ＥＳＰの進展 －概観と展望－

著者 樋口 晶彦journal orpublication title

Bulletin of the educational research andpractice, Faculty of Education, KagoshimaUniversity

volume 19page range 103-108別言語のタイトル The Evolution of ESP: An Overview and

ProspectsURL http://hdl.handle.net/10232/9244

樋口晶彦：ＥＳＰの進展

－103－

Bulletin of the Educational Research and Development, Faculty of Education, Kagoshima University2009, Vol.19, 103-108 論 文

ＥＳＰの進展－概観と展望－

樋 口 晶 彦〔鹿児島大学教育学部（英語教育）〕

The Evolution of ESP: An Overview and ProspectsHIGUCHI Akihiko　

キーワード：ESP、political economy、Register analysis、Discourse analysis、Genre analysis

I. IntroductionEnglish for Specific Purposes (ESP) has

developed more than a half century since 1945 dueto some main economical and political reasons.They were the US economic and military powerpost war, the British colonial and imperial legacy,and the emergence of World English (Strevens,1980), (Kachru, 1985). In fact, the Englishlanguage has attained its unprecedented status as aninternational language (Graddol, 1997, 2006). As ithas become more widespread, issues of ESPinstruction have emerged. How language teachersshould introduce ESP to the classes?, is ittheoretically coherent?, and should it solely bebased on CLT (Communicative LanguageTeaching)?ESP, back in the 1950s and 60s, was not a

coherent, planned, motivated movementtheoretically. It was largely a response to post-warlanguage learning needs, strongly market driven. Atheoretical superstructure came later to support andlegitimate the development of ESP.What was the theoretically motivated movementin the development of ESP? How the teachingmaterials have been changing? What can weprospect in the future of ESP? They are the issuesin this present study.

II. Background: The Political EconomyThe emergence of ESP should be related to the

sociolinguistic phenomenon of the unprecedentedspread of English as an international language,

particularly since 1945 (Crystal, 1988).The basic factors in the spread of English as a

dominant international language can be consideredas follows: (1) the US economic and militarypower post 1945, (2) the British colonial /imperiallegacy, (3) the shear number of native speakers(ex. less number in Inner Circle countries than thenumber of non- native users. (see note 1), (4)isolation of potentially competing languages (e.g.Russia, China). At the same time, the followingcan be summarized as indices of English'shegemonic status as an international language:(i) In Government /administration: an official

language of government in 70 or morecountries, sometimes solely official, andsometimes joint.

(ii) In Commerce /business: for example, in 1974,33% of world's imports taken by 9 Englishspeaking countries. During the period in 1948- 1974, world trade increased by factor x 6 -so need for language learning enhanced.English sustained by 3rd party usage.

(iii) In Transport /Communication: English as aninternational language of air traffic control,inte rnat ional language of mar i t imecommunication (Sea speak was notwithstanding), computer database informationmostly in English. (perhaps as much as 90%e.g. ERIC)

(iv) In academic publication: particularly in scienceand technology, for example, Swales (1990)showed Schistosomiasis RA's 45% dominates

鹿児島大学教育学部教育実践研究紀要 第19巻（2009）

－104－

English, 15% Portuguese Tropical Agriculture75% dominates English, 10% French, 7%Portuguese.

These facts indicated the difficulty of escapingEnglish in any modernizing or internationalcontext. There was thus an increased need to readand write in English even in EFL countries.There was a situation, then, of a mass of people

wanting to learn English not for general or culturaland humanistic reasons as in classical humanlanguage learning, but for instrumental purposes.Such learners knew why they wanted English notfor identifying with the culture of the U.K. or theU.S.A. They also preferred short cost-effectivecourses with high immediate surrender value,because they did not have the time or inclination toinvest long periods in learning total English.‘ ’

Therefore, there existed a market for short,purpose-specific, cost effective intensive courses inEnglish. Seeing the commercial and money makingopportunities, the language teaching profession, forexample the British Council, began to respond.The oil crisis of 1973 and the resulting oil-based

wealth of certain Middle East states provided apowerful stimulus to the expansion of the ESPindustry in a sense that it provided these countrieswith the financial resources to undertakelarge-scale teaching and modernizing programsheavily dependent on the recruitment of expatriateESP teachers. As a matter of fact, some of the bestknown ESP textbook emerged from the Middle

