Language for Specifi...

Summarize result (16%)

Original text

Language for Specific Purposes
An Overview of Language for Specific Purposes
Norris (2006, p. 577) states that the goals of most foreign
language (FL) instruction in higher education within the United States
are built around three main components: (a) the acquisition of the
knowledge of language skills for general communication use; (b)
exposing learners to other cultures and ideas; and (c) fostering an
appreciation of differences in cultures and ways of thinking. While
each of these are certainly noble outcomes and likely meet the needs
of the majority of university level FL learners, they remain quite broad in
terms of what it is a learner will actually be able to do with the
language once they have left the classroom. This is especially true for
those of us faced with learners who have specific and sometimes
immediate language needs that require more than generalized or
dispositional knowledge alone. For these learners, Language for
Specific Purposes courses provide an invaluable alternative or
supplement to general language courses.
Language for specific purposes (LSP) courses are those in
which the methodology, the content, the objectives, the materials, the
teaching, and the assessment practices all stem from specific, target
language uses based on an identified set of specialized needs.
Common examples of LSP include courses like Japanese for Business,
Spanish for Doctors, Mandarin for Tourism, or English for Air-traffic Controllers. In each of these cases, the content and focus of the
language instruction is narrowed to a specific context or even a
particular subset of tasks and skills. Importantly, the context and the
people involved (e.g., learners, professionals in the field) drive LSP
curriculum—unlike general purposes language instruction, which is
often driven by theory alone (Widdowson, 1983).
LSP does not have an overly long or detailed history in the
literature of applied linguistics, and while we can certainly presume
that LSP instruction, in some form or other, has existed for as long as
language instruction itself, few direct references are made to its
practice before Strevens (1977). Even then, much of the research has
been solely in the realm of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) instruction
(see Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991). Indeed, the definition of LSP that we
favor actually comes from a definition of ESP put forth by Strevens
(1988). According to Strevens, the essential characteristics of specific
purpose instruction are that it:
Consist of [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; (1988, pp. 1-2)
In other words, LSP (or ESP) incorporates both linguistics and
content area knowledge that is specific to a particular context based
on the needs of the learners.
Another way to approach LSP is to contrast it against what it
is not; specifically, LSP is often positioned as the opposite of language
for general purposes (LGP), or the more ominousLanguage for no
Obvious Purpose (LNOP). Even Strevens‘ (1988) definition of ESP above
notes that specific purpose instruction is distinct in that it is ―in contrast
with ‗General [language]‘‖ (p. 2). While LGP refers to common
approaches in higher education FL instruction, particularly in the
United States, LNOP is most often associated with traditions in English
instruction and the perhaps more familiar acronym of TENOR (Teaching
English for no Obvious Purpose, Abbot, 1981). TENOR is well known in
the field of curriculum development as a way of describing a still
widespread problem in many second or foreign language programs
that teach English around the world for no other reason than as a
reaction to the elevated status of English as an international or global
language. Given the negative connotations attached to both LNOP
and TENOR, LSP is often seen as a solution or remedy to ensuring that
language instruction has purpose, and therefore value.
Widdowson (1983) reminds us, however, that all language is
purposeful, or at least intends to be so, and in considering what it is that makes LSP different from other kinds of language instruction,
maybe it will help to think of purpose as being on a continuum.1
Rather than an either/or conceptualization of purpose, if we think
about purpose as a continuum, then LSP would be at one end and
LNOP or TENOR would fall at the opposite end, with general purpose
language somewhere in between. In other words, even LSP is not a
single concept, but rather is one that comes in many flavors and has
many possible foci, depending on the purpose.
Differences from ESP
As we have already seen, the similarities between ESP and
LSP are numerous enough that it is difficult to talk about one without
mentioning the other, and definitions of ESP tend to resemble (or in
fact inform) definitions of LSP. ESP certainly seems to be more widely
explored than LSP, perhaps because of the dominant role that English
plays globally and the relatively large number of second-language
users of English around the world compared to other languages. The
historical reasons behind this trend have been well documented and
are beyond the scope of this volume (for a more detailed account,
see Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Mackay & Mountford, 1978; Johns,
2013), but nevertheless, this rise has placed considerable value on ESP
as a field of study, and as such, the majority of research on LSP has
been carried out in English learning contexts. For example, there are at least two prominent academic journals devoted to ESP (English for
Specific Purposes and The Journal for English for Academic Purposes),
both of which have relatively high impact factors among peerreviewed academic journals, while the only current journal devoted to
LSP appears to be Iberica, which is comparatively less well known in
the academic community.
