this PDF file

Published
in Unesco Alsed-LSP
Newsletter Vol. 3 No.2 (9) March 1980 - ISSN 0106-0341
HANDELSHOJSKOLEN
I KOBENHAVN
© LSP Centre, CBS, Denmark
22
REVIEW AIYTICLE: ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES : SCIENCE AND TECHNOMGY
English Language I n s t i t u t e Oregon S t a t e University. 1978. M.T. Trimble and L. Trimble (eds).
The 'S' i n the acronyn! 'LSP' is now generally tziken t o stand f o r ' s p e c i f i c ' (as above),
thus replacing the e a r l i e r form ' s p e c i a l ' . At one l e v e l t h i s seemingly t r i v i a l change
i n terminology can be seen as marking a decade of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of theoretical and
pedagogical work whose e f f e c t s are by no m a n s t r i v i a l . Thus the somewhat more s p e c i f i c
term ' s p e c i f i c ' may be i n d i c a t i v e of the attempt by LSP researchers t o define t h e i r act i v i t i e s by way of c l a r i f y i n g t h e i r goals. And any formulation of these goals i n LSP
would seem t o s t a r t with the needs of the l e a r n e r , and consequently have t o answer, i n
any p a r t i c u l a r case, such questions a s : who are the l e a r n e r s ( i n terms of l i n g u i s t i c
and c u l t u r a l background, l e v e l s of a b i l i t y . .); what a r e they studying the language f o r ,
i . e . what p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s w i l l they be needing, i n what s e t of p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s
and t o what p a r t i c u l a r end?
But the needs-orientated trend has brought with it a c e r t a i n scepticism about the nature
of ' s p e c i a l languages', where we mean those domain-specific v a r i e t i e s l i k e , medical,
. English, French, e t c . which have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated w i t h
l e g a l , technical
LSP. This may a l s o underly the choice of ' s p e c i f i c ' : it i s s i g n i f i c a n t , f o r instance,
t h a t whereas w x l k of ' s p e c i f i c needs' , we do not t a l k of ' s p e c i f i c languages' ( i n the sensc
o f sub-codes, a t l e a s t ) . I n c o n t r a s t , ' s p e c i a l ' is Jams-headed i n t h a t it turns both
towards language and towards learner needs. But does such a tendency mean an undercutting
of t h e r o l e of l i n g u i s t i c research i n the LSP f i e l d ? Hopefully not. I t i s probably t r u e r
t o s a y t h a t many of the more hard-headed LSP p r a c t i t i o n e r s have eschewed any long-term
aim o f describing o v e r a l l such macro-varieties of the type mentioned i n favour of ad
hoc investigations of those p a r t i c u l a r areas thought, o r found, t o be relevant t o the
s o l u t i o n of the learnefs s p e c i f i c (needs-defined) l i n g u i s t i c problems. The collection
of a r t i c l e s under review c l e a r l y demonstrates the v i r t u e s of the prevailing pragmatic
approach which brings l i n g u i s t i c s nearer t o a c t u a l l e a r n e r needs.
..
'English f o r Specific Purposes: Science and Technology' opens with an a r t i c l e written
by Larry Selinker i n 1968 which serves t o remind us t h a t even only a decade ago such
a complaint could be j u s t i f i a b l y made: ' ... it may not be u n f a i r t o say t h a t most EFS
programs have been and s t i l l a r e beside the point a s regards t h e complex and i n t e r e s t i n g
s e r i e s of problems concerning English and i t s r e l a t i o n t o t h e success o r f a i l u r e of the
FS i n a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d . ' (p. 1 ) . Much has changed i n terms of a t t i t u d e amongst language teachers and course designers since t h i s was w r i t t e n . This i s not t o say t h a t the
problem of gearing materials and methods t o learner requirements is no longer with us.
A change of a t t i t u d e of i t s e l f cannot help matters while such things a s the heterogene i t y of learner needs i n terms of specialism, desired complexity of language and content,
e t c . continue t o provide the stumbling block f o r the t e a c h e r l s / d e s i g n e r ' s honest obj e c t i v e s . Thus the tailor-making of courses f o r smaller groups w i t h s i m i l a r needs has
become something of a necessity as textbooks of the required degree of s p e c i f i c i t y a r e
hardly viable i n publishing terms. I t thus f a l l s to t h e l o t of the teacher himself t o
design the course.
