ASp la revue du GERAS
69 | 2016 Concepts and Frameworks in English for Specific Purposes Concepts et modèles en anglais de spécialité
Anthony Saber (dir.)
Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/asp/4763 DOI: 10.4000/asp.4763 ISSN: 2108-6354
Publisher Groupe d'étude et de recherche en anglais de spécialité
Printed version Date of publication: 9 March 2016 ISSN: 1246-8185
Electronic reference Anthony Saber (dir.), ASp, 69 | 2016, « Concepts and Frameworks in English for Specifc Purposes » [Online], Online since 01 March 2016, connection on 03 November 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/asp/4763 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4763
Tous droits réservés
Concepts and Frameworks in ESP
VOLUME 69 March 2016
ISSN 1246-8185
EDITORIAL POLICY ASp publishes peer-reviewed research articles, research notes and book reviews related to the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) for both teaching and research twice a year. The thematic and non-thematic issues aim to give an insight into ESP, notably in its linguistic, discursive, cultural and didactic aspects, and also to develop our knowledge of the various specific English registers used for different purposes. Various analytical frameworks can be adopted: discourse (discourse analysis, genre study, pragmatics), corpus and phraseology, cultural studies, didactics (second language learning theories, ESP teaching, ergonomics, ICT…), linguistic events and grammar, terminology, specialised translation. The journal publishes in French and in English.
TYPOLOGY OF TEXTS PUBLISHED IN ASP Articles (8,000 words max.) Research articles present cutting edge research in fields of study and research related to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or of interest to that sector. They adopt original approaches, highlight either theoretical or innovative methodologies and the new knowledge that arises from the research.
Notes (4,000 words max.) Research notes give the authors an opportunity to rapidly present new data on research topics related to ESP research and teaching, or of interest to that sector. They detail methods and results.
Reviews (3,000 words max.) Book and critical reviews present books, collections of books, dissertations, journals… related to ESP or of interest to the ESP community.
ASp is indexed in: Linguistics Abstracts, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, and MLA International Bibliography, as well as in Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF). The electronic journal is indexed, thanks to Cléo-Revues.org, by general search engines (Google), academic search engines (Google Scholar, Base, JournalSeek, OAister), as well as national and international library catalogues Sudoc-ABES, WorldCat, EZB, Journal TOCs...). Subscription and volume orders are available from
VOLUME 69 - March 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS Anthony Saber 1–6 Editorial: Immanuel Kant and ESP's New Frontier
John Swales 7–19 Reflections on the concept of discourse community Le concept de communauté de discours : quelques réflexions
Michel Dubois 21–39 Science as vocation? Discipline, profession and impressionistic sociology La science est-elle un métier ? Discipline, profession et sociologie impressionniste
Michel Van der Yeught 41–63 A proposal to establish epistemological foundations for the study of specialised languages Propositions pour construire les fondements épistémologiques de l'étude des langues de spécialité Chris Gledhill & Natalie Kübler 65-95 What can linguistic approaches bring to English for specific purposes? Quel est l’apport des approches linguistiques à l’anglais de spécialité
David Banks 97–112 Diachronic aspects of ESP Diachronie et anglais de spécialité
Alex Boulton 113–137 Integrating corpus tools and techniques in ESP courses L'intégration de techniques et d’outils de corpus dans les cours d'anglais de spécialité ASp 69
Cédric Sarré & Shona Whyte 139–164 Research in ESP teaching and learning in French higher education: developing the construct of ESP didactics La recherche sur l’enseignement- apprentissage de l’anglais de spécialité (ASP) en France : pour une didactique de l’ASP
Book reviews/Recensions Simon Taylor 165–168 Myriam Deman & Magali Julian, Guide de l’anglais des contrats d’affaires. Lecture, traduction, rédaction
François Maniez 169–172 Didier Carnet & Jean-Pierre Charpy, L’anglais des spécialités médicales
173–176 Instructions for authors 177–178 ASp’s ethical statement
ASp 69 | 1
Editorial: Immanuel Kant and ESP’s New Frontier
What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope? The famous fundamental questions of philosophy raised by Immanuel Kant’s in The Critique of Pure Reason resonate with the issues that the editorial committee wished to tackle when preparing this special issue of ASp on “Concepts and Frameworks in ESP”. With our readers’ permission, we shall use those fundamental questions to explain our goals in this issue on the epistemology of ESP. What can I know—in ESP? ESP is a science that studies words through words and, like many other human sciences, it depends on a certain number of crucial concepts to describe the phenomena that it investigates. ESP researchers routinely use such concepts as domain, genre, discourse community or specialized corpora, but one may wonder whether these categories stand on solid epistemological ground. In