University of Oum El-Bouaghi

2020-2021

Department of English

Engilsh for Specific Purposes

A course elaborated for the first semester of the third year LMD classes’ requirements

Designed by:

Mr. lamine benhamlaoui

Disclaimer: This course is mostly a collection of materials from a variety of sources (see list of references). All merit is
the authors’ credit. It has been designed for the teaching of ESP subject at the University of Oum El-Bouaghi.
Content:

Section one: Definition of Terms

1. English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
2. English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
3. English for Occupational Purposes (EOP)
Section two: Historical Background
I. The origins of ESP
1. A revolution in linguistics
2. Focus on the learner
II. The development of ESP
1. The concept of special language: register analysis
2. Beyond the sentence: rhetorical or discourse analysis
3. Target situation analysis
4. Skills and strategies
5. A learning-centred approach
III. ESP: approach not product
Section Three: Theoretical Foundations
1. Needs Analysis

1.1. Evolution of Needs Analysis

1.2. Needs Analysis Basic Principles
2. Register Analysis

3. Discourse Analysis

3.1. Definition of Discourse

3.2. Rhetorical and Discourse Analysis
4. Genre Analysis

Section four: Teching ESP

1. The Purpose of an ESP Course
2. Teaching Objectives
3. Student-Teacher Relationship
4. Skills
 Section one: Definition of Terms
1. English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
The starting point of ESP was the simple question: ‘why does this learner need to learn a foreign
language?’ as the foundation of ESP, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) suggested that ESP is rather a product
of language than an approach to it. This vision argued that ESP does not involve a particular kind of
language, teaching material or methodology. Yet, it considers the learners, the language required and the
learning context as the basic considerations to ESP classes and thus establishes the primacy of need in ESP
(Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998).
Another approach to ESP is that of Strevens (1988). He argued that ESP definition consists of two
kinds of characteristics: absolute characteristics and variable characteristics. The absolute characteristics,
one the one hand, are that ESP consists of English Language Teaching which is:
- Designed to meet specified needs of the learner;
- Related in content (that is in its themes and topics) to particular disciplines, occupations and
activities.
- Centred on language appropriate to those activities in syntax, lexis, discourse, semantics and so on,
and analysis of the discourse;
- In contrast with ‘General English’.
On the other hand, the variable characteristics are that ESP:
- May be restricted as to the learning skills to be learned (for example reading only);
- May not be taught according to any pre-ordained methodology.
Advocating the primacy of needs analysis, Robinson (1991) based her definition of ESP on two key
criteria. These criteria are that ESP is ‘normally goal-directed’, and that ESP courses develop from a needs
analysis, which ‘aims to specify as closely as possible what exactly it is that students have to do through the
medium of English’ (Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998; Robinson, 1991, p. 3).
Robinson (1991) supported her two basic criteria by other characteristics which were:
- ESP courses are generally constrained by a limited time period;
- The courses’ objectives have to be achieved;
- They are taught to adults in homogeneous classes in terms of work or specialist studies that the
students are involved in.
 According to Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998), the above mentioned definitions have both validity
and weaknesses. Though Strevens’ definition is the most comprehensive one, Dudley-Evans and St. John
argued that ‘referring to content in the second absolute characteristic may confirm the false impression
held by many teachers that ESP is always and necessarily related directly to subject content’. Robinson’s
mention of homogeneous classes as a characteristic of ESP may lead to the same conclusion (Dudley-Evans
and St. John, 1998).
Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) argued that ‘much ESP work is based on the notion of a ‘common-
core’ of language and skills that belong to all academic disciplines or cut across the whole activity of
business.’ ESP teaching should necessarily reflect the underlying concepts and activities of the broad
discipline. Similarly, Business English teaching should reflect the business context in which business
meetings or negotiations takes place (Charles, 1994; Charles, 1996).
From the above mentioned definitions, Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) came up with a definition
of ESP based on nature of interaction between the ESP teacher and the learners which they named
‘methodology’. They argued that ESP teaching makes use of a methodology that differs from that used in
General English teaching. In some cases, the teacher becomes more like a language consultant, enjoying
equal status with the learners who have their own expertise in the subject matter. They stressed two
aspects of ESP methodology:
- All ESP teaching should reflect the methodology of the disciplines and professions it serves;
- In more specific ESP teaching the nature of the interaction between the teacher and learner may be
very different from that in general English class.
Though Dudley-Evans and St. John’s definition was based on the nature of interaction between the
teacher and the learners, they also believe that language is a key feature of ESP. The target activities
generated from needs analysis ‘generate and depend on registers, genres and associated language that
students needs to be able to manipulate in order to carry out the activity.’ (Dudley-Evans and St. John,
1998)

2. English for Academic Purposes (EAP)

EAP appeared as a subdivision of ESP. Hinkel (2005) argued that English for academic purposes
(EAP) is a subdomain of English for Specific Purposes (ESP). He reported that EAP is generally housed in
formal academic contexts. EAP shares subdomain status with English for occupational purposes (EOP).
Blue (1988) articulated a further subdivision of EAP. He distinguished between English for General
Academic Purposes (EGAP) and English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) (Blue, 1988, cited in
Dudley-Evans & St-John, 1998).
According to Hinkel (2005), the main difference between these two subdivisions of EAP lays in the
scope. Within an EGAP class, the emphasis is mostly on common core skills and activities where English is
taught for general academic purposes, across multiple disciplines, and includes learning and study skills
components of broadly relevant academic skills.
In contrast, ESAP emphasizes higher order skills, student development, and authentic texts and
features while working within specific epistemological traditions associated with different disciplines
(Hinkel, 2005).
This focus on learning academic language through academic tasks, texts, and content is the basis for
claims that EAP instruction represents a highly pragmatic approach to learning, encompassing needs
analyses, evaluation, academic skills, disciplinary content, and tasks in support of student learning tertiary
educational contexts.