ESP as we know it today began in part as a reaction to the
notion of TENOR as a way for curriculum developers to respond to the
call for English education internationally in a way that was
manageable and sensible for learners in EFL/ESL contexts (Abbot, 1981;
Carver, 1983). Beyond that, however, many English learners had direct
needs for learning English that went beyond the traditional language
learning outcomes of general or dispositional knowledge alone, many
of which were often high-stakes (e.g., as a requirement to coordinate
with international companies, for promotion or advancement
purposes, or even for employment in an L1 speaking context). While
not all L2 learners of English have such specific needs, and indeed
alternative curriculum designs such as English as an International
Language (EIL, see Brown, 2012a) have also arisen in part to address
this fact, nevertheless, the need for ESP has been undeniable (Mackay
& Mountford, 1978).
Within ESP, several branches of study have emerged over
the years, the best known and most frequently researched of these are
English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Science and
Technology (EST), and to a lesser extent, English for Occupational
Purposes (EOP). While much has been said about EAP and EST in the
literature (e.g., Swales, 2000), the focus is often limited to English alone,
with very little attention paid to other languages in the realm of
academic or science/technology purposes. This is not terribly surprising,
given that English is the de facto language of academia and science.
LSP and ESP do seem to come together in the area of language for
occupational purposes, though even in this area there appears to be
a key difference in focus between English and other languages when
they are taught for occupational purposes. EOP seems particularly
relevant for international businesses, where English is used as the
medium of communication between two different cultures. In FL for
occupational purposes contexts, however, the language is used to
function within a (mostly) homogenous community, where the
language and culture are shared. Because of this, learning the culture
as well as the language is often crucial in LSP. This will be explored
further in the final chapter, but it is worth considering here as we try to
define and identify just what LSP is.
What are the Steps to Designing an LSP Course?
It is something of a misconception to view the development
of an LSP course as different from the development of any other kind
of language course. Certainly there are different challenges and areas
of focus, but it is our belief that LSP curriculum development, to a great
extent, involves the same kinds of processes as any other language
course, in that it should be systematic, justifiable, and begin with an
understanding of the needs of those involved with the course. To that
end, the proposals included in this collection all follow a model put
forth by Brown (1995) in his work on developing curriculum for
language teaching.
The approach described in Brown (1995, p. 20) details six
core steps in the development of curriculum: (a) needs analysis; (b)
goals and objectives; (c) assessment; (d) materials selection and
development; (e) teaching; and (f) program evaluation. From this
model, each component of the curriculum is developed in interaction
with all other components, creating a fluid, yet systematic design that
takes into account the ever-evolving nature of curriculum. In other
words, while we might typically begin with a needs analysis as a way of
identifying potential objectives, upon which assessments, materials,
and teaching practices can be developed, the model also recognizes
that this is not a purely linear process, and at any stage in the development of the curriculum, it might be necessary to go back and
gather more information, create new objectives, or otherwise revise
and adjust. As you will see in the studies included in this book, each of
which follows this model, the relationship between every component
and the others is apparent and helps to present a clearly interwoven
and consistent picture of a complete curriculum. Before that, however,
let us explore the idea of needs analysis in greater detail, as this is often
the starting point and main component that is directly associated with
LSP.
Needs Analysis
Every LSP course, regardless of language or purpose, begins
with a recognition that the curriculum, and indeed the course, is a
reflection of some kind of need. This may be a need on the part of the
learners, the community, the language program itself, the university,
international trends, or any number of other factors, or indeed, a
combination thereof. While this may be true (or at least should be true)
of any kind of learning, needs and specific purposes seem to go hand
in hand, and indeed historically the notion of needs analysis or needs
assessment in education has been linked with the very beginnings of
LSP (Halliday, McIntosh, & Strevens, 1964). Brown (1995, p. 36) defines
needs analysis in the following way:
The systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and
objective information necessary to define and validate defensible
curriculum purposes that satisfy the language learning requirements of
students within the context of particular institutions that influence the
learning and teaching situation.
In more detail this definition means that the process of
gathering information about the needs of a particular program or
course requires that this information come from several different
sources and perspectives (e.g., different stakeholders, such as
potential or past learners, instructors, administrators, employers) and
that this information should be gathered using a variety of
complementary methods (e.g., interviews, surveys, document analysis,
focus groups). Underlying this information gathering process is the
need for the results to be valid and representative of the actual needs
of the program in order to be used to create a defensible and
justifiable curriculum.