A teacher i n t h i s position w i l l find i n t e r e s t i n p a r t 5 of t h i s anthology (on ESP curriculum development), where
organizational schemas r e l a t i n g t o the needs-means nexus
a r e elaborated. I t should be emphasized i n t h i s connection, however, t h a t a p r i o r i
schemas sometims f a l l foul of p r a c t i c a l r e a l i t i e s : f o r instance, is the designer's perception of l e a r n e r needs always i n f a c t authentic and i s she/he w i l l i n g t o modify the
program ongoingly t o m k e an ever-closer f i t ? I t i s a s a l u t a r y s i d e of t h i s book t h a t
t h e balance is redressed by such admissions a s : ' I have t r i e d t o d e t a i l how the forces
o f r e a l i t y - budget, administration, student a t t i t u d e s , and other factors influenced
and changed the o r i g i n a l t h e o r e t i c a l design of the course.' (Drobnic, 'Mistakes and
Modification i n Course Design an ETI Case History' (p. 313)) .Equally honest i s the s t a t e ment by Hirayama-Grant and Sedgewick i n 'ESP Syllabus Design Processes i n Retrospect'
(p. 331) : 'Through placing our syllabus design p r o j e c t i n r e t r o s p e c t , we have become
aware of the g r e a t importance of i n t u i t i v e f a c t o r s i n design work. Our syllabus design
seemed t o conform t o a l o g i c when viewed i n r e t r o s p e c t ; however, i n r e a l i t y ad hoc
decision-making, i n t u i t i v e and educated guesses provided much of our momentum and dir e c t i o n ' . In contrast,we may f i n d Frederickson's proposal r a t h e r too r a r e f i e d : 'An
e f f e c t i v e curriculum development plan represents a systematic and sequenced educational
experience which compensates f o r individual differences and i s supportive of and respons i v e t o the t o t a l learning process.' 'How t o Develop an English f o r Special Purposes
(ESP) Curriculum. ' (p. 295) .
We a r e a l s o brought down t o e a r t h by Hitchcocks outline of the s o r t of e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c
variables t h a t may m i l i t a t e against the neat propositions of the a p r i o r i approach when
the ESP p r a c t i t i o n e r is teaching i n the f i e l d . Thus conditions i n I r a n are, f o r instance,
markedly d i f f e r e n t from those obtaining i n many Western countries, and deductions made
upon a Euro-centric o r American b a s i s w i l l obviously have l i t t l e application. The LSP
teacher mst consider such l o c a l conditions a s the s t a t e of the educational system concerned, the degree of l i t e r a c y of the community, the social-educational r o l e of the students, and the e f f e c t s of t h e previous learning experience (pp. 9-52).
In the Selinker a r t i c l e c i t e d above the vexed question of the LSP teachers 'subject
knowledge' is raised. I n o t h e r words can a teacher legitimately teach the l i n g u i s t i c
v a r i e t y associated w i t h a n a r e a of specialism i n which he i s t o t a l l y o r p a r t i a l l y unversed. The problem a t i t s most b a s i c l e v e l involves the gap between the 'two c u l t u r e s ' .
The language teacher has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been drawn from t h e ranks of the humanities gradu a t e , and many e a r l i e r c r i t i c i s m s of pre-LSP teaching were i n f a c t directed against the
irrelevance of the s o r t of programs h i c h the humanities t r a i n e d teacher f o i s t e d upon
the technology-orientated l e a r n e r .
Certainly, with a b i t of n a t i v e w i t added t o a
modicum knowledge of the b a s i c principles of science culled from t h e i r secondary edudation, some teachers could survive i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s , and provide s a t i s f a c t i o n .
But when we consider, on t h e one hand, t h a t the l e v e l of the l e a r n e r ' s subject matter
knowledge can range from t h e b a s i c science of secondary education r i g h t up t o the graduate l e v e l and beyond, and on the other t h a t some forms of technological specialism
a r e so arcane t h a t even p r a c t i t i o n e r s themselves can be bemused, what hope i s t h e r e f o r
the non-subject-specialist language teacher i n the extreme case.
But there i s worse than t h i s . The knowledge of any p a r t i c u l a r specialism i s not circumscribed by a body of acquired f a c t s ; knowledge implies a constant evolution, the possib i l i t y of innovation. An anecdote w i l l i l l u s t r a t e the problems of the LSP teacher i n
t h i s connection. A teacher of my acquaintance who was well able t o manage the concept u a l demands of a course on 'English f o r Watchmakers' i n t h e e a r l y s i x t i e s was completel y floored by the extremely abrupt t r a n s i t i o n from the mechanical t o the e l e c t r o n i c
mechanisms of the seventies.
I t seems here t h a t we cannot disregard the connection between knowledge of the world,
enhoclied by a d i s c i p l i n e we wish t o teach, and the semantics of t h e language. The
teacher must know the w a n i n g s of terms as such, and t h e meanings of the sentences
i n which the terms occur, b u t also t h e i r s e n t e n t i a l and t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n to the conceptual s t r u c t u r e of t h e d i s c i p l i n e concerned. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y about our semantic
awareness of the world of knowledge t h a t Selinker seems t o r a i s e t h e problem.