3. English for Occupational Purposes (EOP)

Hutchinson & Waters (1987) demonstrated that ESP is broken down into three branches: English
for Science and Technology (EST); English for Business and Economics (EBE); and English for Social
Studies (ESS). Each of these subject areas is further divided into two branches: English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). They noted that no clear-cut is set between
EAP and EOP: ‘people can work and study simultaneously; it is also likely that in many cases the language
learnt for immediate use in a study environment will be used later when the student takes up, or returns to,
a job’ (p. 16). An example of EOP for the EST branch is 'English for Technicians' whereas an example of
EAP for the EST branch is 'English for Medical Studies' (Gatehouse, 2001).
Carter (1983) too categorized EAP and EOP under the same type of ESP. He implied that the end
purpose of both EAP and EOP are one in the same: employment. However, according to Gatehouse (2001)
despite the end purpose being identical, the means taken to achieve the end is very different indeed.
Gatehouse argued that EAP and EOP are different in terms of focus on Cummins' (1979) notions of
cognitive academic proficiency versus basic interpersonal skills.
Cummins’ (1979) Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP) dichotomy refers to the language skills used in the everyday informal
language used with friends, family and co-workers and to the language proficiency required to make sense
of and use academic language (Gatehouse, 2001).
Hinkel (2005) stated that English for occupational purposes (EOP) includes English language use by
both professionals (e.g., in medicine, business, law) and by non professional workers (in vocational
contexts).
 Section Two : Historical Background

I. The origins of ESP

The end of the Second World War in 1945 heralded an age of enormous and unprecedented expansion in
scientific, technical and economic activity on an international scale. This expansion created a world unified
and dominated by two forces – technology and commerce – which in their relentless progress soon
generated a demand for an international language. For various reasons, most notably the economic power
of the United States in the post-war world, this role fell to English.

The effect was to create a whole new mass of people wanting to learn English, not for the pleasure or
prestige of knowing the language, but because English was the key to the international currencies of
technology and commerce. Previously the reasons for learning English (or any other language) had not
been well defined. Knowledge of a foreign language had been generally regarded as a sign of a well-
rounded education, but few had really questioned why it was necessary. Learning a language was, so to
speak, its own justification.
But as English became the accepted international language of technology and commerce, it created a new
generation of learners who knew specifically why they were learning a language — businessmen and -
women who wanted to sell their products, mechanics who had to read instruction manuals, doctors who
needed to keep up with developments in their field and a whole range of students whose course of study
included textbooks and journals only available in English. All these and many others needed English and,
most importantly, they knew why they needed it.
This development was accelerated by the Oil Crises of the early 1970s, which resulted in a massive flow of
funds and Western expertise into the oil-rich countries. English suddenly became big business and
commercial pressures began to exert an influence. Time and money constraints created a need for cost-
effective courses with clearly defined goals.
The general effect of all this development was to exert pressure on the language teaching profession to
deliver the required goods. Whereas English had previously decided its own destiny, it now became subject
to the wishes, needs and demands of people other than language teachers. English had become accountable
to the scrutiny of the wider world and the traditional leisurely and purpose-free stroll through the
landscape of the English language seemed no longer appropriate in the harsher realities of the market place.
 1. A revolution in linguistics
At the same time as the demand was growing for English courses tailored to specific needs, influential new
ideas began to emerge in the study of language. Traditionally the aim of linguistics had been to describe the
rules of English usage, that is, the grammar. However the new studies shifted attention away from defining
the formal features of language usage to discovering the ways in which language is actually used in real
communication (Widdowson, 1978). One finding of this research was that the language we speak and write
varies considerably, and in a number of different ways, from one context to another. In English language
teaching this gave rise to the view that there are important differences between, say, the English of
commerce and that of engineering. These ideas married up naturally with the development of English
courses for specific groups of learners. The idea was simple: if language varies from one situation of use to
another, it should be possible to determine the features of specific situations and then make these features
the basis of the learners' course. Swales (1985) presented an article by C. L. Barber on the nature of
Scientific English which was published as early as 1962. But it was the late 1960s and early 1970s which
saw the greatest expansion of research into the nature of particular varieties of English - for example,
descriptions of written scientific and technical English by Ewer and Latorre (1969), Swales (1971), Selinker
and Trimble (1976) and others. Most of the work at this time was in the area of English for Science and
Technology (EST) and for a time ESP and EST were regarded as almost synonymous. But there were studies
in other fields too, such as the analysis of doctor-patient communication by Candlin, Bruton and Leather
(1976).
In short, the view gained ground that the English needed by a particular group of learners could be
identified by analysing the linguistic characteristics of their specialist area of work or study. 'Tell me what
you need English for and I will tell you the English that you need' became the guiding principle of ESP.
2. Focus on the learner
New developments in educational psychology also contributed to the rise of ESP, by emphasising the
central importance of the learners and their attitudes to learning (e.g. Rodgers, 1969). Learners were seen to
have different needs and interests, which would have an important influence on their motivation to learn
and therefore on the effectiveness of their learning. This lent support to the development of courses in
which 'relevance' to the learners' needs and interests was paramount. The standard way of achieving this
was to take texts from the learners' specialist area - texts about Biology for Biology students etc. The
assumption underlying this approach was that the clear relevance of the English course to their needs
would improve the learners' motivation and thereby make learning better and faster. The growth of ESP,
then, was brought about by a combination of three important factors: the expansion of demand for English
to suit particular needs and developments in the fields of linguistics and educational psychology. All three
factors seemed to point towards the need for increased specialisation in language learning.