The use of needs analysis has been well documented in the
literature (e.g., see Brown, 2009; forthcoming). Focusing instead on LSP,
Upton (2012, p. 14) describes four important movements in needs
analysis that have arisen in LSP research. Early needs analyses were
primarily interested in language needs alone, in terms of the specific,
specialized language and grammar that learners needed to acquire in the particular LSP (Halliday et al., 1964). This reflected early trends in
LSP curriculum where the focus was on teaching structures and
vocabulary alone. Following this, as LSP curriculum turned to more
discourse-based approaches, needs analysis also shifted to focus on
identifying the particular reasons why learners needed LSP as well as
on an early version of identifying target language uses (Strevens, 1977).
As genre-based approaches to LSP came into favor (Swales, 1990),
needs also shifted to looking both at language uses but also at the
learners themselves (Dudley Evans & St. John, 1998), which is where
needs analysis remains today.
From needs analysis, the other components of curriculum
design tend to fall into place. Once needs are identified, learning
outcomes or objectives can be stated to reflect what those needs are
and what the learners will be able to do by the end of instruction. In
order to measure the degree to which those outcomes are achieved,
assessments can be designed, and from those, syllabuses, materials,
and teaching methods can be decided that facilitate and prepare
students for those assessments. Concurrently with each of these steps
and throughout the implementation of the course and beyond,
evaluation takes place in the form of gathering information about the
effectiveness of the curriculum (e.g., mid-semester conferences,
student evaluation surveys, outcomes-assessments, see Brown, 1995;
Patton, 2008; Norris, 2006). Again, while needs analysis is found at the
beginning of this process, each of these pieces affect one another
and will always be, to some degree, a work in progress rather than a
completed project.
What are some Common Issues or Potential Limitations to LSP?
Several limitations or issues have been recognized in the
study and development of LSP curriculum. While the proposals in this
collection will discuss in more detail the individual limitations faced by
specific authors, it is worthwhile here to consider some of the larger
issues currently facing the field of LSP. Recent literature seems to have
identified three major areas that need to be addressed moving
forward: (a) the level of specificity/specialization of the language
taught; (b) the methods and focus of instruction; and (c) the role of
power and values in LSP instruction.
Questions about specificity in LSP are not new by any
means. There has been an ongoing debate about the how specific
the language instruction should be in LSP for decades (Johns &
Dudley-Evans, 1991). The crux of the problem is the degree to which
LSP should be restrictive in terms of linguistic features and strategy
instruction (Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991; Upton, 2012; Jordan, 1997).
Narrower views of LSP believe that the curriculum should be focused upon a fixed and limited set of language uses and features (Hyland,
2002; Johns & Dudley, 1980), fearing that a wider scope places LSP too
close to general purposes curriculum and thus defeats the purpose of
qualifying it at specific in the first place. Wider views of LSP believe that
narrow views inherently limit the functionality of language and thus
demotivate or de-authenticate the language for learners (Hutchinson
& Waters, 1980; Spack, 1988). This view follows the idea that LSP can
utilize a common core of specific language and strategy instruction
that can apply to multiple fields while still not being so broad as to be
indefinable. This kind of instruction is typically found in EAP contexts,
where learners come from a broad spectrum of academic fields,
though they are brought together into the same classroom.
Another criticism of specificity is that because LSP curriculum
contains both linguistic instruction as well as content instruction, and
teachers are rarely experts in both, the level of instruction will ultimately
suffer (Anthony, 2011; Huckin, 2003). As is always the case, however,
support for a more moderate position that recognizes the benefits of
both narrow and wide views has started to gain support among
researchers (see Belcher 2006).
The second issue brought up in regards to LSP is that of
methodology, and in particular the relationship between the target
language uses and the linguistic content (e.g., materials, tasks) of the course. Over time, the content of LSP (and ESP) has shifted from a
primarily language-related focus to language use in context (Swales,
2000; Upton, 2012). Early views of LSP curriculum were centered on
linguistic aspects from a more structural and lexical viewpoint (Halliday
et al., 1964). This fell out of favor with the introduction of discoursebased approaches (Strevens, 1977), which had a more usage-based,
communicative approach, but was limited to rhetorical structures and
functions. Discourse-based approaches were later replaced by genrebased approaches (Swales, 2000, 1990), which again prioritized
language use as it is situated within different texts. Genre-based
approaches remain common, especially in EAP contexts.