a previous issue of ASp, Margaret Rogers (2013: 6) described the notion of “domain” as “quite a slippery concept” that, in existing literature, may incorporate subject matter, social communities, cultural constructs, language and texts. Multiple definitions of discursive genres co-exist, both in the Francophone and in the Anglophone strands of discourse analysis: while Carolyn Miller (1984: 151-3) claims that a rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish […], genre in this way becomes more than a formal entity; it becomes pragmatic, fully rhetorical, a point of connection between intention and effect, an aspect of social action[,] John Swales (1990: 58) defines genres as “a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes.” Francophone researchers such as Jean-Michel Adam (1999: 93-94) posit that “discursive genres can be viewed as prototypical-stereotypical categories […] that can be defined as trends or typicality gradients, by converging sets of regular traits rather than by very strict criteria”,1 while Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Véronique Traverso (2004: 41) distinguish genres used as common labels to designate texts such as a guidebook from genres categorized by deep text function (“thus, a guidebook can be viewed as a textual genre, but it should be in fact categorized as a juxtaposition of different discursive genres: descriptive, didactic, procedural, promotional…”).2 Although all these authors more or less share a teleological view of genres as texts that are purpose-oriented, it is clear from these examples that their respective epistemological stances vary considerably. And the fact that it would be perfectly legitimate to choose any of those conceptual frameworks to do ESP research leads to the rather disturbing conclusion that considerable epistemological variety may significantly affect the findings of ESP investigations on genres, thereby limiting
1 “Les genres discursifs peuvent être considérés comme des « catégories prototypiques- stéréotypiques » […] définissables par des tendances ou des gradients de typicalité, par des faisceaux de régularités et des dominantes plutôt que par des critères très stricts.” (Our translation) 2 “Ainsi, on peut considérer un guide touristique comme un « genre » de texte, mais il relève en fait « de différents ‘genres’ » de discours : descriptif, didactique, procédural, promotionnel...” (Our translation) 2| ASp 69
prospects of cross-comparative analysis. A more fundamental epistemological difficulty lies in the very concept of “specialization” in language. Michel Petit (2010: § 1) underlined the fact that “the main difficulty that arises when analyzing specialized discourse is […] the sort of epistemological/methodological circularity that seems to support it [...]”, as too little attention is devoted to reflecting on “what gives specialized discourse its specialized status, the latter often appearing as being taken for granted”.3 When researchers in ESP assemble corpora in view of a given project, are they not driven, in the very process of choosing the texts they wish to include or exclude, by implicit assumptions about the “specialized” features that they wish to investigate? Should their results therefore be viewed as biased? These doubts are compounded by the fact that, in the English language, the very name of “ESP” is endowed with a certain number of presuppositions that may be questioned—indeed, the phrase “for specific purposes” implies that “specialized” English is mainly delineated by language learners’ needs, which ESP stakeholders in France (notably many members of GERAS, France’s ESP flagship learned society) would not view as a totally appropriate definition. A significant proportion of researchers in “anglais de spécialité” (the phrase that is traditionally used in France for designating ESP) would probably be more inclined to adopt, instead of this purpose-driven definition of specialist English, a more essentialist definition, one in which specialized English is not a pedagogical construct, but first and foremost a “variety of English”4 that can be observed in a given perimeter of society, delineated by professional or disciplinary boundaries. Michel Petit’s (2010) theory of specialized domains exemplifies this type of conceptual framework. Petit posits that specialized domains are actual groupings of stakeholders that coalesce around three major “functions”: an instructional function (fonction de formation), that helps outsiders become insiders through training and gatekeeping procedures; a regulatory function (fonction de régulation) that helps the community maintain a tight-knit structure and ensures that key rules are enforced; and an operational function (fonction d’exécution) which codifies a set of practices and skills needed to achieve the community’s objectives (these skills may be of a disciplinary nature— i.e. flying an aircraft—or of a discursive nature—i.e. being able to efficiently communicate with air traffic control as per the rules of civil aviation phraseology). Of note in any epistemological debate about ESP is the fact that, as highlighted by Laurence Anthony (2011), ESP’s focus has significantly evolved over time, as a result of various epistemological choices. Anthony (2011: 3) claims that “there have been several shifts towards and away from subject specificity”: initial research
