Abstract
The field of English for specific purposes (ESP), which addresses the communicative needs and practices of particular professional or occupational groups, has developed rapidly in the past forty years to become a major force in English language teaching and research. ESP draws its strength from an eclectic theoretical foundation and a commitment to research-based language education which seeks to reveal the constraints of social contexts on language use and the ways learners can gain control over these. In this chapter, I will briefly point to some of the major ideas and practices that currently influence ESP, focusing on needs analysis, ethnography, critical approaches, contrastive rhetoric, social constructionism, and discourse analysis. I then go on to look briefly at some of the effects ESP has had on language teaching and research, arguing that it has encouraged teachers to highlight communication rather than language, to adopt a research orientation to their work, to employ collaborative pedagogies, to be aware of discourse variation, and to consider the wider political implications of their role. Together these features of ESP practice emphazise a situated view of literacy and underline the applied nature of the field.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 4–23.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, (pp. 23–46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Candlin, C. N., & Plum, G. A. (1999). Engaging with challenges of interdiscursivity in academic writing: Researchers, students and teachers. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 193–217). London & New York: Longman.
Coe, R. M. (2001). The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political briefs. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom, (pp. 195–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: CUP.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M.-J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in second language lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 345–374.
Gilbert, G., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
Gollin, S. (1999). ‘Why? I thought we’d talked about it before’: Collaborative writing in a professional workplace setting. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices, (pp. 267–90). London: Longman.
Haas, T., Smoke, T., & Hernandez, J. (1991). A collaborative model for empowering non-traditional students. In S. Benesch (Ed.), ESL in America: Myths and possibilities, (pp. 112–39). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M., Macintosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.
Harris, J. (1989). The idea of a discourse community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40, 11–22.
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (1999). Culture in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: CUP.
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445–62.
Hutchison, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: CUP.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385–395.
Hyland, K. (2002b) Genre: Language, context and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 113–135.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–206.
Johns, A.M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: CUP.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society, ed. C. W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: CUP.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 253–69.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: OUP.
Porter, J. (1992). Audience and rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.
Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swales, J. (2001). EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, (pp. 42–54). Cambridge: CUP
Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ventola, E. (1992). Writing scientific English: Overcoming cultural problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 191–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hyland, K. (2007). English for Specific Purposes. In: Cummins, J., Davison, C. (eds) International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_28
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-46300-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-46301-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)