In non-English LSP contexts, where international
communication is not the focus but rather some form of integration
into the L2 context or culture on the part of the learner, more recent
developments in LSP curriculum have embraced a stronger view of
contextualized language use. This view utilizes task-based, strategybased, and sociocultural methodologies to account for both linguistic
and extra-linguistic needs (Northcott, 2013; Belcher, 2009, 2006). While
these methods are certainly also found in ESP contexts, the shift
towards a broader LSP.
The final issue raised by some authors in regards to LSP deals
with the notion of critical LSP, or rather the apparent lack of critical pedagogy in relation to LSP (Belcher, 2006; Upton, 2012). The main
concern from a critical perspective is that the learners and their needs
be accurately reflected in a way that empowers learners rather than
disenfranchises them. The example used by Tollefson (1991) is whether
or not in proposing a course in something like language for use in
hospitality services teachers are limiting learners to low-paying service
jobs by teaching only what is necessary to succeed at one level,
compared to providing them with the tools and skills to advance in
their prospective careers. Likewise, in assessment terms, a study by Elias
and Lockwood (2014) showed that while an LSP course assisted
learners in gaining the skills to pass their interviews and secure
employment, it lacked a connection to other tasks in the workplace
and thus limited their ability to be successful at their jobs.
These kinds of issues require us to consider curriculum
development from a values- and power-based perspective. When
conducting a needs analysis or creating objectives, as LSP curriculum
designers, we must consider what it is that is being valued and whether
or not this is reflecting the needs of the learners as well as the program,
administrators, and other stakeholders (Upton, 2012).
There is always a question as to the extent to which our learners are reliable or capable
enough to define their needs, but as teachers and developers, it is our
responsibility to consider this issue during the design phase and take the necessary precautions to ensure that the learners are not, in a
sense, forgotten (Benesch, 2001).
English for Specific Purposes (ESP): A Theoretical Approach for
Syllabus Design
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is a very useful approach
for the design of tailor-made syllabuses in varied academic and
professional contexts such as polytechnic institutes, art vocational
schools and military vocational schools. The theoretical foundations
that lay the ground for its significance, its history, its distinguishing
features, its evolutionary developmental stages, its objectives, the roles
of the practitioner, the stages for its teaching and the required
elements for syllabus design are discussed in this article in order to
contribute to its knowledge and later implementation in the teaching
of English in specific contexts. The following methods were used in this
research: analysis-synthesis, induction-deduction, historical-logical,
observation and critical source analysis.
Introduction
The scientific discoveries and the technological innovations
of the so-called ―Information Age‖ have prompted bilingual and
multilingual communications to become a meaningful aspect of modern society. The arrival of the Internet has blurred frontiers and
contributed to a more interconnected society, which in time has
created new communicative situations, cultural models, and varieties
of language and discourse. Consequently, there has been a growing
demand for foreign language courses and new approaches of
teaching and learning.
In this effort, English for Specific purposes (ESP) stands out as
an important and distinctive branch of English Language Teaching
(ELT) that focuses on practical aspects derived from needs analysis,
genre and successful communication. Its implementation in Cuba, in
the context of an ever-changing education that strives for the
attainment of quality, is a plausible answer to the urgent need of
finding new keys for a personalized, contextualized, flexible and
development-oriented teaching.
This approach of the teaching of English has gathered
strength during the last decades and is now considered to be in full
swing. It is commonplace in courses devised for professionals of
engineering, tourism, health care, aviation, informatics and business
contexts. It is utilized in the general and polytechnic education, as well
–especially in vocational, commerce and services schools.
Several authors have carried out search on this topic in the
international arena: Strevens, P. (1988), Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A.
(1987), Dudley-Evans, T. and St. John, M. J. (1998), Johns, A. M. and
Price- Machado, D. (2001), Hyland, K. (2007), Katalin, I. (2014),
Minodora, S. (2015), Lamri, C. E. (2016) and Bojovic, M. (2017). In the
Cuban context: Castillo, M., Corona, D., Macola, C. and Peña, J.
(1997), Díaz, G. (2000), Fonseca, A. B. (2002), Ramírez, I. (2004), Pupo, S.
(2006), Castro, P., González, G. and Casar, L. A. (2015), and Teruel, O.
(2016).
Their theoretical and methodological contributions deal with
the features and essential issues of ESP teaching, the definition of its
categories, competence models and methodologies for teaching,
exercises, tasks, techniques, methods and procedures, among others.
These tools are very useful for the ESP teaching-learning process.