Nucleus General ScienceEast were the best-sellingfrom Iran (Azerbaijan) and John Swales' (1985)

from Tripoli, Libya.Writing Scientific English’In the Middle East, Europe, North America,

then, the emergence of ESP was largely a marketphenomenon. So, in order to respond to thecommercial opportunities available for the needs ofadult students, they wanted to learn English forlimited and defined purposes.On the other hand, in much of the third world,

ESP was very much a public sector enterprise. It

was often the outcome of government decisions torestrict the role of English while retaining thelanguage in academic life (e.g. Malaysia).Typically ESP in such cases was associated withlanguage service communication skills units‘ ‘’，

affiliated to the universities and colleges , and’

had strong EAP (English for Academic Purposes)implications. ESP here, then, was the product oflanguage planning decisions, for ESP was seen asan attempt to span the gap between inadequatesecondary education in English and the demands oftertiary study. Here, we should also notecontemporary ideological currents that arefavorable to the development of ESP.

(i) In the 1960s, educational philosophy andpsychology began to emphasize learneroriented approach (learner -centeredness) andrelevance to the learner of course content. Thelearners motivation was also seen to have’

an important influence on the effectiveness oflearning.

(ii) A consequence was the emergence of NeedsAnalysis (originally outside of ELT). Needsanalysis eventually became strongly associatedwith ESP because it seemed to offer a way ofmaking courses cost-effective, of restrictingcontent to be taught to that most useful to theparticular learner. The most influential workof Needs Analysis technology was Munby's

(1978).‘ ’Communicative Needs Processor(ii) Munbyan needs analysis and ESP, in general,

may have also been as reflecting a further setof beliefs and assumptions. They wereassociated with a belief in applied science todeliver precise solutions to social, human, andlearning problems. Therefore, ESP was amanifestation of technical rationality that‘ ’

was a belief in the technical capacity todeliver precise solutions to language learningproblems.

In conclusion, ESP was not a coherent, planned,

樋口晶彦：ＥＳＰの進展

－105－

theoretically motivated. It was largely a response topost-war language needs that was strongly marketdriven. A theoretical superstructure came later tosupport and legitimate the development of ESP.That was not to say that the existence of ESP didnot stimulate interesting and significant theoreticalproblems. It did.

III. Theoretical development of ESPPhase 1: The Register Analysis PhaseConcepts of register emerged from notions of

variation in sociolinguistic, occupational, andstylistic aspects. In early days, register analysis wasidentified with quantitative studies of linguisticproperties of functional varieties and registersassociated with occupationally defined contexts.(e.g. Business English, Legal English, MedicalEnglish). In fact, because ESP in the 1960s washeavily identified with EST (English for Scienceand Technology), most research a t t h a tt im e was into Scientific English .‘ ’

Here, the aims of research were to identifydistributional frequencies of formal features - partlyto provide basis for selection of syllabus items.

ATeaching materials of the time was, for example,by Ewer andCourse in Basic Scientific English

Latorre (1969) that tended to take formal featuresof register as their syllabus and gave priority toforms students would meet in their science studiesin English (e.g. few continuous forms in thewritten texts and the passive without agent).

Weakness of the Approach:(i) Very much sentence based and form focused

(some useful discoveries were made in thisfield) This approach did not ask what usesforms were put to.

(ii) Early ESP teaching differed little fromtraditional ELT except that scientific textswere substituted for general interest texts(similar comprehension -type exercise)

Phase 2: The Discourse Analysis andFunctional Phase

In the 1970s, view developed and found thatstudents difficulties arose not only from their poorknowledge of language system but also fromunfamiliarity with use of English to performcommunicative acts. For example, Widdowson(1983) argued for program of research intodiscourse of scientific texts to identifyorganizational patterns in texts and how thosepatters were linguistically signaled. It wasimportant for us to find out what value stretches oflanguage had in communication. Widdowson (ibid)and others claimed that rhetorical and functionalapproach was particularly suitable in EST becausescientific discourse could be seen as a series ofrhetorical acts such as: definition, classification,exemplification, contrast etc. Scientific Englishcould be thought of as a kind of discourse(realizing in English universal notions of scientificenquiry) not as a text type defined by its formalproperties. Then there was an strong impact onteaching materials.

