Module 1: Unit 3

History and Phases in the Development of ESP

Contents

1.0 Introduction of the unit

2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 History and growth of ESP
3.2 Phases in the Development of ESP
3.2.1 Register analysis
3.2.2 Rhetorical and discourse analysis
3.2.3 Analysis of study skills
3.2.4 Analysis of learning skills

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the previous unit, we discussed reasons for the evolution of ESP which include the demand of a brave
new world, revolution in linguistics and the focus on the learner. In this unit, you will read about the
growth and development of ESP, which is not something that happened in one day. You will also see
thar ESP is not a monolithic universal phenomenon; rather it is something that has developed at
different speeds in different countries. We shall therefore discuss, in this unit, the five phases to the
development of ESP as recorded by (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987 pp. 9-14)

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of the unit, you are expected to be able to:

(a) trace the growth and history of ESP;

(b) describe each phase in the development of ESP;
(c) state the differences in the phases;
(d) differentiate between language use and language learning;
(e) explain what is meant by CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), CBI (Content-
Based Instruction) and TBL (Task-Based Learning); and
(f) outline the criticisms against register analysis
3. MAIN CONTENT

3.1 The History and Growth of ESP

ESP has a long history in the field of English teaching. From the early 1960’s, ESP has grown to become
one of the most prominent areas of EFL teaching today. It is driven often by stakeholders, and
sometimes by material writers. An examination of ESP textbooks today would find a huge variety of
them designed, for example, not just for Business English, but now for Marketing, Banking, and
Advertising English. ESP has a history of almost 40 years and so you would expect the ESP community to
have a clear idea about what ESP means.

The movement toward teaching English for Specific Purposes (ESP) grew as international recognition for
the English Language as a medium of communication in science, technology, and commerce was
established. The origin of ESP and its development is closely linked with learners’ interest in various
specific disciplines e.g. “Law English”, “English for hotel industry” or “English for Tourist Management”.
“By the 1980’s, in many parts of the world, a needs-based philosophy emerged in language teaching,
particularly in relation to ESP and vocationally oriented programme design” (Brindley, 1984). Students
learn English for a specific purpose, represented by studying subject matter, to gain and develop
appropriate knowledge and skills through English. The reason(s) why students learn English are
ascertained through needs analysis. It is the process of determining the things that are necessary or
useful for fulfillment of defensible purposes. “Students study ESP not because they are interested in the
English language as such but because they have to perform a task in English. Their command of the
English language must be such that they can reach a satisfactory level in their specialist subject study”
(Robinson & Coleman, 1989, p. 396).

The ESP concept of instruction was further supported and defined as “an approach to language teaching,
course design and material development in which all decisions as to content and method are based on
learners’ reason for learning” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987:19).

The division of ESP into absolute and variable characteristics (See Dudley-Evans & St. John 1998) in
particular, was initially very helpful in resolving arguments about what is and is not ESP. We can see that
ESP is not necessarily concerned with a specific discipline, nor does it have to be aimed at a certain age
group or ability range. However, in my opinion, one of the main differences between ESP and GE is that
the vast majority of ESP courses are studied by adults. ESP should be seen as an “approach” to teaching,
or what Dudley-Evans describes as an “attitude of mid”. This is a similar conclusion to that made by
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) who sate, “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” (p. 19). What they mean by
this is that today many ESP teachers and courses are now based around a certain textbook without
looking closely at learners’ needs or wants. A proper review of materials from the textbook may be
lacking and actually conducting work-based research into finding target language structures is seldom
done. It almost could be said that it is the very success of ESP English that is now driving the failure of
courses for student.
The field of ESP/EOP has developed rapidly over the past 40 years and become a major force in English
language teaching and research. The idea of including content of a subject under study into a language
classroom was first introduced in the 1970’s by Hutchinson and Waters. They state that the content of a
subject, for example, economics or management, should be used for teaching a foreign language. The
emphasis of ELT has always been on practical outcomes on the language. It has always focused on the
needs of learners and it has been preparing them to communicate effectively in the tasks required by
their field of study on profession (Bojovi_2006). The idea of “natural” language acquisition promoted by
Krashen (1981) supports this approach as both claim that the best way to learn a language is to use it for
“meaningful” purposes. These meaningful purposes change greatly, so, various applications of ESP have
arisen in terms of the field or the approach of teaching specific English; i.e. EAP (English for Academic
Purposes), CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), CBI (Content-Based Instruction) and TBL
(Task-Based Learning).

