How communicative is ESP?

Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters

ESP (English for specific purposes) and the communicative approach are often thought to be closely related. However, the reality is somewhat different. Many of the principles and practices on vvhich much current ESP is based are educationally unsound. In needs analysis, for example, the real views of the learners are seldom given due consideration. Traditional ESP course design has two major drawbacks: firstly, the development in the learner of a capacity to communicate is neglected, and secondly, there is a failure to analyse and take into account the realities of the ESP learning situation. A typical consequence of this is that ESP teachers are often put in the untenable position of having to teach from texts whose subject-matter they do not understand. Furthermore, in most ESP materials, the learner is presented with uninspiring content and language exercises which lack any clear communication focus. As a result, ESP is, at present, a rather un-communicative form of language teaching. In this paper, therefore, we will present our ideas for making ESP more learning-centred, and, thereby, more communicative.1
Introduction

ESP (English for specific purposes) is usually regarded as the best example of communicative language teaching. To what extent is such a view justified? How communicative is ESP in reality? To answer these questions we will first of all propose a definition of the term communicative. We will then examine current ESP practice in the areas of needs analysis and course/materials design in the light of our definition. Where we find ESP to be less communicative than it might be, we will suggest how this might be remedied. We take the term communicative to mean geared to the competence and expectations of those participating in the learning process. In other words, a communicative approach is based on negotiation between all the parties concerned. Traditionally, however, the idea of negotiation has tended to result in a learner-dominated approach, usually expressed in the term learner-centred. We feel the term learner-centred is misleading, since it implies that the learner is the sole focus of the learning process. Education is, by its very nature, a compromise between the individual and society. Thus, we would reject the view that a communicative approach is learnercentred: rather, it is learning-centred, and this implies taking into account the needs and expectations of all the parties involved in the learning process when designing courses and selecting methodology. Bearing our definition in mind, then, we now turn to the first aspect of ESP that we will examine -needs analysis.2 Most ESP courses are based on the sponsors needs: in other words, on what the parent university, the company, or the agency thinks the needs of the student are. While this perspective is undeniably important, it is incomplete, as it leaves out the views of other interested parties, such as the ESP teacher, the teaching institution, and the learner (see Allwright 198 1). When all these are considered (as they must be for ESP to be communicative), the picture we get of needs is much richer and more
ELT Journal Volume 38/2 April 1984

'Communicative: a definition

Needsanalysis

108

articles

welcome

complex. Needs as interpreted by the sponsor may indeed conflict with the needs as felt by the learner. This point is well illustrated by Mead (1980) in his research into the motivation of students following ESP courses in the faculties of medicine, agriculture, and veterinary science at a university in the Middle East. The medical students were given an ESP course with texts about medical topics, the agricultural students had ones on agricultural subject-matter, and the veterinary students had ones with veterinary content -in other words, the classic ESP approach: the student needs to study his or her specialism in English, so will be best motivated by subjectmatter which relates closely to that specialism. When Mead enquired into the interest the students had in their specialisms, however, he discovered that only the medical students were adequately motivated to study the subject-matter of their specialism: what the agricultural and veterinary students were really interested in was studying to be medical doctors, and not agriculturalists or vets! They had been prevented from doing so by a lack of places in the Medical Faculty. They had thus opted for agricultural and veterinary science as vex-v poor second bests -better, perhaps, than not studying at university level at all, but not comparable to their first preference. Thus, the subject-specific ESP texts for the agricultural and veterinary students, if anything, probably had a de-motivating effect. However, let us not draw the conclusion from this that the ESP teacher in such a situation should necessarily abandon subject-specific materials. What might be advisable is to communicate an understanding of the problem to the students, and seek with them the best way to satisfy all the parties involved -the teacher and the learners, of course, but also the parent university, the educational system, and society at large. In other words, the apparent problem of a mis-match between learners needs and the sponsors needs should be confronted and seen as the beginning of communication and negotiation, and therefore as an essential foundation for a communicative approach in ESP. But the whole question of needs is far more complex than is often assumed, and goes far deeper than the analysis of the language the student will encounter in the target situation. Let us now look at how a thorough needs analysis should inform the development of ESP courses and materials.
Language needs: or

competence

performance?