Notwithstanding, we must continue to strive for finding new alternatives
according to specific contents that demand a singularity that is not
found in other works on this topic. In this sense it is important to
continue going deeper in the specificities of this approach in order to
find alternatives that meet the interest of learning English in specific
contexts. The previous reflections lead to the need of continuing
research on the essence of ESP, its historical and theoretical
framework, and the quest for feasible ways aimed at its curricular implementation. These are the leitmotifs that have led the authors to
delve into this specialized approach for the teaching of English and
constitute the definite goal of this article.
Materials and Methods
In order to carry out this research some methods were used.
From the theoretical level, the methods of analysis-synthesis and
induction-deduction made possible to define the research object and
find out a feasible solution. The historical-logical analysis helped set up
a timeline, as well as determining the most important features of the
object of study according to the relevant evolutionary periods. At the
empirical level, observation and critical analysis of sources were
utilized to obtain information and determine the theoretical
background of the object of study. All of these methods allowed the
systematization of the theoretical and methodological framework that
supports the proposal, as well as the assumption of the most pertinent
criteria to solve the issue at hand.
Results and Discussion
The search for a widely accepted definition by the scientific
community of English for Specific Purposes can pose a certain
complexity, for the authors differ in their conceptualizations and there seems to be no consensus on the topic. On this issue, T. Hutchinson &
A. Waters state: ―ESP is, then, an approach to language teaching in
which all the decisions as to content and method are based on the
learner‘s reason for learning‖ (1987, p.19). At the same time, in David
Crystal‘s words, it is ―a course whose context is determined by the
student‘s professional needs‖ (1995, p. 108). Following this same order
of ideas, L. Anthony deepens on its goal when he defines it as ―the
teaching of English used in academic studies or the teaching of English
for vocational or professional purposes‖ (cited by Lamri, 2016, p. 1).
Authors Hutchinson and Waters (1987) opt to say what
English for Specific Purposes is not and agree in seeing it as an
approach of teaching. Some, like Candlin (1975), see it as a discipline
within foreign language teaching; while some others, like Robinson
(1991), decidedly hold that it is impossible to find a universal definition.
Strevens (1988), however, defines it through absolute and variable
characteristics, an idea that Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) expand
on later.
All the definitions, in one way or another, reflect the essence
of English for Specific Purposes and are proper for contexts and needs
that are specific to certain social groups. In any case, the so-called
absolute and variable characteristics of the initial definition by Strevens
(1988), as well as the variable characteristics added on by Dudley-

Evans and St. John (1998) in their re-conceptualization, are the guiding
light for the practitioners of this approach.
ese characteristics
become essential at the time of defining what a teaching based on
English for Specific Purposes is and constitute the framework of
reference for identifying it.
In other words, English for Specific Purposes refers to the
teaching of this language with markedly utilitarian purposes, with the
objective of attaining specific abilities of the language making use of
real situations, so that students can use it in their future profession or
understand issues related to their area of specialization. erefore, its
role consists of helping students to develop the required abilities to be
used in a specific professional context and providing opportunities for
developing specialist vocabulary and types of discourse related to a
subject area, among other roles.
The development of English for Specific Purposes was firstly
influenced by socio-economic and political factors such as the
leadership of the United States after the Second World War which
contributed for English to be considered as lingua franca of
commerce, medicine, technology and business (Minodora, 2015). The
oil crisis of the 1970s also collaborated to enhance the need of this kind
of teaching. That crisis resulted in a massive flow of capitals and
western experts to the oil-rich countries. English became a business which brought about that the pedagogical profession was compelled
to meet the needs and demands of English teachers and other social
groups simultaneously (Minodora, 2015).
A second factor of influence was what Hutchinson & Waters
referred to as a revolution in linguistics (1987, p. 6). In that moment, the
linguistic studies were set to discover how language is used in real
communication. One of the most determinant findings was the
establishment of the differences between the spoken and the written
language, what is used in a given context and what is not used, what
is used in a certain communicative situation and what is not used.
All those studies led to the possibility of being able to
determine which characteristics and linguistic elements distinguish a
context, a situation and a specialty from another, and take those
aspects as the basis for the design of a course that, among other
matters, would be what differentiates a course of English for one
specialty or another. Hence, the still valid aphorism: ―Tell me what you
need English for and I will tell you the English you need‖ (Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987, p. 8).
The third and last factor in the appearance of English for
Specific Purposes was the development of new trends in educational
psychology and the communicative theories of language, which focused on the central role of the student, thus becoming the focal
point of the teaching-learning process (Minodora, 2015).