II. The development of ESP

From its early beginnings in the 1960s ESP has undergone three main phases of development. It is now in a
fourth phase with a fifth phase starting to emerge. We shall describe each of the five phases in greater
detail in later chapters, but it will provide a useful perspective to give a brief summary here. It should be
pointed out first of all that ESP is not a monolithic universal phenomenon. ESP has developed at different
speeds in different countries, and examples of all the approaches we shall describe can be found operating
somewhere in the world at the present time. Our summary must, therefore, be very general in its focus. It
will be noticeable in the following overview that one area of activity has been particularly important in the
development of ESP. This is the area usually known as EST (English for Science and Technology). Swales
(1985) in fact used the development of EST to illustrate the development of ESP in general:
‘With one or two exceptions... English for Science and Technology has always set and continues to set the
trend in theoretical discussion, in ways of analysing language, and in the variety of actual teaching
materials’
We have not restricted our own illustrations to EST in this book, but we still need to acknowledge, as
Swales does, the pre-eminent position of EST in the ESP story.
1. The concept of special language: register analysis
This stage took place mainly in the 1960s and early 1970s and was associated in particular with the work of
Peter Strevens (Halliday, Mclntosh and Strevens, 1964), Jack Ewer (Ewer and Latorre, 1969) and John
Swales (1971). Operating on the basic principle that the English of, say, Electrical Engineering constituted a
specific register different from that of, say, Biology or of General English, the aim of the analysis was to
identify the grammatical and lexical features of these registers. Teaching materials then took these
linguistic features as their syllabus. A good example of such a syllabus is that of A Course in Basic Scientific
English by Ewer and Latorre (1969) (see below p. 26).
In fact, as Ewer and Latorre's syllabus shows, register analysis revealed that there was very little that was
distinctive in the sentence grammar of Scientific English beyond a tendency to favour particular forms such
as the present simple tense, the passive voice and nominal compounds. It did not, for example, reveal any
forms that were not found in General English. But we must be wary of making unfair criticism. Although
there was an academic interest in the nature of registers of English per se, the main motive behind register
analyses such as Ewer and Latorre's was the pedagogic one of making the ESP course more relevant to
learners' needs. The aim was to produce a syllabus which gave high priority to the language forms students
would meet in their Science studies and in turn would give low priority to forms they would not meet.
Ewer and Hughes-Davies (1971), for example, compared the language of the texts their Science students
had to read with the language of some widely used school textbooks. They found that the school textbooks
neglected some of the language forms commonly found in Science texts, for example, compound nouns,
passives, conditionals, anomalous finites (i.e. modal verbs). Their conclusion was that the ESP course
should, therefore, give precedence to these forms.
2. Beyond the sentence: rhetorical or discourse analysis
There were, as we shall see, serious flaws in the register analysis-based syllabus, but, as it happened, register
analysis as a research procedure was rapidly overtaken by developments in the world of linguistics.
Whereas in the first stage of its development, ESP had focussed on language at the sentence level, the
second phase of development shifted attention to the level above the sentence, as ESP became closely
involved with the emerging field of discourse or rhetorical analysis. The leading lights in this movement
were Henry Widdowson in Britain and the so-called Washington School of Larry Selinker, Louis Trimble,
John Lackstrom and Mary Todd-Trimble in the United States. The basic hypothesis of this stage is
succinctly expressed by Allen and Widdowson (1974):
‘We take the view that the difficulties which the students encounter arise not so much from a defective
knowledge of the system of English, but from an unfamiliarity with English use, and that consequently
their needs cannot be met by a course which simply provides further practice in the composition of
sentences, but only by one which develops a knowledge of how sentences are used in the performance of
different communicative acts.'
Register analysis had focussed on sentence grammar, but now attention shifted to understanding how
sentences were combined in discourse to produce meaning. The concern of research, therefore, was to
identify the organisational patterns in texts and to specify the linguistic means by which these patterns are
signalled. These patterns would then form the syllabus of the ESP course. The Rhetorical Process Chart
below (from EST: A Discourse Approach by Louis Trimble (1985)) is representative of this approach:
 Figure 2: Rhetorical Process Chart
As in stage i there was a more or less tacit assumption in this approach that the rhetorical patterns of text
organisation differed significantly between specialist areas of use: the rhetorical structure of science texts
was regarded as different from that of commercial texts, for example. However, this point was never very
clearly examined (see Swales, 1985, pp. 70-1) and indeed paradoxically, the results of the research into the
discourse of subject-specific academic texts were also used to make observations about discourse in general
(Widdowson, 1978).
The typical teaching materials based on the discourse approach taught students to recognise textual
patterns and discourse markers mainly by means of text-diagramming exercises (see below p. 36). The
English in Focus series (OUP) is a good example of this approach.
3. Target situation analysis
The stage that we come to consider now did not really add anything new to the range of knowledge about
ESP. What it aimed to do was to take the existing knowledge and set it on a more scientific basis, by
establishing procedures for relating language analysis more closely to learners' reasons for learning. Given
that the purpose of an ESP course is to enable learners to function adequately in a target situation, that is,
the situation in which the learners will use the language they are learning, then the ESP course design
process should proceed by first identifying the target situation and then carrying out a rigorous analysis of
the linguistic features of that situation. The identified features will form the syllabus of the ESP course.
This process is usually known as needs analysis. However, we prefer to take Chambers' (1980) term of