Needs analvsis involves examining communication in the target situation.3 The conventional procedure is then to incorporate these data into the ESP teaching materials as texts, with exercises to teach the language in them. The problem here is that this can replicate only a small -and, possibly, a relatively trivial -part of what a learner needs in order to communicate in the target situation. It is the linguistic by-product of the communication behaviour rather than the behaviour itself (Widdowson 1980). The fact that a certain piece of language appears in the target situation does not necessarily imply that it should appear in the ESP course (though it may have such a role). The aim of the ESP course should be to provide the learner with the capacity to handle communication in the target situation. Thus, course material should be chosen in terms of how well and how far it develops the competence of the learner, rather than on the basis of the extent to which it mirrors the performance data of the target situation.4 To illustrate this point, consider this utterance taken from a lesson to native speakers in a British technical college (see Hutchinson and Waters 1981): Its out of true -in simple terms, it will wobble about.
How communicative is ESP? 109

articles

welcome

How can we best prepare a learner to understand this type of communication? Our own approach would be based on the following points: 1 Out of true is the type of technical term that will be explained in the target situation -so learners do not need it in the ESP course. 2 However, to understand this explanation, they do need to know the other words, in particular ones from everyday English of the wobble variety. 3 They also need to understand the many and varied ways in which the function of definition (or glossing, or explanation) is realized in English, especially in speech. 4 They need to be able to relate this kind of utterance to the other utterances to which it is connected in the discourse. 5 More subtly, they need an overall understanding, not specific to just this text, of what they can reasonably expect to be explained in the target situation -the overall schema of the discourse.5 6 Finally, as a back-up, they need to be able to ask for and comprehend any further explanations they might require. What is needed, then, is an interpretation of discourse types in the target situation to discover what competence is required to cope with them: This competence should form the basis of the ESP course. It is likely to be of a much broader, more varied, and less specialized nature than a repertoire of performance features. It is also important to note that the competence is not just linguistic, but also incorporates socio-cultural or everyday scientific/technical knowledge, and the ability to apply cognitive processing strategies (see Hutchinson and Waters 1981).
Course design: the needs of the learning situation

The classic approach representative sample)

to ESP course design (see e.g. usually takes the form :

Mackay

1981 for a

We have already namely :

argued,

in the preceding

section,

for one modification,

However, to achieve a learning-centred approach must make another crucial modification:

to ESP course

design,

we

In other words, we need to take into account not only the requirements of the target situation, but also the needs and constraints of the ESP learning
110 Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters

articles

welcome

situation, and the general includes such matters as :

pedagogic

approach

they determine.

The latter

-general theory of how people learn -resources (e.g. the teacher, visual aids available, time, etc.) -expectations and experience of English -expectations and experience of teaching and learning in general -the fit between the ESP teaching situation and the wider educational context to which it belongs. ESP is primarily an educational, rather than a linguistic, concern. It is therefore vital to base the ESP course on the needs of the educational environment, and for the course to be informed not only by linguistic considerations but also -indeed, chiefly -by educational precepts. For example, if the analysis of the target situation tells you that the learners have only a reading need in English, what does this imply for the pedagogic approach? In practice, in many teaching situations, it is taken to mean that the teaching methodology should be reading-based, i.e. reading should be taught by reading. However, this runs counter to educational psychologists views of the nature of reading, such as those of Frank Smith: in reading The information that passes from the brain to the eye is more important than the information that passes from the eye to the brain (Smith 1971:9). In other words, it is the information inside your head that enables you to read, and it does not matter where the information comes from, or how it gets there. This suggests that we might use work involving any of the other skill areas (listening, speaking, and writing) and a great deal else besides, as well as reading per se, to teach effective reading. There might be all the more reason to do so if the learners and the teacher feel (as is often the case) that a narrow focus on reading is boring. This is not to argue that reading has no place in the reading course, nor that improved ability in reading is any less important a goal in this approach. What it does imply is that we need to consider what makes for a good language learning situation, as much as how to meet the communication requirements of the target situation. The main criterion for incorporating any content or activity into the ESP course should not be whether it duplicates what the student will do in the target situation, but whether and to what extent it increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the ESP learning situation. A long-standing practice in ESP (as already noted) is to construct teaching materials from texts taken from the target situation. In this way the linguistic authenticity of the ESP course is supposedly strengthened. However, its authenticity as a language learning and teaching course may thereby be seriously weakened. It does not automatically follow that, for example, an account of an experiment seen as effective in teaching a particular aspect of science will also prove equally effective for language teaching purposes. In other words, an excellent science text may generate only limited opportunities for language work. Furthermore, the direct use of target situation data often adversely affects the role of the teacher. For ESP to be properly communicative, the teacher must be able to participate fully in the classroom communication. Texts taken directly from the target situation frequently prevent the teacher from doing this, because they demand too high a level of specialist knowledge.6 In short, although analysis of the target situation may guide us when we decide what to teach, how we teach it and what materials we use to do so must
How communicative is ESP? 111

articles

welcome

be decided by teaching-learning appears to ignore

Materials language design: needs

reference to the constraints and potential of the situation. Unfortunately, most current ESP work this fundamental principle.