Concepts such as students‘ needs and interests took
relevance. That propitiated the elaboration of courses based on what
was important for the student, tailored to his needs with the underlying
idea that in such way motivation and performance of the student
would improve. English for Specific Purposes is related, then, to applied
linguistics and discourse analysis, pragmatics, socio-cognitive theory,
communicative language teaching, the student-centered teaching
trend, rhetoric and critical literacy. It is, by all means, a direct result of
the world evolution in those fields of knowledge.
The work ―The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching,‖
by Halliday, Mackintosh & Strevens (1964) marks the official birth of ESP
in the teaching of the English language. These authors consider that
the term specific is used to refer to the varieties of the language that is
used in a professional activity. M. Gotti (1991) abounds on the topic
and points out the conditions for the language to be specific:
emphasis on the user (didactic sphere), in the reality of reference
(pragmatic-functional sphere) and in the specialized use of language
(linguistic-professional sphere), (cited by Gratton, Francesco, 2009, p.
14).
In 1975 the British Council, under the auspices of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, made the first attempt of
classification of ESP. According to its taxonomy, English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) was divided into two branches: English for Science and
Technology (EST) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). Later
on, Hutchinson & Waters designed a more elaborate classification:
English for Specific Purposes was separated into three branches:
English for Science and Technology (EST), English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) (1987, p.
17).
Researcher Imola Katalin Nagy splits the history and
development of the ―ESP Movement‖ in four phases (2014, pp. 262-
272): a first phase, between the decades of the 1960s and the 1970s, in
which ESP teaching focused on the sentence-level. A second phase,
between the late 70s and early 80s, which started to integrate
rhetorical functions and focused on grammatical forms. A third phase,
in the mid-eighties, integrated the linguistic and rhetoric elements of
the previous phases, as the focus was on the target situation and the
oral communication the students may need in different professional
contexts. That phase led to the implementation of the so-called
notional-functional curriculum. And the last phase, which started by
the end of the 80s, that shifted the attention towards the learning strategies –as a result of the influence of psycholinguistics. (Johns, Ann
M. & Donna Price-Machado, 2001, pp. 43- 54)
For a definition of English for Specific Purposes, Strevens
(1988) argues that it is necessary to distinguish among four absolute
characteristics and two variable ones. He cites the following absolute
characteristics:

It is designed to meet specific needs of the learners.
It is related in content to particular disciplines, occupations
and activities.
It is centered on the language appropriate to those
activities in syntax, text, discourse, semantics, etc., and analysis of the
discourse.
It is designed in contrast with General English.
Furthermore, he reveals the existence of two variable
characteristics:

ESP may be restricted to the language skills to be learned.
(e.g. reading).
ESP is not taught according to any pre-ordained
methodology (pp. 1-2).
Both, the absolute and the variable characteristics have
been the guiding light in the design of ESP curricula and its teaching
throughout the years. They are specific to this approach insofar as
needs are of paramount importance at the time of designing
language-centered activities. For this reason, English for Specific
Purposes must be seen as an approach of teaching or what DudleyEvans & St. John label as ―a mental attitude‖ (1998, p.11).
With this in mind, Hutchinson & Waters emphasized that: ESP
is, then, an approach to language teaching in which all the decisions
as to content and method are based on the learner‘s reason for
learning. (…) ESP should properly be seen not as any particular
language product but as an approach to language teaching which is
directed by specific and apparent reasons for learning (1987, p. 19).
Dudley-Evans and St. John revised Streven‘s definition and
accepted most of his claims. They broadened the concept by adding
more variable characteristics taking into consideration factors such as
(a) in this approach teaching shares terms and abilities among the
disciplines of study and the business activity and (b) its teaching must
always reflect the underlying concepts and the activities of the
discipline which is object of study. Their added variable characteristics
are:

ESP may be related 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 a professional
work situation, but could be used for learners at secondary school
level. ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced learners.
Most ESP courses assume basic knowledge of the language system,
but it can be used with beginners (1998, p. 4).
The difference between the teaching of General English
(EGP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP), according to Hutchinson
& Waters (1987), does not differ much in theory; however, there is a
great deal of difference in practice. Strevens (1988) explains that this
difference resides in that ESP is based on a profound analysis of the
communicative needs of the learners for an occupation or specific
activity and the detailed analysis of the language of that occupation
or activity. Following this same order of ideas, Donesh (2012)
emphasizes on the importance of needs: ―Nowadays teachers are
aware of the importance of the needs analysis and perhaps it is this
that has been the greatest influence that the ESP approach has had
on the teaching of General English‖ (cited by Minodora, 2015, p. 2).