'target situation analysis’, since it is a more accurate description of the process concerned. The most
thorough explanation of target situation analysis is the system set out by John Munby in Communicative
Syllabus Design (1978). The Munby model produces a detailed profile of the learners' needs in terms of
communication purposes, communicative setting, the means of communication, language skills, functions,
structures etc. (see below p. 55).
The target situation analysis stage marked a certain 'coming of age' for ESP. What had previously been
done very much in a piecemeal way was now systematised and learner need was apparently placed at the
centre of the course design process. It proved in the event to be a false dawn. As we shall see in the
following chapters, the concept of needs that it was based on was far too simple.
4. Skills and strategies
We noted that in the first two stages of the development of ESP all the analysis had been of the surface
forms of the language (whether at sentence level, as in register analysis, or above, as in discourse analysis).
The target situation analysis approach did not really change this, because in its analysis of learner need it
still looked mainly at the surface linguistic features of the target situation. The fourth stage of ESP has seen
an attempt to look below the surface and to consider not the language itself but the thinking processes that
underlie language use. There is no dominant figure in this movement, although we might mention the
work of Françoise Grellet (1981), Christine Nuttall (1982) and Charles Alderson and Sandy Urquhart (1984)
as having made significant contributions to work on reading skills. Most of the work in the area of skills
and strategies, however, has been done close to the ground in schemes such as the National ESP Project in
Brazil (see below p. 172) and the University of Malaya ESP Project (see ELT Documents 107 and Skills for
Learning published by Nelson and the University of Malaya Press). Both these projects were set up to cope
with study situations where the medium of instruction is the mother tongue but students need to read a
number of specialist texts which are available only in English. The projects have, therefore, concentrated
their efforts on reading strategies.
The principal idea behind the skills-centred approach is that underlying all language use there are common
reasoning and interpreting processes, which, regardless of the surface forms, enable us to extract meaning
from discourse. There is, therefore, no need to focus closely on the surface forms of the language. The focus
should rather be on the underlying interpretive strategies, which enable the learner to cope with the
surface forms, for example guessing the meaning of words from context, using visual layout to determine
the type of text, exploiting cognates (i.e. words which are similar in the mother tongue and the target
language) etc. A focus on specific subject registers is unnecessary in this approach, because the underlying
processes are not specific to any subject register.
'It was argued that reading skills are not language-specific but universal and that there is a core of language
(for example, certain structures of argument and forms of presentation) which can be identified as
"academic" and which is not subject-specific' (Chitravelu, 1980)
As has been noted, in terms of materials this approach generally puts the emphasis on reading or listening
strategies. The characteristic exercises get the learners to reflect on and analyse how meaning is produced
in and retrieved from written or spoken discourse. Taking their cue from cognitive learning theories (see
below p. 43), the language learners are treated as thinking beings who can be asked to observe and verbalise
the interpretive processes they employ in language use.
5. A learning-centred approach
In outlining the origins of ESP (pp. 6-8), we identified three forces, which we might characterise as need,
new ideas about language and new ideas about learning. It should have become clear that in its subsequent
development, however, scant attention has been paid to the last of these forces - learning. All of the stages
outlined so far have been fundamentally flawed, in that they are all based on descriptions of language use.
Whether this description is of surface forms, as in the case of register analysis, or of underlying processes, as
in the skills and strategies approach, the concern in each case is with describing what people do with
language. But our concern in ESP is not with language use – although this will help to define the course
objectives. 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. If that were so, we would need
to do no more than read a grammar book and a dictionary in order to learn a language. A truly valid
approach to ESP must be based on an understanding of the processes of language learning. This brings us to
the fifth stage of ESP development - the learning-centred approach, which will form the subject of this
book. The importance and the implications of the distinction that we have made between language use and
language learning will hopefully become clear as we proceed through the following chapters.
III. ESP: approach not product
The survey above shows that in its relatively brief history there have been several major shifts in the
development of ESP both in theory and practice. However, we have tried to show that, in spite of their
differences, the successive stages have all concentrated on the linguistic aspect of ESP: they are all
essentially language-centred approaches. In later chapters we shall look in greater detail at how this has
shaped the way in which people see ESP. For now let us return to the question posed at the beginning of
this section: 'What is ESP?' To answer this question fully, we need first of all to establish a context which
will help us to see how ESP at the present time relates to the rest of ELT. What exactly is the status of the
citizens of ESP and its satellite settlements in relation to the general world of ELT?
In the time-honoured manner of linguistics, we shall represent the relationship in the form of a tree (see
figure 3).
The tree represents some of the common divisions that are made in ELT. The topmost branches of the tree
show the level at which individual ESP courses occur. The branches just below this level indicate that these
may conveniently be divided into two main types of ESP differentiated according to whether the learner
requires English for academic study (EAP: English for Academic Purposes) or for work/training
(EOP/EVP/VESL: English for Occupational Purposes/English for Vocational Purposes/Vocational English as
a Second Language). This is, of course, not a clear-cut distinction: people can work and study
simultaneously; it is also likely that in many cases the language learnt for immediate use in a study