3 “La principale difficulté que nous paraît soulever l’analyse du discours spécialisé […] [est] la sorte de circularité épistémologico-méthodologique qui paraît la sous-tendre. Il nous semble en effet que l’analyse du discours, telle qu’elle est diversement mise en œuvre en matière de discours spécialisé, s’attache plus volontiers à la mise en lumière de certaines caractéristiques des discours dont elle traite qu’à la réflexion sur ce qui fonde leur statut même de discours spécialisé, ce statut paraissant le plus souvent être simplement tenu pour acquis a priori.” (Our translation) 4 Catherine Resche (2013) uses this term to describe English for economics. Anthony (2011: 4) also used it to describe specialized discourse.
ASp 69 |3
efforts in the 1960s focused on “product-based approaches” that investigated the specific features of disciplinary language. A significant epistemological shift occurred when Hutchinson & Waters (1987: 19) advocated adopting a wider view of “specialisms” and prioritizing language learning as the core subject of ESP: […] now there is a need for a wider view that focuses less on differences and more on what various specialisms have in common […] what they have in common is that they are all primarily concerned with communication and learning. ESP should properly be seen not as any particular language product but as an approach to language teaching and learning which is directed by specific and apparent reasons for learning. According to Anthony (2011: 4-5), a third major epistemological shift was observed at the end of the 1990s, as researchers capitalized on affordable and user- friendly concordancing tools to delve into disciplinary specialisms with a vengeance: by the end of the 1990s there had been a shift back towards a ‘narrow-angled’ product-based approach focused on specialized varieties of English rather than the learning process itself. For example, in their seminal work Developments in English for Specific Purposes (1998), Dudley-Evans & St. John explicitly mention the strong relationship between ESP and specific disciplines in their definition of ESP (1998: 4-5). Those changes in focus and epistemological stance all seemed to be perfectly justified when they occurred, but may project an image of ESP as a discipline devoid of any clear focus of study. Physicists would all agree that, notwithstanding the various conceptual frameworks that they use to explain the phenomena that they observe, they share a common goal: understanding the universe. But if asked, “what is your main goal?” at an ESP conference, researchers in ESP—particularly in Francophone contexts—would probably respond in many different ways, given the highly fragmented nature of their discipline. There is little doubt that more attention should be paid to obtaining more specific definitions of the concepts used in ESP research. Therefore, although on a much more modest scale than the famous German philosopher, we should follow Immanuel Kant down the path of radical doubt that led him to attempt and rebuild the very tenets of philosophy, by starting to establish ESP/ASP concepts on more solid theoretical ground. One of the first issues that should be addressed is the nature of the communities where specialized varieties of English can be observed. Individuals that use a specialized variety of English do so because they somehow abide by a certain number of constraints that are shared by a circle of stakeholders—in other words, those individuals are affiliated with those circles, and this affiliation clearly shows through in the way they use the English language. As underlined by John Swales in the first article of this issue of ASp, an abundant list of labels have been used to designate these circles, notably Martin Nystrand’s (1982) “discourse communities”, which John Swales (1991) later refined into “rhetorical discourse communities”, i.e. groups that assemble to further common rhetorical goals, such as the dissemination 4| ASp 69
of scientific research through scholarly publications. In an effort to reappraise the concept of discourse community (henceforth DC), Swales suggests that one should distinguish “local” DCs (for example, groups of people that work at a university department) from “focal” ones, which have a much broader geographical scope (the Southeast Michigan Birders, of which Swales is a distinguished member, belongs to the latter category). Local DCs may be residential, vocational or occupational, whereas focal DCs fall into two sub-categories (recreational or professional). Hybrid forms of DCs may also exist—“folocal” communities, whose members have a double (and sometimes split) allegiance, as in the case of university scholars who, as both insiders at their own institution and members of transnational research associations, may simultaneously experience centrifugal and centripetal forces. Building on these novel definitions, Swales reconsiders the six criteria for identifying rhetorical DCs that he had originally described in Genre Analysis, and concludes that the concept of DC is not “a robust social construct” but is highly useful when addressing rhetorical configurations in discourse. Specialized features of English are often construed as stemming from “professional” or “disciplinary” constraints. Professions and disciplines are concepts that merit close epistemological attention. This is an area where ESP is in great need of useful input from sociologists. Michel