 8, 1997. (Thomas, O),ed: pp. 1-9. http://ericfacility.org (ERIC: Educational Resources Information Center, USdepartment of education: Indiana University, Bloomington.): ED 424 774

[6] Dudley-Evans, A. and A.M. St. John, 1998. "Developments in English for Specific Purposes: Amulti-disciplinary approach" , Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

[7] Douglas, D., 2000. " Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes".

 Cambridge University Press.Cambridge.

[8] Fiorito, L., 2005. "Teaching English for Specific Purposes", In:Using English:

http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/teaching-english-for-specific-purposes-esp.html.

[9] Gatehouse, K., 2001. "Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) CurriculumDevelopment",

The Internet TESL Journal,7(10), Retrieved http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse_ESP.html

[10] Hadley, J., 2006. "Needs analysis in ESP". In: English for specific Purposes in the Arab World(

Lahlou, M S; Richardson, A), eds; TESOL Arabia. Dubai. Pp. 3-6

[11] Johns, A., and T. Dudley-Evans, 1991. "English for Specific Purposes: International in Scope,specific in purpose",TESOL Quarterly,25(2), pp. 297-314.

[12] Johns, A. M., 1989. "Some comments on the nature of Chinese ESP Course books". In:

 ESP inPractice (Peterson, P. W.), eds; English Language Programs Division, United StatesInformation Agency. Washington, D. C. pp. 85-90.

[13] Mackay, R.; Mountford, A. J. (1978).The teaching of English for Specific Purposes: theory andpractice. in:

 English for Specific Purposes: A case study approach. (Mackey, R.; Mountford A.J.), eds; Longman. London. English for Specific Purposes: Its Definition, Characteristics, Scope and Purpose

[14 ]MacKay, H.; Tom, A. (1999). Teaching adult second language learners.Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge

[15 ]Milevica, 2006. "Teaching Foreign Language for Specific Purposes: Teacher Development"\,31

St Annual Association of Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE) Conference,

 Serbia. RetrievedMarch 15, 2009 from http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/atee/978- 961-6637-06-0/487-493.pdf

[16] Peters, S., and D. Saxon, 1997. "Integrating ESL into the Art History Classroom",

The JapanConference on English for Specific Purposes Proceedings, Aizuwakamatsu. November 8, 1997.(Thomas, O.), ed: Retrieved http://ericfacility.org (ERIC: Educational Resources InformationCenter, US department of education: Indiana University, Bloomington.): ED 424 774. Pp. 108-113.

[17] Robinson, P., 1980. " ESP (English for Specific Purposes",

 Pergamon Press Ltd. New York.

[18] Robinson, P., 1991."ESP today: A practitioners’ guide", Prentice Hall International. NewYork.

[19] Rogers, A., 1996. "Learning and adult education". In: Supporting Life-long Learning (Harrison,R.; Reeve, F.; Hanson, A.; Clarke, J.), eds; (1): Open University Press. Philadelphia. pp. 8-24.

[20] Rogers, J., 1989."Adults learning"  Open University Press. Philadelphia.

[21] Sifakis, N. C., 2003. "Applying the adult education framework to ESP curriculum development:an integrative model",Science Direct, English for Specific Purposes,22 (2), pp. 195-211.Retrieved http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?

[22] Strevens, P., 1998. "ESP after twenty years: A re-appraisal", In:

 ESP: State of the art  (Tickoo,M.), ed; SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore. pp. 1-13.

[23] Widdowson, H. G., 1983. "Learning Purpose and Language Use" , Oxford University Press. Oxford.