That is why at the time of designing an ESP syllabus one of
the most important steps is needs analysis. In connection with this
particular line of thought, Basturkmen (2010) observes: Needs analysis
in ESP refers to a course development process. In this process the
language and skills that the learners will use in their target professional
or occupational workplace or in their study areas are identified and
considered in relation to the present state of knowledge of the
learners, their perception of their needs and practical possibilities and
constraints of the teaching context. The information obtained from this
process is used in determining and refining the content and method of
the ESP course (cited by Minodora, 2015, p. 3).
On the basis of these ideas it is possible to state that needs
analysis is the cornerstone of English for Specific Purposes. According
to Munby (1978), ―if a group of learners‘ English language needs can
be accurately identified and specified, this can be used to determine
the content of a language programme that will meet these needs‖
(cited by Minodora, 2015, p. 3). Once needs are identified, the
objectives, topics and texts are delimited. Among the multiple
alternatives of coursebooks and other online resources designed for
that purpose different authors recommend their use as long as they
serve the specific needs of the learners. However, they also admit that
at the time of introducing them into the specific contexts, the very action of pulling them out of their original contexts and trying to land
them on the specific contexts makes them lose authenticity. For that
reason it is emphasized that the topic of authenticity must be centered
more on the transferability of strategies or activities than in the oral or
written texts taken out of the original contexts (Johns & PriceMachado, 2001, p. 47).
The role of the ESP practitioner is defined through five roles,
according to Dudley-Evans & St. John (1998): teacher, collaborator,
course designer and material provider, researcher, and evaluator
(cited by Minodora, 2015, p. 3). As a teacher, he has to create
learning opportunities to generate an authentic communication and
select the appropriate teaching methods to meet the educative
needs of the students. As a collaborator, he must work side by side with
other ESP practitioners and subject specialists.
As a course designer and a material provider, he must
create his own materials and/or adjust the authentic materials utilized
in his professional area and benefit from educative resources and
teaching materials. Let‘s not forget that the goal of any ESP syllabus is
to sort out the specific linguistic needs, as well as the pragmatic ones,
of the students as they are readied for given contexts in the language.
As a researcher, he must be concerned with the needs, goals and interests of the students, improving his knowledge on the teaching
object and looking for authentic materials.
And finally, as an evaluator, the ESP practitioner must take
into account the stages of the evaluation process. For instance, he
must assess students‘ needs before designing the course. He must
assess the effectiveness of the response of the students to the teaching
methods while the course is being taught. And he must assess the
results of the students‘ learning after the course has finished; but most
importantly, he must evaluate how well the needs of the learners were
met. In a general sense, it is possible to generalize that English for
Specific Purposes goes around the idea that language is used in a
particular manner within the social groups where people belong.
It
deals with communication, more than language, and the forms in
which texts are created and utilized; rejecting the autonomous
perspective of teaching to focus in the communicative practices of
real people in real contexts (Hyland, 2007).
The main objective of teaching-learning from this
perspective is based on learner empow
It
deals with communication, more than language, and the forms in
which texts are created and utilized; rejecting the autonomous
perspective of teaching to focus in the communicative practices of
real people in real contexts (Hyland, 2007).
The main objective of teaching-learning from this
perspective is based on learner empowerment to get information,
develop cognitive and strategic competences, on the basis of the
formation of a critical attitude. In order to achieve this, the stages of
the learning process through this approach are delimited. DudleyEvans & St. John asseverate that theses stages are ―the need analysis, the course (and syllabus) design, materials selection (and production),
teaching and learning, and evaluation‖ (1998, p. 121). Course design
in ESP, consequently, is a result of the dynamic interaction of these
elements that at the same time represent phases and are
interdependent among them.
Hutchinson & Waters define the syllabus as a document
which says what will (or at least what should) be learned (1987, p. 80).
It is also considered an instrument by which the teacher can achieve a
certain coincidence between the needs and the aims of the learners,
and the activities that will take place in the classroom (Yalden, 1987, p.
86). In other words, it is a teaching device to facilitate learning (Nunan,
1988, p. 6).
In connection with this, Robinson points out that it serves as
a guideline and context of class content (1991, p. 34). Basturkmen
(2006, p. 21) exemplifies the definition by means of the standard
perspective of a syllabus proposed by Penny Ur in 2002. She supports
the idea that it consists of a global list of content items (words,
structures, topics) and process items (tasks, methods). Also, she
mentions as its fundamental characteristics that a syllabus is an
ordered document (easier, more essential items first). She adds on that
it is explicit, public, may indicate a time schedule, may indicate a
preferred methodology or approach and may recommend materials.