Dubois describes preconceptions and ill- grounded assumptions (e.g. the idea that disciplines could be envisaged as subdivisions of professions) in available sociological literature on these categories, and proposes criteria to differentiate them in the context of the sociology of science. While discipline appears to be the primary frame of reference when envisaging the cognitive processes and dominant cultural patterns that lead to the production of knowledge, professions (law or engineering for example) are applied in nature, in that they seek to use available knowledge to tackle human problems. Dubois offers illuminating insights on the differences between physicians and biologists: although researchers in ESP may grant both groups similar epistemological status as experts in a given domain, sociologists will acknowledge that both groups do share some key characteristics (specialist training, specialized knowledge and skills, normative subcultures and jurisdictional claims), but will also underline crucial differences—physicians develop a service relation to clients, whereas biologists’ main focus is on scientific output. In his contribution, Michel Van der Yeught offers a different perspective on the affiliation that links specialized stakeholders to a given domain, and takes issue with Michel Petit’s view that specialized domains are actual “sectors of society”. Drawing on conceptual frameworks proposed by Karl Popper and John Searle, Van der Yeught puts forward the concept of “specialised intentionality” as the driving principle in the emergence of specialized domains, which he defines as follows: A specialised domain is therefore the autonomous linguistic and generally written expression of a complex intentional universe. It is made of focused and durable intentional states, their related intentional networks and background abilities that combine and interact to satisfy their beliefs and desires. To shorten the definition, I propose that specialised domains are sets of
ASp 69 |5
knowledge and practices which transcend their originators and are harnessed to the service of one particular purpose. Key notions of Van der Yeught’s novel epistemological system include specialized encyclopaedic competence and specialized implicature, which play a significant role in allowing access to the meaning of specialized utterances, thereby differentiating insiders from outsiders. What can I know—in ESP? It is this editor’s belief that the first three contributions to this issue of ASp provide some very useful answers. If we now move on to the second question raised by Immanuel Kant (what should I do?), we invite readers to review significant contributions by Christopher Gledhill and Natalie Kübler, David Banks, and Alex Boulton, which (respectively) cover three major conceptual frameworks often used to “do” ESP, i.e. to conduct actual empirical research on specialized phenomena in various corpora: linguistics-based approaches, diachronic ESP, and corpus-driven ESP research and learning. Each of these articles provides an extensive review of methods described by ESP practitioners in available literature, and offers insightful perspectives on current evolutions in ESP methodology. Last but not least, Cédric Sarré and Shona Whyte offer highly valuable remarks on the emerging concept of “ESP didactics”, which needs to be differentiated from “general” English language didactics. In their 1998 landmark book, Dudley-Evans and St John had identified “absolute” and “relative” characteristics of ESP viewed as an approach to English language teaching. Sarré and Whyte attempt to extend Dudley-Evans and St John’s epistemological work by conducting an extensive review of key concepts in English didactics, which provides them with solid ground for identifying some distinctive features of ESP didactics, namely (1) a constant interaction between language and disciplinary knowledge, (2) goal-directedness, as ESP learning and teaching target highly specific skills that empower learners to perform “real-world” activities in the target language and (3) careful needs analysis. Finally, the last question raised by Immanuel Kant is still pending: what may I hope? First, this journal hopes that by publishing, for the first time in ASp’s history, an all-English issue, it may contribute to fruitful exchanges between “Anglophone ESP” and anglais de spécialité. Readers will note that I find it difficult to translate the latter term into English. As amply evidenced above, “French ESP” would not adequately describe the epistemological choices that are often observed in the French academic context. A tentative translation into English of anglais de spécialité could be “English in specialized domains” (ESD), but this is a provisional proposal that warrants further debates. Secondly, this journal hopes that the reflections on “concepts and frameworks” offered in this issue will prompt further epistemological efforts by our colleagues. As exemplified in The Handbook of English of Specific Purposes edited by Brian Paltridge and Sue Starfield, a considerable body of knowledge has been amassed over the years by researchers in ESP on observable specialized features in the different “areas of ESP research” (Legal English, English for aviation, English for Academic Purposes, etc.). Yet, although questions about concepts and frameworks are implicitly raised in Part IV of the Handbook, entitled “Research Perspectives and 6| ASp 69