environment will be used later when the student takes up, or returns to, a job.
At the next level down it is possible to distinguish ESP courses by the general nature of the learners'
specialism. Three large categories are usually identified here: EST (English for Science and Technology),
EBE (English for Business and Economics) and ESS (English for the Social Sciences). This last is not
common, probably because it is not thought to differ significantly from more traditional humanities-based
General English.
As we go down the tree, we can see that ESP is just one branch of EFL/ESL, which are themselves the main
branches of English Language Teaching in general. ELT, in turn is one variety of the many possible kinds of
language teaching. But, of course, there is more to a tree than is visible above ground: a tree cannot survive
without roots. The roots which nourish the tree of ELT are communication and learning. The analogy of a
tree can help us to get a bit closer to a definition of ESP not so much by showing what ESP is, but rather by
showing what ESP isn't.
a) ESP is not a matter of teaching ' specialised varieties' of English. The fact that language is used for a
specific purpose does not imply that it is a special form of the language, different in kind from other forms.
Certainly, there are some features which can be identified as 'typical' of a particular context of use and
which, therefore, the learner is more likely to meet in the target situation. But these differences should not
be allowed to obscure the far larger area of common ground that underlies all English use, and indeed, all
language use.
b) ESP is not just a matter of Science words and grammar for Scientists, Hotel words and grammar for Hotel
staff and so on. When we look at a tree, we see the leaves and branches, but there is much more to the tree
than just these - much of it hidden from view inside and beneath the tree. The leaves do not just hang in
the air: they are supported by a complex underlying structure. In the same way there is much more to
communication than just the surface features that we read and hear. We need to distinguish, as Chomsky
did with regard to grammar, between performance and competence, that is, between what people actually
do with the language and the range of knowledge and abilities which enables them to do it (Hutchinson
and Waters, 1981).
c) ESP is not different in kind from any other form of language teaching, in that it should be based in the
first instance on principles of effective and efficient learning. Though the content of learning may vary
there is no reason to suppose that the processes of learning should be any different for the ESP learner than
for the General English learner. There is, in other words, no such thing as an ESP methodology, merely
methodologies that have been applied in ESP classrooms, but could just as well have been used in the
learning of any kind of English.
So what is ESP? Having stressed the commonality of language and learning, how does ESP differ from other
forms of ELT? To answer this, ESP must be seen as an approach not as a product. ESP is not a particular
kind of language or methodology, nor does it consist of a particular type of teaching material. Understood
properly, it is an approach to language learning, which is based on learner need. The foundation of all ESP
is the simple question: Why does this learner need to learn a foreign language? From this question will flow
a whole host of further questions, some of which will relate to the learners themselves, some to the nature
of the language the learners will need to operate, some to the given learning context. But this whole
analysis derives from an initial identified need on the part of the learner to learn a language. ESP, then, is
an approach to language teaching in which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner's
reason for learning.
 Section three: Theoretical Foundations
This section introduces the learners to the theoretical framework of ESP. It tackles influential concepts
such as needs analysis, register analysis, discourse analysis and genre analysis.
1. Needs Analysis
Richterich (1983, p.2) noted that ‘the very concept of language needs has been clearly defined and
remains at best ambiguous’. The origins of Needs Analysis goes back to the 1920’s, in India, when Michael
West was trying to establish why learners should learn English. West was dealing with students of General
English in what Abbott (1981, p.12) calls a TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reason) situation
and it was perhaps for this reason that the term then disappeared until around 1970. (West, 1997, p. 68).
Abbott (1981) explained this acronym as referring to the case of the most of the world’s learners of English:
children who are too young or too distant from any real communication in English to have any identifiable
needs.
Within ESP, the definitions of needs and needs analysis have broadened with experience and
research, for instance, in the 1960s and early 1970s, literature and language trained English teachers, faced
with teaching science students English for their subject studies, knew very little of the ‘what’ or ‘how’ of
those studies and concomitantly little about the language of science and technology (Dudley-Evans and St.
John, 1998)
A needs distinction was made by Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p.53-63) between target needs and
learning needs. According to Hall and Hewings (2001) learning needs can be seen as instructional logistics
needs since they ‘relate to questions of the purpose of the course, background of the learners, types of
instructional resources, and location and time of the course’. However, target needs can be seen as
institutional or academic needs related to the overall objectives of administering the course. Hall and
Hewings (2001) argued that when Hutchinson and Waters (1987) focus on target needs, they view learners
as being short of the mark, or lacking, rather than as people who bring their own experience and
expectations to language program.
In fact, both target needs and learning needs are in the core of our research. Since, on the one hand,
learners are not yet able to bring their experiences and expectations to the program which means that
target needs should be set beforehand. On the other hand, the course should fit those learners’ needs,
interests, and learning strategies which have to be analysed on the basis of the learners themselves.
 1.1. Evolution of Needs Analysis
West (1997, p.70-71) noted that the difficulty of definition arises from the ways in which the
concept and focus of needs analysis have evolved since the early 1970s. He distinguished between three
(possibly four) stages through which needs analysis developed (see table 4)
Table 4: Evolution of Needs Analysis (Michael West, 1997, p.70)