Impact on materials:(i) People's concern with use of sentences in

combination and with rhetorical functions ledto The starting point was notFocus Series.inventory of grammatical items but rhetoricalfunctions such as: classify, define, generalizeetc) and their linguistic realization. Studentswere taught to recognize and use discoursemarkers, and recognize textual patterns.

Weakness of Approach:(i) was not a critical or commercialFocus Series

success (Swales, 1990)(ii) Weakness in rigidity of format, in structuring

of units and exercise(iii) Dealing with static inventories rhetorical

functions not grammatical structure(iv) What was the status of a function? How many

鹿児島大学教育学部教育実践研究紀要 第19巻（2009）

－106－

were there? How did we map functions ontothe stretches of language? There was anoveremphasis on homogeneity of discourseand so insufficient attention was paid todiscourses of, and within, particulardisciplines.

Here we should note that there was theNucleus Series. GeneralLongman's First volume

appeared two years after beginning ofSciencein 1976. This was historically important inFocus

ESP because of its best-selling status. wasNucleusaimed at low level learners, a concept /notiondriven syllabus design (not rhetorical) that waslimited to language of observation and description.Topics were like properties and shapes, location,

Nucleus Generalstructure, and measurement etc.the most successful ESP textbook hadScience,

following merits and criticisms. Merits: teacherfriendly, attractive lay-out, tight structural control,inventive visual prompts etc. Criticisms:insufficient reading material, neglects discourse,variable quality of different volumes etc.

Phase 3: Target Situation Analysis/skills &Strategies Phase

This phase was marked by greater variety anddiversity within ESP (a fuller maturity of the field).The emphasis was placed on Needs analysis wherecourse design should proceed by identifyinglinguistic features/ communication skills and taskscommon to target situation which would then formsyllabus of ESP course.Need analysis reached its apotheosis with

Munby's and wentCommunicative Syllabus Design,Communicative Needs Processorsinto decline. His

(CNP) provided detailed profile of learner's needsin t e rms of communica t ive purposes ,communicative setting, means of communicationsuch as language skills, functions, and structures.Important innovation, however, was to place

learners explicitly at the center of ESP operation,not language or discourse. (learner-centered

approach)Skills:For sociolinguistic reasons, ESP often prioritized

skill of reading. Hence, historically importantprojects were: University of Andes project(Reading and Thinking in English), and Universityof Malaya project (Skill for Learning).The series were quite different but certain

common features were found:(i) There were concentration on reading skills and

strategies putative reasons and interpretingprocesses were underlying in language skillsthat were incorporated into design of languageteaching materials.

(iii) So materials drew students attention quiteexplicitly to reading strategies in hope thatthis would improve their reading ability (ex.scanning, skimming, guessing word meaning,identifying text structure etc.)

RTE (Reading, Thinking in English) Features:(i) Widdowson's influence (1983) were apparent

in notional-functional discourse approach.(ii) EAP oriented, non subject-specific, and

interdisciplinary topics, they were quitesophisticated view of reading process

Phase 4: The Learning-Centered and GenreAnalysis Phase

This phase started in around 1987 with greatermaturity of ESP field that included increasingvariety of approach within ESP. However, thisphase also had a breakdown in theoreticalconsensus. What is ESP? How should it“

progress? Several issues emerged.”

On the other hand, Hutchingson and Water's(1987) book ushered in what they thought wouldbe a learning-centered approach to ESP. Essentiallythis amounted to a reinstatement of thepsychological and educational bases of ESP - (theprimacy of methodology, of learning process)rather than the linguistic. Previous approaches were

樋口晶彦：ＥＳＰの進展

－107－

held to be flawed in that they were based ondescriptions of language in use rather thanconsiderations of how language was learnt.Hutchingson and Waters (ibid) also questioned theneed for highly subject-specific materials that wereimplicitly casting doubt on one pillar of ESP.Widdowson (ibid) also probed the theoretical basisof ESP, casting a question that was ESP essentiallya training rather than educational concept?In one direction, then, there had been greater

concern with classroom tasks /activities facilitatinglearning (emphasis on process was even more thanmaterials). There was also a growing divergencebetween occupational ESP (EOP: English forOccupational purposes) and EAP (English forAcademic Purposes).On the other hand, under influence of Swales

