EXTENDED ESSAY

“What is ESP and how does it differ from teaching general English courses?”

1. INTRODUCTION

This essay will answer the question: “What is ‘ESP’ and how does it differ from teaching
general English courses?” In order to do this, this essay will start with providing a brief
context for the relevance of ESP. Secondly, this essay will define “ESP” and highlight the
role of contextual needs analysis as a defining feature of ESP. Thirdly, this essay will
define “general English courses”. Lastly, this essay will conclude with a discussion of the
difference between ESP and general English courses. Is ESP important and relevant in
the teaching of English?

2. THE RELEVANCE OF ESP

Hutchinson and Waters (1987:6) have suggested that the origin of ESP is linked to two key
historical epochs. Firstly, the end of the Second World War inaugurated “an enormous
and unprecedented expansion in scientific, technical and economic activity on an
international scale”. The role of international language, in this historical context, fell to
English. Secondly, the Oil Crisis of the early 1970s resulted in the large scale investment
of “Western” money and knowledge into the oil-rich countries, and, as Gatehouse (2001:2)
points out: “The language of this knowledge became English.” Jiajing (2007:2) mentions
that the “first dominating approach to ESP course design focuses on the grammatical and
lexical items of a particular field of English”. Thus, early ESP courses focused
mechanistically on the acquisition of context-specific vocabulary and grammar by shying
away from generic English skills. This was done in response to the absolute mandate of
the students’ context-specific needs. Anthony (2009) adds that ESP has grown to become
on the most prominent areas of EFL [English as Foreign Language] teaching today.
Kavaliauskiene and Janulevieiene (2001) also remark that there has been a worldwide
increase in the demand for ESP courses that are essential for professional development.
Al Khatib (2005:2) concurs and adds that “the explosion in business and communications
technology has revolutionised the field of English language teaching, and has radically
shifted the attention of course designers from teaching English for Academic Purposes to
teaching English for more specialised purposes”. Ongoing changes and an ever
increasing process of globalisation have amplified the importance of communicating in
English at workplaces, both within and across boundaries (Purpura & King, 2003), and

1
hence the relevance of ESP courses in the workplace. It is to be expected, against this
backdrop, that ESP courses will remain in demand and that the challenge that is presented
by them will long be part of the ESL agenda. But, what exactly is “ESP?

3. A DEFINITION OF “ESP”

For the purpose of this extended essay, “ESP” will be defined informally or formally. In
terms of the former definition, use can be made of a variety of definitions by educational
service providers that primarily define “ESP” in terms of the consumer of a specific set of
products and services. In terms of the latter definition, use can be made of a variety of
definitions by academics that primarily define “ESP” in terms of academic applied
linguistics.

2.1 Informal definitions of “ESP”

International House Dubai [IH Dubai], the language division of Knowledge Network,
accredited by the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, and an affiliate of the
International House World Organisation, defines “ESP” as follows:

“English for Specific Purposes (ESP) programmes are English courses specifically designed
for various industries. For example, banking, tourism, construction, insurance, etc. They share the
important elements of grammar, vocabulary and the four skills of reading, writing, listening and
speaking, and are customised through needs analysis, syllabus design, course design, and materials
selection and development” [http://www.ihdubai.com/esp%20courses.htm] [emphasis mine].

The Asia Pacific Capital Corporation, a private provider of e-learning and educational
management, with over 2,500 users in Asia and the USA, defines “ESP” as “English for
Specialist Professionals”, and outline their “ESP courses” as follows:

“In a world unified and dominated by two forces – technology and commerce – the demand for an
international language has been the primary driver for more and more individuals to improve their
English language skills for either academic and/or professional reasons. For this group of individuals,
courses that fall under the heading English for Special Purposes (ESP) hold particular appeal. ESP
programmes focus on developing communicative competency in a specific field and prepare
students for various academic programmes or for work in fields such as business, engineering,
tourism etc…In addition, the course will address the use of English in this specific field, especially
the terminology and the language style used in this field of work”
[http://www.knowledgewarehub.com/download/IE_ESP_Business.pdf].

2
In these definitions, the focus is on workplace-specific competencies, with the promise of
immediate relevance and transference of skills. The focal role of needs analysis is
emphasised too. A myriad of other provider-specific definitions exists that reflect the gist
of the two definitions above. However, how do researchers and ESL practitioners define
ESL? What are the main themes in the current debate on defining “ESL”?