Methodologies in ESP Rhetoric”, which includes such chapters as “ESP and Intercultural Rhetoric” or “Ethnographic approaches in ESP research”, what is actually discussed in those sections is the possible interdisciplinary nature of ESP, not its epistemological foundations. In this respect, it is not insignificant that, to the best of our knowledge, the Handbook’s index does not include the word “epistemology” in its list of notions. Epistemology is the next Frontier of ESP. Let us conquer it. Let us go there. Let us heed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s call on September 12, 1962 at Rice University: We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained […]. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
Bibliographical references ADAM, Jean-Michel. 1999. Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes. Paris: Nathan. ANTHONY, Laurence. 2011. “Products, processes and practitioners: A critical look at the importance of specificity in ESP”. Taiwan International ESP Journal 3/2, 1–18. DUDLEY-EVANS Tony & Maggie Jo ST JOHN. 1998. Developments in English for Specific Purposes: a multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HUTCHINSON Tom & Alan WATERS. 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KENNEDY, John Fitzgerald. 1962. “Moon Speech”. Delivered at Rice University, Houston, Texas, on September 12. Retrieved from
Anthony Saber, Editor in chief
ASp 69 | 7
Reflections on the concept of discourse community Le concept de communauté de discours : quelques réflexions
John Swales The University of Michigan
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Defining criteria, discourse community, Communauté de discours, critères revision of criteria, textographic définitoires, explorations textographiques, explorations, types of community. révision des critères, types de communautés. RÉSUMÉ ABSTRACT Cet article présente une réflexion sur le concept This article reflects upon my thirty-year de communauté de discours, dont, en tant que intermittent involvement with the concept of chercheur, je me préoccupe de manière discourse community. It opens with a personal épisodique depuis trente ans. Il retrace tout history of that involvement, focusing on a d’abord le point de départ de mon intérêt study of the communities in a single, small personnel pour cette notion, en rappelant les university building. It then moves to the way résultats d’une étude qui portait sur des the concept has become co-opted by those communautés au sein d’un petit bâtiment who teach university-level writing in the United universitaire. Il explore ensuite la façon dont ce States. Then, three types of discourse concept a été repris par ceux qui enseignent les community are introduced: local, focal, and techniques d’écriture universitaire dans le “folocal”, this last having characteristics of the supérieur aux États-Unis. Trois types de first two. Active academics are typically communauté de discours sont ensuite members of “folocal” communities, as they proposés : les communautés locales, focales et attempt to balance the demands of their local « folocales », ces dernières présentant des situation (teaching, administration) and the caractéristiques communes aux deux demands of active scholarship (presenting, premières. Les universitaires particulièrement publishing). In the second half of the paper, the actifs appartiennent typiquement aux original criteria as given in Genre Analysis communautés « folocales » car ils s’efforcent de (1990) are modified, extended, and brought maintenir un équilibre entre les exigences qui more up to date, followed by some concluding émanent du contexte local (enseignement, observations. tâches administratives) et celles qui sont liées à la production savante intensive (communications, publications). Dans la seconde partie de l’article, les critères dans Genre Analysis (1990) sont amendés, étoffés et mis à jour, puis sont suivis de remarques conclusives. 8| J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19
Something of a personal history with the concept I first heard the term “discourse community” early in 1986, fairly soon after I had moved to the United States; it was used in a talk at the University of Michigan given by Lillian Bridwell-Bowles. I cannot remember much of the talk at today’s distance, but I do remember how I immediately recognized that the concept of discourse community was precisely the concept I had been looking for since it would provide socio-rhetorical context for my ongoing exploration of (mainly) academic genres. By the time Genre Analysis was eventually published in 1990, discourse community (DC) had become a member of a trio of interlocking concepts, the other two being genre and language-learning task (Swales 1990; Flowerdew 2015). For most of the next few years, I did not pay much attention to the concept, but I did keep mentioning to my doctoral students that the strange configuration of units in the small building where I had my office would make a splendid dissertation research site. This was because the North University Building (now demolished) had the university’s Computer Center on the first floor, the university’s Herbarium (its large collection of dried plants) on the second floor, while above it was the English Language Institute (ELI), divided into a teaching section and a testing section, and missioned