Stage Period Focus Scope of analysis Examples

1 Early 1970s EOP Target situation Richterich, 1971,

analysis 1975/1980
ESP ELTDU, 1970
Stuart & Lee, 1972/
1985
2 Later 1970s EAP Target situation Jordan & Mackay,
analysis 1973
Mackay, 1978
3 1980s ESP and Target situation Tarone & Yule,
general analysis 1989
language Deficiency Allright &
teaching analysis Allright, 1977
Strategy analysis Allright, 1982
Means analysis Holliday & Cooke,
Language audits 1982
Pilbeam, 1979
4 Early 1990s ESP Integrated/ Jones, 1991
computer-based Nelson, 1994
analyses

From this table, five different concepts of needs analysis emerge:

Target situation analysis: in this earlier form of needs analysis the language requirements of the target
situation were identified by contemplating, questioning or observing those already in that situation. Such
needs have also been called necessities or objective needs, and they represent the destination of the LSP
learner’s language-learning journey. Target-situation analysis may operate at various levels of detail:
(a) Establishing priorities in terms of various languages – English, German, etc.
(b) Establishing priorities in terms of skills in one language – speaking, reading, etc.
(c) Establishing priorities in terms of LSP situations, functions or tasks – speaking on the telephone,
listening to lectures, etc.
Deficiency analysis: One of the limitations of target-situation analysis is that it takes little account of the
present state of the learner’s present language proficiency, and so some method is needed to assess the
starting point of LSP journey. Such needs have been termed lacks, deficiencies or subjective needs as they
estimate the ‘learning gap’ between present needs and target needs.
Strategy analysis: Having established the starting point and the destination, we need information about the
preferred means of travel – the approaches to learning or teaching. Strategy analysis, therefore, sets out to
establish the learners’ preferences in terms of learning styles and strategies, or teaching methods.
Means analysis: This examines the teaching environment in which the language course is to take place and
establishes the constraints and opportunities of the ESP journey and encompasses four main areas:
(a) Classroom culture/learner factors – what is or is not possible within a particular educational culture
or tradition.
(b) Staff profiles/teacher profiles – what is or is not possible with the staff available, considering
numbers, language level, LSP background, training, etc.
(c) Status of language teaching/institutional profiles – what is or is not possible given the status of LSP
within the organisation or institution, considering timetable and resource allocations, etc.
(d) Change agents/change management – an assessment of what innovations are necessary or possible in
order to establish an effective LSP programme.
Language audits: The four concepts of needs analysis we have examined so far may be seen as
complementary to each other and all operate at the level of the organisation or institution. Language
audits, on the other hand, are much larger scale operations establishing the LSP practice of, say, a company
or the policy of ministry. An example would be the recent audit carried out for Hungary (Teemant, Varga
& Heltai, 1993). A language audit could and should embrace all the levels of needs analysis that we have
identified.
 1.2. Needs Analysis Basic Principles
As the field of Needs Analysis have been widely investigated along the years, teachers or trainers
setting out nowadays to determine learners’ needs begin from a different and broader base (Dudley-Evans
and St. John, 1998). A way to cut on time and efforts within a needs analysis process is to use those
previous investigations as a starting point. That would help, to a great extent, researchers in targeting the
appropriate population and to look for the most essential data. Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) stated
that trawling the literature for previous needs analyses, available materials and research findings is a highly
essential if not an obligatory step before teachers or trainers can approach clients and students. They need
to be as knowledgeable as possible so that they would
- Know what they did not know – that is, they would know what to ask;
- Not waste their clients’ or students’ time;
- Appear much more professional;
- Know how they should analyse the data.
Another basic principle stressed by Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) is to know beforehand what
will happen to the collected raw data and to the information derived from it. They argued that much time
and effort can be wasted in gathering responses that cannot be interpreted or lead to more questions rather
than answers. As ESP practitioners we need to know exactly what we are trying to find out and what we
will do with the answers before we start (Berwick, 1989, p.62)

2. Register Analysis
Register analysis is adopted by linguists wishing to account for the influence of the immediate
situation upon the shape of a stretch of language (Corbett, 2003) According to Dudley-Evans and St John
(1998), register analysis refers to the study of how frequently grammatical structures are used in texts.
Basturkmen (2006) argued that register Analysis concerns the study, identification and teaching of the most
important grammatical structures and vocabulary items within a scientific or a technical writing. As an
early approach to ESP, Register Analysis was premised on the idea that although similar grammatical
structures are used in both General English and ESP, particular grammatical structures and vocabulary
items are used more frequently in scientific and technical writings. Barber’s (1962/1985) analyses of
scientific and technical texts showed a more frequent use of the passive tense and identified a set of sub-
technical vocabulary items that were more likely to occur (Basturkmen, 2006)
 Corbett (2003) defined three main situational variables as basic considerations of Register Analysis:
the field, referring to the topic of the discourse; the tenor, referring to the relationship between
participants in the discourse; and the mode, referring to the channel or type discourse, for example,
whether it is a written editorial or a spoken conversation. Corbett argued that the consideration of field,
tenor and mode together constitute register analysis, which was developed from the 1960s through the
1990s (Ghadessy, 1988, 1993; Halliday et al., 1964; Halliday &Hasan, 1989)
Register Analysis had a great impact on language teaching in general and more specifically on
language teaching materials produced during the 60’s and 70’s. Corbett (2003) argued that Register
Analysis had allowed material designers to abstract the language of science and business from the inchoate
mass of General English.
However, the impact of register analysis and the rise of ESP courses and materials gave credence to
the idea that language could be described and taught without reference to a wider culture (Corbett, 2003).
Corbett further argued that this idea had strengthen the instrumental approach to language teaching, since
the vocabulary and grammar of the typical scientific report could be described and taught separately from
culture. It is genre analysis that holds more promise for an intercultural approach.
The impact of Register Analysis was further seen in the design of ESP materials. According to
Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998), most materials produced under the banner of Register analysis followed
a similar pattern, beginning each chapter with a long specialist reading passage. Units usually begin with a
reading passage related to specific discipline.