2.2 Formal definitions of “ESP”

Brunton (2009:2) points out that from the outset, the term “ESP” was “a source of
contention with many arguments as to what exactly ESP was. Even today there is a large
number of ongoing debates as to how to specify what exactly ESP constitutes”. Brunton
(ibid.) further demonstrates the complexity of defining “ESP” by identifying a number of
factors that influence a definition, including: target situations, broad or narrow focus,
common core, methodology, instructors, assessment, and others. Formal definitions of
ESP courses may fall into two broad categories: [1] courses that are specific to a context
and the needs of a defined group of students; [2] courses that have generic English
competencies as well as competencies that are specific to a context and a defined group
of students.

ESP is specific to the context and the students

Edwards (2000) found a natural and expected correlational relationship between the place
of work and the English learning needs of German bankers, in terms of the language skills
that are practised, the terminology that is used, and the syllabus design and materials
preparation for these English students. Thus the easy case that is made for the specificity
of work context and student group is also confirmed by Mohan (1986) and Graham and
Beardsley (1986) respectively. Likewise, Kavaliauskiene and Janulevieiene (2001) point
out that the scope of specialised vocabulary in the teaching of ESP is a primary goal.
Duan and Gu (2004:2) also emphasise the dimension of specificity in their definition of
ESP as a “pedagogy in which the syllabus, contents and methods are determined
according to the needs of learners’ specialised subjects”. Duan and Gu (ibid.) further point
out that the analysis of the target situation suggests that “…the purpose of an ESP course
is to enable learners to function adequately in a target situation”. In this sense, Mackay
and Mumford (1978:4) point out that the “only practical way in which we can understand
the notion of special language is as a restricted repertoire of words and expressions

3
selected from the whole language because that restricted repertoire covers every
requirement within a well-defined context, task or vocation” [emphasis mine]. Two key
elements of a formal definition of “ESP” are identified: [1] specific workplace learning
context; [2] specific students with specific learning needs. However, the “restricted
repertoire” of Mumford (1978) is critisised by Gatehouse (2001) for being too narrow who
suggests that the “special” aspect of ESP should be a focus on the purpose for which
language is learnt, and not the specific jargon or registers that are learnt (ibid.).
Essentially, the main idea of this perspective may be diagrammed as follows:

A narrow definition of “ESP Course”

An expansion of the above group of definitions and perspectives naturally includes an

emphasis on specificity in terms of work context and student group, but it also includes

ESP COURSE
reference to generic English language competencies that underpin the transference of
such competencies to specific work contexts. An expanded definition acknowledges the
fact that ESP students, generally, have prior and generic knowledge of English, and that
this knowledge is the basis on which specialisation can take place. Thus an expanded
definition of ESP integrates generic English knowledge of the language systems into the
specific curriculum for a context-specific ESP course.

ESP is not only specific to the context and the students

Some theorists expand the narrow, context-specific and “different from General English
courses” perspective.
SPECIFIC
Dudley-Evans (1998), for example, defines ESP in terms of
“absolute characteristics” and “variable characteristics”. This allows for “core” and

WORKPLACE CONTEX
“peripheral” aspects of a definition. In terms of core characteristics, ESP refers to:

4
• meeting specific learner needs

• using the underlying methodology and activities of the discipline it serves

• centering on the language that is appropriate to these activities in terms of grammar, lexis, register,
study skills, discourse and genre.

In terms of variable characteristics, ESP refers to:

• being related to or being designed for specific disciplines

• using a different methodology from that of General English in specific teaching situations

• being designed for adult learners in most cases, but also possibly being designed for learners at
secondary school level

• being designed for intermediate or advanced students in most cases

• assuming a basic knowledge of the language systems.

Anthony (2009) points out the benefits of a layered definition of ESP, and remarks that,
from this definition, “…we can see that ESP can but is not necessarily concerned with a
specific discipline, nor does it have to be aimed at a certain age group or ability range”,
thus allowing for a broad definition of ESP. Essentially, the main idea of this perspective
may be diagrammed as follows:

ESP COURSE
An expanded definition of “ESP course”

2.3 Needs analysis in the design and development of ESP COURSES

Central to a definition of ESP is the analysis of needs which, in turn, is the point of
departure for the design and development of an ESP course (Gatehouse, 2001; Graves,
2000). It is from the identification of specific contextual language needs that ESP derives
its purpose. Graphically, it may be presented as follows:
5
 Needs analysis in ESP course design and development DESIGN
An expanded definition of “ESP course” would engage in the same needs analysis process
as outlined above, but it would also take into account the generic language competencies
that are required for the specific language competencies to be used. Sysoyev (2000)
places the analysis of students’ needs in an ESP course within the following course
development process:

• Needs analysis NE
• Formulation of goals and objectives
• Content
• Selection of teaching materials
• Planning the course
• Course evaluation

Chen (2006:1) remarks that “ESP course design is usually based on the specific needs of
learners of a particular discipline” [emphasis mine].
SPE
In this regard, Evans and Squires

NE
(2009:16) point out that the needs analysis that is fundamental to the design and
development of an ESP program may include “questionnaires, interviews, observations,
discussions, assessments, and analysis of authentic texts to identify what language is
needed, as well as how, when, why and with whom it will be used”. Hutchinson and
Waters (1987:54-63), for example, report a successful experience in the conducting of
needs analyses for ESP courses, and the integration of the required linguistic elements
and skills into the ESP syllabus. However, it has been pointed out before by Richtereich
(1983), Robinson (1991), for example, that needs analyses need to be ongoing throughout
the life of each course as learners’ needs change constantly in a dynamic workplace.

6
4. A DEFINITION OF “general English courses”

The Wimbledon School of English in the UK offers a “General English Course” which
focuses on: grammar, reading, writing, speaking and listening. The Cal America
Education Institute offers a “General English Skills” course that focuses on: grammar,
reading, writing and conversation. Thus, a “General English Course” specifies neither the
identity of the students nor their specific, context-specific English learning needs. What is
the difference, then, between an ESP course and a general English course?

5. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “ESP” AND “GENERAL ENGLISH

COURSES”

Evans and Squires (2009:16) encapsulate the difference between ESP and general
English programmes:

“General English programs center on overall mastery of the language while ESP programs prepare
learners to carry out specific tasks. In short, without a needs analysis an ESP program is
meaningless as ESP courses are by definition designed for specific learners and their needs.”

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) point out that ESP courses are the leaves and branches on
a language tree, but without the trunk and roots [general English courses], the branches
and leaves cannot grow because they do not have the necessary underlying support.
They answer the question: “What is the difference between the ESP and General English
approach?” as follows: “…in theory nothing, in practice a great deal” (53). In this sense,
Chen (2006:3) points out that it can be concluded that “general English language content,
grammatical functions and acquisition skills are dominant in curriculum development and
course design, while terminology and specific functions of discipline content are integrated
in the course to meet the learners’ specific needs”. Based on his experience of designing
an ESP course within a Chinese industrial institution, Chen (ibid.) concludes that the
acquisition of linguistic skills in General English or General Technical English is required
before English is transferred to specific subject areas. Thus Chen (2006) points out that
general English language content should be integrated into ESP course content since
content-related language cannot function without general English language content.

7
6. CONCLUSION

A general English course and an ESP course differ in terms of who the student is, and also
in terms of the objective of instruction and learning. Two questions are fundamental in this
distinction: [1] Who is the student? [2] Why does the student want to learn? The core
difference, then, between ESP courses and general English courses is found in the identity
of the students as well as their reason and motivation for wanting to learn English. Thus,
ESP students seek to acquire functional English skills, specific to certain work-related
contexts. In general, ESP students have a prior and general working knowledge of
English, but who want to continue studying English in order to perform a specific work-
related function. It is for this reason that ESP courses concentrate more on language-in-
context than on generic grammar and vocabulary structures. ESP courses, therefore, are
integrated into the real world of students and use subject matter content that is already of
importance to the students. Although the application of English competencies is specific
and particular, the foundation on which this is based is a set of generic English
competencies. Whereas a general English course would equally focus on the four
systems of English [reading, writing, speaking, listening], an ESP course will emphasise
only that which is relevant to the students’ contextual workplace needs. In an ESP course,
the generic English competencies and the contextual ESP competencies are mutually
reciprocal. Having general English competence motivates and enables students to
meaningfully acquire context-specific competence. Having context-specific competence,
in turn, motivates and enables students to understand generic English skills by reference
to context-specific experience and competence. It appears most correct to interpret the
“special” or “specific” part of “English for Special/Specific Purposes” in terms of the
purpose of learning, and not in terms of the special and context-specific English
competencies in an ESP course. ESP courses are immediately relevant and the acquired
competencies are easily transferrable. In an ESP course, English should be presented to
students in authentic work-relevant contexts and not as a set of mechanical skills. Thus
an ESP course acquaints students with ways in which English is used in specified contexts
and for functions that they will have to perform in their jobs.