CLIL, for instance refers to situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign
language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of a
foreign language in which this content is encoded (Marsh, et al 2001). It is widely seen as an excellent
means of learning a language, and of introducing international aspects into the teaching of content
subjects. Advocators of CLIL claim that it is a very effective way of learning a language as it provides the
learners with meaningful input and authentic situations as suggested by Comprehensible Input Theory
of Krashen. According to Krashen (1981), the mistake of language teaching is that we first teach the skills
and only later use them, while the most effective way should be learning something and using it at the
same time.

Another application of ESP is the Content-Based Instruction (CBI), which focuses on the teaching of
academic English through content knowledge. Language learning and content on subject matter could
be brought together because a foreign language is most successfully acquired when learners are
engaged in its meaningful and purposeful use. The integration of language and content involves the
incorporation of content material into language classes. Content can provide a motivational and
cognitive basis for language learning since it is interesting and of some value to the learner (Brewster,
1999). Kasper (1997) has greatly strengthened the evidence for the effectiveness of content-based
courses. She has reporter both improved language and content performance among students exposed
to content-based. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programmers and they have higher scores in
reading proficiency and higher pass rates on ESL (English as a Second Language) courses. She has also
supplied quantitative evidence that such students gain a performance advantage over students who are
exposed to non-content-based ESP training and that they maintain it in the following years.

3.2 Phases in the Development of ESP

Now that we have looked at the growth and development of ESP, let us examine the phases in its
development. Categorizing the concept of ‘special’ or ‘special’ language, five stages are recognized as
follows: Register analysis, rhetorical or discourse analysis, target situation analysis, skills and strategies
and learning-centred approach (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, Chanloner, 2006).
3.2.1 Register Analysis

The first phase is register analysis. A register analysis is a language variety which is based on the use. It is
different from dialect which also a language variety based on the user. The scope of register is not only
on the choice of words, but also on the choice of other linguistic aspects. There are many registers in
this world such as meeting register, truck drivers’ register, school register, and military register, medical
register, etc. A register is related to social context. Register analysis is derived from Halliday’s systematic
functional grammar which is “geared to the study of language as communication, seeing meaning in the
writer’s linguistic choice and systematically relating these choices to a wider socio-cultural framework”
(Munday, in Hermansyah, 2005, p. 32).

At first, register analysis was used to design ESP courses. Register analysis was the focus on grammar
and structural vocabulary found in target situations within the ESP environment. The underlying idea
behind register analysis was; that certain grammatical and lexical forms were more frequently used in
scientific and technical writings than in GE (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). Thus, the aim was to identify
these forms and produce teaching materials that took these forms as their syllabus (Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987).

This stage in ESP development is also referred to as the stage of the concept of special language. This
stage took palace mainly in the 1960’s and the early 1970’s (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987) and the work
of Register Analysis largely focused on the Scientific and Technical English. A course in basic scientific
English compiled by Ewer and Latorre (1969) is a typical example of an ESP syllabus based on register
analysis. Ewer and Latorre (1969) put it the following way;

In order to get working idea of what this basic language consisted of; a frequency analysis of the
English actually used by scientific writers was required . . . In subject, it covered ten main areas

Science and a large number of individual disciplines from anatomy to volcanology.

The snag was that it looked at the linguistic forms without attaching the overall meaning of such forms.
As a result, materials produced under the banner of Register Analysis concentrated on a restricted range
of grammar and vocabulary such as tense, frequency sentence types, etc. instead of language use and
communication (Dudley-Evans & St. john 1998). This weakness and the attempts to rectify it led to
rhetorical and discourse analysis in early 1970’s.