content needs versus

Much ESP has the appearance of being a content-based rather than a language-based type of ELT.7 However, as many of us know to our cost, the mere presence of subject-related content in materials is no guarantee of motivation. The introduction of content into teaching materials raises the expectation in the learner that the content will provide the same type of interest and challenge which it does in the target situation. However, in reality, the content of many ESP materials is often only a vehicle for language practice, insufficiently integrated with the rest of the material in terms of its subject-matter. Or, if used as an integral part of the language work, it is frequently of such a conventional or simple-minded nature as to fail to interest the learner. To remedy this, learners need to be given materials which have content of the right kind, integrated in the right way. A good example of what we would regard as the right kind of content is illustrated by the recent experience of a group of ESP teachers at the Colchester English Studies Centre, in devising a course for NATO fighter pilots (Chandler 1981). They found that up-to-date texts on military aircraft were not available, since details of such aircraft are secret. This (in our view at least) was fortunate, as it meant they had to turn instead to texts on either older military aircraft, or modern civilian aircraft. The pilots were eager to compare and contrast these with their own machines. In other words, they were given content about which they had a reasonable background knowledge, but with a new and unusual slant to it. This offered the opportunity for creative language use by providing the learners with a chance to communicate, using their existing knowledge. How can the right kind of integration between content and language work be achieved? This is a complex matter which space does not permit us to enter into fully here (but see Hutchinson and Waters 1982). However, we believe that the key is to: 1 design the materials in such a way that the learner is involved fully in both the content and the language topics; 2 determine the language points of the materials on the basis of what might be needed for the successful solution of a communication problem linked to the content (rather than provide language exercises with no clear communication purposes in view). In other words, give topicrelated problems that require the use of English to solve them, thus actively mobilizing content to generate language work.

Conclusion

ESP is often seen as the best example of communicative teaching in that it is supposedly closely geared to students needs. However, we feel that needs have been far too narrowly interpreted, implying, in effect, little more than the analysis of linguistic data from the target situation. But ESP is first and foremost a learning process, and it is not possible to have a communicative approach in ESP unless ESP is seen as primarily an educational matter. We have proposed that a communicative approach should be based on a real analysis of students needs and expectations, on a real analysis of the ESP learning situation, and on real negotiation with the students. Only this way can ESP be truly learning-centred: only in this way can it become truly communicative.
Received May 1983

112

Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters

articles

welcome

Notes

I This article is based on a paper given at the IATEFL Conference at St Marys College, Strawberry Hill, in April 1983. 2 The identification of the English needed by the learner. See Mackay and Mountford (1978) (especially Ch. 2). 3 The target situation is the range of settings in which the learner is expected to use the language. 4 The distinction made here between performance is basically that made by competence and Chomsky: the actual utterances we use may be referred to as performance data, while the body of underlying rules that enable us to comprehend or produce the utterances can be termed the competence. However, the range of knowledge we regard as constituting the competence includes far more than the syntactic rules, which defined Chomskys view of competence (see the analysis above). .i A schema may be thought of as a framework of (background) knowledge of a given topic, which we draw on in communicating about that topic. 6 It is essential that the teacher should have some knowledge of the technical content of the ESP materials. But what kind, and of what level? We feel that the teacher does not need specialized knowledge, but rather the knowledge of the interested not the knowledge that enables layman, i.e. someone to give all the answers, but rather the knowledge that enables someone to ask intelligent questions about the subject matter. This kind of knowledge will enable the teacher both to communicate with subject teachers or specialists, and to the most productive kind of comgenerate munication in the ESP classroom. 7 In a content-based approach, the focus is on exploiting the information conveyed by a text. In a language-based approach, the text is used as a source for language exercises (see Hutchinson and Waters 1982).
References

Chandler, S. 1981. Specific rather than specialised: a course for the Italian Air Force. Lexden Papers, 2. Lexden Centre (Oxford) Ltd. Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1981. Performance and competence in ESP. Applied Linguistics II/1:56-69. Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1982. Creativity in ESP materials. Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education, Vol. 5, University of Lancaster. Mackay, R. 1981. Developing a reading curriculum for ESP in L. Selinker et al. (eds.). English for Academic and Technical Purposes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Mackay, R. and A. Mountford (eds.). 1978. English for Specific Purposes. London: Longman. Mead, R. 1980. Expectations and sources of motivation in EAP. English Language Research Journal, No. 1. University of Birmingham. Smith, F. 1971, Understanding Reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Widdowson, H. G. 1980. ESP and the Curse of Caliban. Paper delivered at TESOL Convention, San Francisco.

The authors

Allwright, materials

R. A. 1981. What do we want for? ELT Journal 36/1:5-18.

teaching

Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters have written a number of articles on ESP, and a recent book, entitled Interface:English for Technical Communication. Their article Creativity in ESP, or Hello, Im a blood cell ! was awarded first prize in the English Speaking Unions English Language Competition in 1983. Alan Waters is currently co-ordinating the establishment of an MA in EST programme in Thailand. He has taught in Sierra Leone, Kuwait, and, since 1977, at the Institute for English Language Education (University of Lancaster, England), where he has been extensively involved in ESP teaching, materials writing, and teacher training. Tom Hutchinson is a freelance writer/lecturer. He has taught in England, Germany, Yugoslavia, and Sri Lanka. He is currently writing a General English course for secondary schools.

How communicative

1s ESP?

113

articles

welcome