As he puts i t , 'Who among u s could help t h e chemical engineering FS decode the compound
as mixture product? A s n a t i v e speakers of the language, what i s c l e a r t o u s about t h i s
{onpound? Well, it i s a type of 'product' which concerns mixing of gases i n some way.
But beyond t h a t , does it mean a 'product with which one mixes gases' o r a 'product i n
which t h e gases a r e already mixed'? Clearly, knowledge of t h e universe i n which the discourse contains this compound i s e s s e n t i a l t o c o r r e c t l y choose t h e l a t t e r gloss.' (p. 5 ) .
Answers t o t h i s (none a r e given) and other r e l a t e d problems i n t h a t very recent f i e l d ,
LSP teacher t r a i n i n g methodology, might have provided a f u r t h e r s e c t i o n t o an otherwise
extremely conprehensive coverage.
Knowledge of content i s , of course, not the only problem. Amongst the desiderata i n the
t r a i n i n g of today's LSP (EST) teachers suggested by Hitchcock is t h a t of 'giving t r a d i t i o n a l l y - t r a i n e d teachers a general background i n t h e t h e t o r i c and s t r u c t u r e s of
s c i e n t i f i c English and a s u f f i c i e n t preparation i n l i n g u i s t i c s t o enable them t o a c t ,
r e a c t , c r e a t e , and i m ~ o v a t e ' . This book does much t o give such a teacher some idea of
what the relevant l i n g u i s t i c knowledge might e n t a i l . Thus p a r t 3 concerns those l i n g u i s t i c problems t h a t the l e a r n e r encounters through mother tongue interference. Incidentally, the backlash of such contrastive s t u d i e s is of course an increased howledge of English s c i e n t i f i c discourse. P a r t 4 deals with the intra-lingual l i n g u i s t i c
study of EST, namely of i t s l e x i c a l and s y n t a c t i c features, and r h e t o r i c a l functions.
I n t h i s section, some account might have been taken of inter-variety comparison along
functional perspective l i n e s . Recent work by the Prague school shows t h a t the themerheme p a t t e m i n g of t e x t s w i l l tend t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e ' s c i e n t i f i c ' from ' n o n - s c i e n t i f i c '
discourse. A knowledge of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between such patterning and r h e t o r i c a l funct i o n ought thus t o form p a r t of the equipment of the EST learner (especially as a
w r i t e r of technical discourse) a t some l e v e l of development.
Mary Todd Trimble and Louis Trimble's a r t i c l e i n p a r t 2 ('EST and Teaching') admirably
i l l u s t r a t e s t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n separating t h e so-called t h e o r e t i c a l aspects of LSP from
the pedagogical. 'Admirably' f i r s t l y because the bridge between l i n g u i s t i c s and i t s
application i n course design and teaching i s not an easy one to b u i l d . Secondly, because when b u i l t it is more c l e a r l y seen t h a t applied l i n g u i s t i c s i s j u s t i f i e d a s an
autonomous d i s c i p l i n e . The Trimbles, i n connection with a s k i l l s course i n the reading
of technical manuals, s e t themselves the following questions as a preamble t o t h e
course design: ( l ) What a r e the special c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the English of technical
manuals? (2) Are these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of s c i e n t i f i c
English o r 'general English' t o warrant d e t a i l e d study? I f so, 'how' do they d i f f e r ?
(3) Finally, a r e there differences great enough t o require special types of teaching
and special teaching materials? They found it s i g n i f i c a n t regarding (1) t h a t a l l manuals
were w r i t t e n f o r the native speaker, and a l s o t h a t they made l i t t l e concession t o the
reader's pre-professional background. They also found t h a t though r h e t o r i c a l l y and grammatically the l i n g u i s t i c differences were more i n terms of degree than i n kind, t h e part i c u l a r bias of these differences j u s t i f i e d d i s t i n c t i v e treatment. A t the l e x i c a l l e v e l
problems p a r t i c u l a r l y a r i s e w i t h 'sub-technical vocabulary', i . e . those c o m n words
t h a t have taken on special meanings i n c e r t a i n s c i e n t i f i c and technical f i e l d s .
I t is also i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h i s a r t i c l e p o i n t s up the f a c t t h a t the dichotomy between
'English f o r Academic Purposes' and 'English f o r Occupational Purposes' may be more
blurred than has been assumed. The 'grey area' i n between may be important enough i n
terms of the increasing market t o j u s t i f y a tertium quid category, 'English f o r Vocat i o n a l Purposes', o r s o w such term.
This book is a welcome newcomer t o the so f a r s u r p r i s i n g l y diminutive c o l l e c t i o n of publ i s h e d books i n English on the LSP theme.
Robin Turner