The criticism on register analysis can be summarized as the following:

 It restricts the analysis of text to the word and sentence level (West, 1998)
 It is only descriptive, not explanatory (Robinson,1991)
 Most materials produced under the banner of register analysis follow a similar pattern beginning
with a long specialist reading passage which lacks authenticity (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998)

3.2.2 Rhetorical and Discourse analysis

Since register analysis operated almost entirely at word and sentence level, the second phase of
development shifted to the level above the sentence and tried to find out how sentences were
combined into discourse (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Also, West (1998) is of the opinion that the
reaction against register analysis in the early 1970’s concentrated on the communicative values of
discourse rather that the lexical and grammatical properties of register. The assumption of this stage
was the difficulties which students encountered arose from the unfamiliarity with the use of English.
Consequently, their needs could only be met by a course that developed the knowledge of how
sentences were combined in discourse to make meanings. According to Allen and Widdowson (1974)
cited in Hutchinson and Waters (1987), it focused on the communicative values of discourse rather than
the lexical and grammatical properties of register. Allen and Widdowson (1974) view the approach as
follows:

One might usefully distinguish two kinds of ability which an English course at this level should
aim at developing. The first is the ability to recognize how sentences are used in the
performance of acts of communication, the ability to understand the rhetorical functioning of
language in use. The second is the ability to recognize and manipulate the formal devices which
are used to combine sentences to create continuous passage of prose. We might say that the
first has to do with rhetorical coherence of discourse, the second with the grammatical cohesion
of text (p. 10)

They explain further:

The difficulties students experience does not so much arise from defective knowledge of the
system of English but from an unfamiliarity with English . . . and that their needs can be met by a
course which develops a knowledge of how sentences are used in the performance of different
communication acts (op.cit).

The aim, therefore, was to identify organizational patterns in text and specify the linguistics means by
which these patterns are signaled. It is these patterns that will form ESP syllabus. “By dissecting
sentences and deciphering how combined discourse produce meaning, patterns in text and how they
were organized were the main concerns” (Poppe, 2007).

Therefore, the discourse analysis approach focused on the way sentence are used in the performance of
acts of communication and developed materials based on functions. Such functions included definitions,
generalizations, inductive statements, and deductive statements, descriptions of processes, descriptions
of sequences of events, and descriptions of devices. The pioneers in the field of discourse analysis (also
called rhetorical or textual analysis) were Lackstorm, Selinker, and Trimble, whose focus on the text
rather than on the sentence, and on the writer’s purpose rather than on form (Robinson, 1991). In
practice according to West (1998), this approach tended to concentrate on how sentences are used in
the performance of acts of communication and to generate materials based on functions.

The discourse analysis approach soon came under attack. One of the shortcomings of the discourse
analysis is that its treatment remains fragmentary, identifying the functional units of which discourse
was composed at sentence/utterance level but offering limited guidance or how functions and
sentence/utterance fit together to form text (West, 1998). There is also the danger that the findings of
discourse analysis, which are concerned with texts and how they work as pieces of discourse, fail to take
sufficient account of the academic or business context in which communication take place (Dudley-
Evans & St. John, 1998). “We are given little idea of how these functions combine to make longer texts,”
(Robinson, 1981).

The concept of text the genre analysis approach came to make up for this shortcoming, as the approach
considers text as a total entity, rather than a collection of unrelated units. Dudley-Evans (1987) conveys
the idea in the following way: “If we are to teach the writing of certain very specific texts such as . . . the
business or technical report, we need a system analysis that shows how each type of text differs from
other types. “This, as Johnson (1993) says, can be achieved by seeking to identify the overall pattern of
text through a series of phases or movies.

3.2.3 Target Situation Analysis

Due to the limitations of genre analysis, its research was hardly applied to pedagogy. In the mid 1970’s,
materials developers came to see learners’ purposes rather than specialist language as the driving force
behind ESP. The conception of need the target situation needs, an analytical approach, was to lead the
way. One systematizes the course and places the learner’s needs at the centre of the course design
process. Munby’s model of needs analysis (1978) clearly established the place of needs as central to ESP.
In order to establish needs, the target situation for which learners were being prepared has to be
defined. Chambers (1980) defines the latter as follows:

By the language I mean the language of the target situation. Thus, needs analysis should be
concerned with the establishment of communicative needs and their realizations, resulting from
an analysis of the communication in the target situation- what I will refer to from now on as
Target Situation Analysis (TSA) (p. 18).

The conception of pedagogic needs analysis came to complement target-situation needs analysis. This
includes three types of analysis: deficiency analysis gives us information about what target-situation
needs learners lack or feel they lack (Allwright, 1982). Specialized language forms related to target
themes were examined, and procedural steps to address the needs emphasized (Song, 2006). This stage,
though contributed nothing to the development of ESP, set the existing knowledge on a more scientific
basis by relating language analysis to the reasons why a learner needs to learn language. The
expectations of this stage, is that the linguistics features of a learner’s specific situation should be
identified and used to form the syllabus.