to provide courses and services for international students on the large Ann Arbor campus. However, I was unable to persuade any of the students to take it on, so around 1995 I decided I would do the study myself. The basic idea was to see whether we had three different coherent and cohering discourse communities, each on its own floor in the same building. The book appeared in 1998 with the title of Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building (Swales 1998). I described the study as a “textography” to indicate that it was something more than a discourse analysis but something less than a full-blown ethnography. One of the many things that I did learn in the investigative process was that university clocks move at different speeds in different parts of a university. The clock goes very slowly in the Herbarium. If a botanist wants to borrow some specimens from Michigan, he or she needs to agree to keep them for at least two years, and may actually keep them for decades. The reference books that the systematic botanists employ for keying out the plants they are studying have a shelf-life for decades. One major project, to describe all the plants of western Mexico, began in 1946 and was still continuing up to a few years ago. In the ELI, the shelf-life of its products, typically textbooks and tests, runs some 5–10 years or so before they are revised or replaced. While in the Computer Center, the shelf-life of computer manuals, etc., is often just a matter of months before an update appears or some patch is incorporated. Another discovery was that the botanists utilized a very different set of scholarly genres from those to which I had become accustomed; they were, in increasing order of importance or status, a “treatment” (a description of a selected group of plants), a “flora” (the description of all the plants in some region), and a “monograph” (a study of all the plants in one family, wherever they are found). Toward the end of the volume, I concluded that the denizens of the Herbarium formed a very distinct discourse community, while the ELI had many of the elements of a DC, even though there was a rather different
J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19 |9
ethos in the teaching and testing divisions (over such matters as to what “counts” as a publication), which remained a source of strain. On the other hand, in the Computer Center, the part-time employment of ever-changing streams of short- stay students meant that any sense of community, a sense that “we are all more or less on the same page”, never really developed. From then on, my thoughts about discourse communities lay largely dormant until in 2013 I was asked to give a talk at a well-known university in North Carolina. The professor who invited me suggested I speak about “the concept of discourse community”, which I agreed to do. So I started to look around in order to bring myself up to date. My first surprise was that the old material in Genre Analysis seemed to be very much alive and well. The Wikipedia entry, for example, opens with this two-sentence paragraph: A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about their goals. Linguist John Swales defined discourse communities as “groups that have goals and purposes, and use communication to achieve their goals.” 1 Further, in the middle of this first page, we find: Swales presents six defining characteristics: A discourse community: 1) has a broadly agreed set of common public goals; 2) has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members; 3) uses its participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback; 4) utilizes and possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims; 5) In addition to owning genres, it has acquired some specific lexis; 6) has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.2 If one scrolls down the Google entries for discourse community, it seems about a quarter consists of extracts from published or presented work, such as Beaufort (1998), Borg (2003), and Johns (1997). Another quarter consists of entries from encyclopedia-type websites such as Researchomatic and the NCTE briefs. Most of the rest are either posts from instructors expounding the concept for their composition students, or blogs from those students, summarizing and applying the six criteria to their own experiences. One surprising aspect of these posts and blogs was that there were very few criticisms of or objections to the six criteria, one of the very few coming from a student named Jordan Rosa: “Questions I still have: Are these the only characteristics of a discourse community, or are there more? How many more?” Good for you, Jordan! I soon discovered that the main reason for this flurry of activity in using the six old criteria derived from an extensive DC extract from Genre Analysis in Wardle and Downs’ highly successful composition textbook Writing about writing: A college
1