3. Discourse Analysis
3.1. Definition of Discourse
Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) proposed a preliminary definition of discourse as being a particular
way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world). They refer to the definition
provided by Foucault (1972, p.117) as:
We shall call discourse a group of statements in so far as they belong to the same discursive
formation [...] Discourse is made up of a limited number of statements for which a group of
conditions of existence can be defined. Discourse in this sense is not an ideal, timeless
form [...] it is, from beginning to end, historical – a fragment of history [...] posing its own
limits, its divisions, its transformations, the specific modes of its temporality.
 According to Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) ‘discourse’ has been widely used and considered in vogue
during the 1990’s. However, its use remains confusing to a certain extent: since in scientific texts and
debates, the term discourse has often been used without being defined, in a typically indiscriminate way.
‘The concept has become vague, either meaning almost nothing, or being used with more precise, but
rather different, meanings in different contexts’. But, generally speaking, the word ‘discourse’ relates to the
typical change in the language structure that occurs respectively with the change in the patterns that
people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life, familiar examples being
‘medical discourse’ and ‘political discourse’. ‘Discourse analysis’ is the analysis of these patterns (Jorgensen
and Phillips, 2002).
Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) stated that discourse analysis refers to the study of how sentences
in spoken and written language form larger units at a level above the sentence, for example in paragraphs,
whole conversations or written texts.
Olshtain and Celce-Murcia (2001) argued that discourse analysis is the source of reference for
decision-making in language teaching and learning. Therefore, it would be ill-advised to teach language
via the communicative approach without relying heavily on discourse analysis. For Olshtain and Celce-
Murcia, what is really important for language acquisition and development within a communicative
perspective is to create suitable contexts for interaction, to illustrate speaker/hearer and reader/writer
exchanges, and to provide learners with opportunities where they can process the language within a variety
of situations.

3.2. Rhetorical and Discourse Analysis

The pioneering work in this area was done by Lackstrom, Selinker and Trimble (1973) whose
approach is perhaps best summarised by Trimble’s later book English for Science and Technology: A
Discourse Approach (1985) (Dudley-Evans and St John, 1998). Trimble provided a definition of rhetoric as
being ‘the process a writer uses to produce a desired piece of text’ (p.10) and a definition of an EST text as
being ‘concerned only with the presentation of facts, hypotheses and similar types of information’.
Further, Trimble distinguished four rhetorical levels at which a text should be organized:
- Level A – the objectives of the total discourse;
- Level B – the general rhetorical functions that develop the level A objectives;
- Level C – the specific rhetorical functions that develop the general ones;
- Level D – the rhetorical techniques that provide relationships between the level C functions.
 It was the idea of relating language form to language use, emerging from Trimble’s work, which
gave great importance to language use in the selection of ESP teaching materials. The proliferation of ESP
at the beginning of the 1970’s was accompanied by Widdowson and Allen’s early writings which made the
rhetoric approach a major movement in ESP. In his terminology, Widdowson used the term ‘usage’ instead
of ‘use’. His arguments for the primacy of language use over form and for an approach based on the
communicative aspect of the language were extremely influential (Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998).

4. Genre Analysis
Swales (1990) has elaborated his earlier working definition of genre (Swales, 1981) to the following:
‘A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of
communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse
community, and thereby constitute the rationale of the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic
structure of the discourse and influences and constraints choice of content and style...’
Dudley-Evans (1987) provided a clear introduction to genre analysis:
‘It has characteristic features of style and form that are recognised, either overtly or covertly, by
those who use the genre. Thus, for example, the research article has a known public purpose, and has
conventions about layout, form and style that are to a large degree standardised.’
Dudley-Evans also related genre analysis to register analysis and discourse analysis. According to
him, the essential difference between discourse and genre analysis is that discourse analysis seeks to
describe relations that are in all texts. It is concerned with the similarities between texts. Genre analysis,
however, claims only to be able to say something about individual texts or, perhaps, types of text.
Swales (1990) proposed three key concepts in genre analysis: discourse community, genre and
language-learning task. Discourse community is central to an explanation of genre. Swales further
distinguished six defining criteria for discourse community:
- Common goals;
- Participatory mechanisms;
- Information exchange;
- Community specific genres;
- A highly specialized terminology;
- A high general level of expertise.
 He later added that genres are neither simply texts, nor discourse communities, but simply groups of
individuals who share attitudes, beliefs and expectations. The implication here is that a study of
institutional culture is involved (Jordan, 1997).
The extensive work done in the ESP field on genre analysis (for example, Swales 1990; Bhatia 1993)
seeks to identify the particular conventions for language use in certain domains of professional and
occupational activity. It is a development from, and an improvement on, register analysis because it deals
with discourse and not just text: that is to say, it seeks not simply to reveal what linguistic forms are
manifested but how they realize, make real the conceptual and the rhetorical structures, modes of thought
and action, which are established as conventional for certain discourse communities. Genre analysis is,
therefore, not principally about the English of engineering, of medicine, of business, or banking, but about
the conventions of thought and communication which define these areas of professional activity, and how,
incidentally, these are given expression, or textualized, in English.
 Section four: Teaching ESP