Syllabuses can be synthetic or analytic (Long & Crookes,
1993, pp. 11-12), grammatical, lexical, grammatical-lexical, situational,
topic-based, notional, functional-notional, mixed or ―multi-strand‖,
procedural or process (Ur, 2002, pp. 178-179), based on goals and
objectives, competencies, standards, tasks
and follow a
comprehensive approach (Nunan, 1988, pp. 55- 65), among others.
All these types of syllabuses go through the evolutionary
development of the English language methodology and their
comprehension is very useful when determining what to do.
Notwithstanding, the authors agree with Benyelles in that ―no syllabus
can bring positive results on its own because of the variety of students‘
needs‖ (cited by Lamri, 2016, p. 16).
This author suggests that the syllabus should include a
combination of grammar items, lexicon, language functions, situations,
topics and tasks relative to different skills. This perspective is labeled as
an eclectic syllabus –also mixed or comprehensive approach
according to Nunan (1988) and Ur (2002). In this type of syllabus all the
elements are intertwined and synchronized. Besides, it contributes to
the achievement of a greater comprehensibility of the teachinglearning process for both students and teachers. Consequently, it is
recommended to assume the eclectic syllabus in order to achieve better results in the introduction of ESP –without overlooking the
relevant role played by the context when using this approach.
The aforementioned authors define the types of syllabuses
and offer some definite illustrations of their contents. However, the
theoretical-practical know-how required for the design of an ESP
syllabus is hard to come by in the specialized literature and its
specificity in certain contexts makes it even more complex to
extrapolate into other teaching contexts. A model that could be useful
to implement, without excluding others which may be equally valid, is
offered by Castillo, Corona, Macola and Peña (Corona & Terroux,
1997, pp. 25- 49), who argue and exemplify exhaustively the four
stages of an operational model proposed by R. Mackay of Concordia
University of Montreal, Canada. they are as follows:

Information gathering stage
Developmental stage
Formative evaluation (or qualitative) stage
Summative (or quantitative) evaluation stage
Basically, the information gathering stage aims at identifying
the students‘ professional or occupational communicative needs. It
defines the special purposes in terms of the use to which English will be put. Structured interviews and questionnaires can be used. he
developmental stage starts with an analysis of the students‘ academic
or job needs. That is, the use of the language as such. The ESP
specialist must describe the language in terms of specific functions
and notions. From this description, teaching points are selected and
sequenced. They will become the basis for developing the teaching
materials, which are no other than the specific texts and language
samples altogether. In this stage specific methods are utilized and all
types of methodologies may be used as long as they are appropriate.
To reach a better effectiveness of the syllabus, it is
suggested to conceive it from the perspective of the communicative,
development-oriented approach upheld by the scientific language
teaching community. On this approach, Corona et al (1997) specify:
As a part of the communicative approach, ESP does not advocate
any particular method, but takes advantage of the different
techniques and procedures provided by all the preceding
approaches. Once the specific language tasks to be carried out by
the learner have been established, the teachers elaborate their
method on the basis of what methodology is appropriate. Special
purposes and special contents lead the teacher to a special method.
(p. 37).
Lastly, the evaluation of the syllabus includes the stages of
formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation has to do
with the systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed
materials and their modification from the feedback of both students
and teachers. In the summative stage the entire course is evaluated
and the material and procedures are adapted in concordance with
the results obtained.
All things considered, for designing an ESP syllabus, from the
needs of the students that we have already determined, specific
objectives (topics or teaching points) are declared. After that, the texts
and reading tasks are determined, as well as the methods of
evaluating the syllabus and the students. These last two aspects are
revised continually throughout the course.
Conclusions
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is an approach that takes
particular importance in academic and professional contexts. Its
development has been influenced by the historical and linguistic
changes, the new trends in educational psychology and the
communicative theories of language. It is fundamentally defined by
means of its absolute and variable characteristics. It starts from the
analysis of the students‘ needs, their attitude towards learning and the stimulation of language strategies. All of them are precise aspects to
be taken into consideration for syllabus design.
In the Cuban context, this approach of teaching allows
both attaining the students‘ specific needs and meeting the social
demands. An adequate career guidance, which always takes place
either implicitly and/ or explicitly in an ESP course, will always take into
account the harmonious conjunction of personal and social factors at
the time of educating the personality of the students for the
achievement of the conscious self-determination of their professional
interests at the time of choosing a profession or consolidating their
motives of election.

Lakhasly

Summarize result (16%)

Original text

Summarize English and Arabic text online

Latest summaries