reader (Wardle & Downs 2011). Here is a PowerPoint slide from one of the more interesting instructor uptakes by Heather Wayne, at that time a teaching assistant in English at the University of Central Florida. (I have added some explanatory notes in parentheses): Using the 6 criteria, are these discourse communities? 1) A soccer team 2) A sorority/fraternity 3) UCF (University of Central Florida) 4) Publix employees (Publix is a supermarket chain in southeastern USA) 5) The Hong Kong Study Circle (a postal history group examined in Genre Analysis) 6) Republican voters 7) College Democrats at UCF 8) Composition scholars 9) Occupants of Nike dorms (a student resident hall) 10) Our class3 Not unexpectedly, I have been in somewhat of two minds about all this attention to the six defining criteria for a discourse community. (And I notice in passing that Wikipedia uses the present tense (“Swales presents”) for something written twenty-five years ago.). On the one hand, there has been a sense of (doubtless vainglorious) gratification that something I had dreamed up in the late 1980s was still alive and well, while, on the other, there has been a feeling of dismay at the inertia—at the unthinking acceptance of something that was written before most of today’s undergraduates were born and at a time before globalization, before all of those advances in computers and computer-based communications, and particularly before the emergence of social media.
25 years later—a changed world The basic idea of a rhetorical discourse community arose in contrast to the longer-standing sociolinguistic concept of speech community. The latter was premised on a homogeneous assemblage of people who share place, background, language variety and who largely share social, religious, and cultural values. Such communities tend to be small and isolated, such as those existing in mountain villages, or on small islands, or in desert oases. In some contrast, the former is a largely heterogeneous, socio-rhetorical assemblage of people who broadly share occupational or recreational experiences, goals, and interests. Thus, members of a DC may have different first languages, different religions, and belong to diverse ethnicities. Examples might include members of GERAS or of TESOL, all those who work in an animal clinic, or those who are members of a local choir. However, it is unclear whether, in this era of cell-phones, family dispersion, a fluid and uncertain job market for the young, the rise of international trade, and the decline of local crafts and industries, traditional speech communities continue to exist in meaningful numbers. In addition, discourse communities both influence
3
J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19 |11
and are influenced by the larger communities within which they are situated. In consequence, when a university becomes established in a town, the presence of this constellation of discourse communities influences the wider urban environment; as a result, the urban environment provides services that are helpful to the university, such as cheap student housing, cheap restaurants, museums, and more bookshops, which in turn further consolidates our sense of a university town like Cambridge, Heidelberg, or Uppsala. And the same shaping forces create other kinds of town: religious ones like Lourdes, Assisi, or Mecca; sporting towns like Le Mans, St. Andrews, or Saratoga; or government towns like Washington, Ottawa, or Canberra. In other words, both concepts have developed fuzzier boundaries as the world has changed. A second set of problems is that the concept of discourse community as originally conceived was overly static. While this perhaps did not matter so much in 1990, in today’s more unsettled and uncertain world, it looms larger as a problem; in particular, the concept did not firmly or directly address how people either join or leave DCs. For this, it is helpful to turn to Lave and Wenger’s “Community of practice” concept (Lave & Wenger 1991), in which they explain the processes of entry, apprenticeship, membership, seniority, and exit through retirement, death, translocation, etc. A third problematic area is that both the discourse community concept and that of communities of practice tend to view their objects of study through an overly idealistic lens, especially in terms of assumptions about shared beliefs, values, motives, and allegiances among its members (Harris 1989). For instance, when we visit a department in the university that is new to us, our immediate impression is typically one of a homogeneous and sedate disciplinary world with wide agreements about such matters as methodology and epistemology. However, the more we get to know it, the more it seems to be fragmented and compartmentalized, and perhaps even fractious and adversative (Tannen 1998). To an outsider, a linguistics department, for instance, might seem to represent a collectivity of folks with a like-minded interest in language. However, to an insider, there are clear differences between a phonetician and a phonologist, or between those who pursue the relationship between language and mind, and those who pursue the relationship between language and society. Sometimes, of course, difference leads to fracture. As in a number of universities, the biology department at Michigan has split into two, one dealing with micro- and molecular biology and the other dealing with ecology and evolution. As a senior biologist said to me at the time of the split, “We biologists are either skin-in or skin-out”. Finally, like many in major U.S. universities, I used to have a split appointment: 50% of effort in the Department of Linguistics and 50% in the English Language Institute. I suspect I was always a little too practical and pragmatic for my mostly theoretical linguistics colleagues, while a little too research-minded for my fellow EAP instructors in the ELI.