(1990), and Dudley-Evans (1984, 1985), Genreanalysis increased in popularity. Genre Analysisinvolved study of the forms of discourse thatparticular discourse communities engaged in, theircommunicative conventions, their communicativepurposes, the role texts play in particularenvironments, their genre products and cruciallythe differences between the discourses within andof different discourse communities. Hence, genreanalysis is narrower and deeper than the discourseanalysis of phase 2. It shows that terms likeLegal English gives a misleading image of‘ ’

homogeneity. Genre analysis can give rise togenre-driven pedagogic activities. This should‘ ’

bear in mind for many Japanese ESP practitionersand researchers mainly because of the fact thatthey have put much emphasis on descriptions oflanguage in use rather than considerations of howlanguage is learnt. Quite a few of ESP textbookspublished in Japan often show the evidence.

IV. Future prospectsGenre analysis and learning-centered approach

have surely given us something to offer in ESPdisciplines. However, there have been misleading

among Japanese ESP practitioners and researchersdue to their excessive reliance on highlysubject-specific materials. As a matter of fact,previous approaches in ESP in Japan resulted inflaw in that they were, more often than not, basedon descriptions of language use rather than howlanguage was learnt. Communicative activities inESP, should be more introduced otherwise wecannot facilitate learning for students. Theemphasis should be placed more on learningprocess rather than materials. Therefore, for thefuture prospects in ESP, the balance of the text(materials) and the process of learning should beconsidered for the better instruction andunderstanding in ESP.

V. ConclusionThis present study has given an overview in the

evolution of ESP since post war, trying to explainthe overview in its history. ESP is still new tocollege English language instruction in Japan.Some misleadings can be found among ESPpractitioners - excessive emphasis on language use,register, and sentence structure etc, rather than theprocess of learning and psychology. Tasks andactivities facilitating learning have been ignored.This is the crux of the issue to be improved for thesuccessful instruction and learning in ESP. Is“

ESP essentially a training rather than educationalconcept? (Widdowson, 1983) We should always“

bear in mind that The teaching and learning“

process is a complex and dynamic process, with allthe various factors influencing each other.(Hutchingson & Waters, 1987)“

Notes1. People around the world speak English within adifferent language and different cultural context.Kachru (1985) suggested three concentric circleswhere three different circles are combined togetherinto a single concentric circle. The first centralcircle is called as Inner Circle where English“ ”

鹿児島大学教育学部教育実践研究紀要 第19巻（2009）

－108－

is spoken as a native language: U.S. U.K.Australia, Canada, New Zealand belong to thiscircle. The second central circle is called asOuter Circle where English is spoken as an“ ”

official language : Singapore, India, Malaysia, etc.,belong to this circle. The third circle is called asExpanding Circle where English is spoken as a“ ”

foreign language: Japan, Korea, China, and manyother countries belong to this circle.According to Graddol (1997), the number of

English speaking people in Asia went beyond thenumber in Inner Circle where English is spoken asa native language.

References

The English Language.Crystal, D. (1988).London: Longman

Dudley-Evans, T. (1984). WaltonReport Writing.on Thames: Nelson.

Writing Laboratory_____________(1985).Nelson-Wadsworth.Report.

A Course inEwer, J. & Latorre, G. (1969).London:Basic Scientific English.

Longman.

The future of EnglishGraddol, D. (1997)..Tokyo:Kenkyusha Publishing Co.

English Next.__________________. (2006).British Council

Hutchingson, T. and Waters, A. (1987).English for specific Purposes: a

CUPlearning-centeredapproach.

Kachyuru, B. B. 1985. Standards, codification andsociolinguistic realism: the Englishlanguage in the outer circle. In R. Quirk

English in theand H.G. Widdowson (eds.)Cambridge: CUPWorld.

Teaching English as anStrevens, P. 1980.Oxford: Pergamon.international language.

Learning PurposeWiddowson, H. 1983.Oxford: OUPand Language Use.