3.2.4 Analysis of Study Skills and Strategies

Strategy analysis seeks to established learners’ preferred learning styles and strategies (Allwright, 1982);
means analysis investigates t he educational environment in which the ESP course is to take place
(Swales, 1989). The assumption of this stage was that underlying all language use there were common
reasoning and interpreting processes, which, regardless of the surface form, enabled us to extract
meaning from discourse (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).
Therefore, the teaching of language in itself was not sufficient and the thought process should be
addressed. This is because the thinking processes that underline language use enable us to extract
meaning from discourse. In this stage, ESP teachers focused on the teaching of study skills and assumed
that these skills learnt through exercises could be transferred to student’s own specific academic studies
(Didley-Evans & St. John, 1998). For instance, the meaning of words could be guessed from context and
the type of a text could also be known by observing the visual layout. ESP at this stage looked for
particular skills and strategies that are peculiar to different situations. The emphasis on this stage was on
h ow words are combined to make meaning.

Finally, the attention to strategy analysis gave rise t o a new generation of ESP materials based on the
conception of learning, that is, learning-centred approaches:

Our concern in ESP is not with language use- although this will help to define the course
objective. Our concern is with language learning. We cannot simply assume that describing and
exemplifying what people do with language will enable someone to learn it . . . A truly valid
approach to ESP must be based on an understanding of the process of language learning
(Hutchinson & Watters, 1987, p. 53)

3.2.5 Analysis of Learning Needs

The concern in each stage outlined so far is with describing what people do with language that is,
language use. At this stage, emphasis shifted to understanding the processes of language learning
(Hutchinson & Watters, 1987, p. 14). This is the next stage of ESP development: the learning-centred
approach. It involves considering the process of learning and student motivation, working out what is
needed to enable students to reach the target, exploiting in the ESP classroom skills which students
develop from their specific academic study and taking into account the fact that different students learn
in different ways (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998).

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) offer an often-cited learning-centred approach to ESP. They argue that
other approaches give too much attention to language needs, whereas more attention should be given
to how learners learn. They suggest that a learning needs approach in the best route to convey learners
from the starting point to the target situation. Learned needs are approached from two directions;
target needs and learning needs. Target needs are defined as “what the learner needs to do in the target
situation” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987 p. 54). They are broken down into three categories: necessities,
lacks and wants.

Necessities are considered to be “what the learners has to know in order to function effectively in the
target situation” (p. 55).

Lacks are defined as the gaps between what the learner knows and the necessities (p. 56).

Wants are described as “what the learners think they need” (Nation, 2000, p. 2)

The second focus in this approach is on learning needs, referring to numerous factors, including who the
learners are, their socio-cultural background, learning background, age, gender, background knowledge
of specialized contents, background knowledge of English, attitudes towards English, attitudes towards
cultures of the English-speaking world and studying English. Learner needs also involve:

 Teaching and learning styles with which the learners are familiar
 Appropriate or ineffective teaching and learning methods
 Knowledge of specialized contents that teachers should have
 Suitable instructional materials and study location
 Time of study and status of ESP courses
 Expectations about what learners should achieve in the courses
 How necessary the course is for the learners?

Similar to the systemic approach, Hutchinson and Waters (1987, 1992) also recommended that needs
analysis be checked constantly. They also stress the use of multiple methods of data collection – such as
interviews, observation, and informal consultations with sponsors, learners and others involved – to
deal with the complexity of target needs.

Analysis of needs in this approach is well-supported (Nation, 2000; West, 1994). Richterich and
Chancerel (1977) insist on considering learner’s background knowledge from the outset of the teaching
and learning process. Grellet (1981) supports the use of authentic materials to encourage students to
face t he complexity of authentic texts. Eggly (2002) discusses differences in expectations between
students who are forced to study and those who voluntarily enroll.

Most experts view learner-centred learning as a major paradigm shift in ESP teaching (Nunan, 1988;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). In such an environment, the focus is shifted
to the constructive role of the learner, which differentiates it from a teacher-centred model in which
knowledge is transmitted from teacher to learner. When ESP learners take some responsibility for their
own learning and are invited to negotiate some aspects of the course design, the subject matter and
course content has relevance for the learners as they feel motivated to become more involved in their
learnings and often seem to participate more actively In class.