1. The purpose of an ESP Course

According to Sylvie (2000) the purpose of a Business English course is to fulfil students’ work-
related needs. These are usually very specific and cover a wide range of language. Indeed this purpose is
the basis of any Business English course, yet it should be set as the prime long-term objective of the course
in case the learners do not fit the minimum requirements of a Business English class. Further
subcategorised purposes should be set to pave the way towards the fulfilment of that prime one. In that,
and since such a prime objective is not quite ready to be fulfilled within the context of the present work,
we sought to set some short-term objectives as to fit the learners ‘subordinate’ needs towards the fulfilment
of the prime one. These objectives are:
- To increase learners’ awareness about the use of English in the professional context.
- To increase learners’ motivation to learn General English then Business English.
- To introduce and make learners aware of the business skills they will be required to use in the
professional context.
As related to this last point, Sylvie (2000) provided illustrations of different business skills learners
may be required to master as related to some job categories. She reported that students, who are employed
by a multinational corporation need to be able to use the phone, report to foreign managers, reply to or
write faxes and e-mail messages, read periodicals on their subject area and perform other tasks typically
associated with the workplace. Students who are doing business with companies abroad need to survive on
business trips, communicate on the phone and by fax, and negotiate contracts. Students who work in an
industry whose language is English (e.g. telecommunications or computing) need to be able to digest large
quantities of reading matter in English, they may also need to be able to give presentations or discuss their
work in English.

2. Teaching objectives
Sylvie (2000) stated that objectives for lessons and stages of lessons need to be made very clear to
students on a day-to-day basis. In fact students’ awareness about the lessons’ objectives will push them to
work with enthusiasm and intelligence to reach these objectives. Sylvie noted that decision-making and
objective-setting can frequently be passed on to students, since they are often used to making decisions,
setting objectives and respecting deadlines in their day-to-day work. As related to the scenario-based
methodology, the most prominent feature is, indeed, learners’ decision-making, however, this feature does
not develop from the learners’ ability and acquaintance with decision-making but rather works as a
learners’ involving factor which would help them direct the classroom interaction in a way that is likely to
help them manipulate the language.

3. Student-Teacher relationship
Referring to the kind of business relating them to each other, Sylvie (2000) described the learner –
teacher relationship as being a client – agent providing a service relation. Since Business English teachers
are hired by companies, sponsors or educational institutions to provide Business English lessons. She
argued that ‘students and teachers work in partnership to build a constructive learning environment which
is appropriate to individual students’ professional and personal situations. As well as being a learner, the
student is also a provider of information and material, if not also expertise.’ However, in case learners
receive Business English lessons as part of their tertiary education, the kind of learner – teacher
relationship is quite different. Since the learners have never experienced those professional needs that
would give them the status of partners in the classroom they need more from the teacher’s part than
playing the role of language consultant.

4. Skills
As any English course an ESP course includes all the langue skills and elements such as listening,
speaking, and grammar, together with various business skills. Osborne (2005) stated that these skills refer
to what students actually do in their work and include:
- Presentations
- Telephoning
- Meetings and discussions
- Negotiations
- Socialising
- Writing (e.g. emails; letters; reports; contracts; manuals)
- Reading (e.g. business pages of newspapers; reports; manuals; contracts)
- Interviews (e.g. job/ appraisal/ grievance)
- Other (depending on the student’s job)
 University students with no professional experience are unlikely to be familiar with these skills even
in their own language. The role of the teacher is then to make them aware and to expose them to those
skills. Osborne (2005) argued that although Students in jobs are normally experienced in various business
skills, teachers should not assume that they are necessarily good at them in their own language. Osborne
stated that teachers too need to make sure they have a good basic understanding of the business skills;
otherwise it will be difficult to teach with confidence.
List of references:

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for Specific Purposes. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Blue, G. (1988). Individualising academic writing tuition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: Process
and product (ELT Documents 129) (pp. 9-95). London. Modern English Publications in association with the
British Council.

Carter, D. (1983). Some prepositions about ESP. The ESP Journal, 1(1), 25-33.

Charles, M. (1994). Layered negotiations in business: Interdependencies between discourse and the business
relationship. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Birmingham.

Charles, M. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business
relationship. English for Specific purposes, 15 (1), 19-36.

Dudley Evans, T. (1997). Genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second language speakers:
Advantages and disadvantages. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom
applications (pp. 150-159). Washington, DC: united States Information Services.

Dudley-Evans, T. and St. John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi
disciplinary approach. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). The origins of ESP. In English for Specific Purposes (Cambridge
Language Teaching Library, pp. 6-8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511733031.004