Three types of discourse community in academia The term discourse community is now more than thirty years old since it was apparently first coined by Martin Nystrand, a professor of English at the University 12| J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19
of Wisconsin-Madison (Nystrand 1982). Since then, it has been widely used and discussed (sometimes critically) by scholars in applied language studies as a way of recognizing that communications largely operate within conventions and expectations established by communities of various kinds. As this interest in the concept has proliferated, we have come to see that these communities are, in fact, differentiated by various factors, such as how localized they are, what origins they have had, and what types of activity are central to their existence. So, it is the main purpose of this section to offer a categorization of different types of discourse community; if you will, to draw an outline map of the discourse community territory. Local discourse communities There are essentially three sub-types of these: residential, vocational, and occupational, but only the last of these really applies to the university context. These are groupings of people who all work at the same place (as in a factory or a university department), or at the same occupation in the same area (all the bakers in a town). These DCs have acquired many abbreviations and acronyms as well as some special words and phrases that are needed in order to get their jobs done more quickly and more efficiently—terminologies that are not used, nor even often understood, by the general public. For example, when I worked in Aston University, one of the main eating places on campus was the Vauxhall Dining Centre. So, when we had visitors, if I were not careful, I would say some form of “Let’s go to the VD Centre for lunch”. When I saw consternation on their faces, I would hurriedly have to explain that I was not suggesting eating at the clinic for venereal diseases! I am, of course, familiar with my local discourse community in Michigan’s ELI. I know when the building is unlocked and how to gain access when it is locked, where the toilets are, and who to ask for technical help. I know which codes to use for the photocopier, and where to find certain office supplies, and so on. However, when I travel to another university for a conference, I do not know any of these things and, unless the signage is excellent, I will probably soon get lost. Lower-level university staff typically belong to just their local departmental discourse community, while mid-level staff may belong in addition to the communities of, for instance, departmental budget officers, who get together for regular meetings and discussions. High-level administrators probably belong to some professional association and travel to that association’s national convention. Members of these DCs also have acquired expectations and conventions of behavior that orchestrate their working days. One further consequence is that implicit value systems emerge which determine what is seen as good and less good work. Further, members of these DCs may get together socially outside of work, which further reinforces the community. Often, in these communities, there are apprentice arrangements (such as probationary periods) whereby new members are scrutinized as they attempt to acculturate into accepted occupational behaviors. Focal discourse communities Focal communities are the opposite in many ways of local ones. They are typically associations of some kind that reach across a region, a nation, and
J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19 |13
internationally. They may be informal groupings or more formal ones with rules, elections and paid memberships. One informal group that I belong to is Southeast Michigan Birders, and this is part of an email message I received recently: At about 3 p.m. yesterday three owls flew over Wisner Hwy. As they flew closer to the road they swooped lower and disappeared into the woods. Because of the open fields and time of day I suspected SEO, but thought probably not because I have never associated SEO with an affinity for landing in woods. I suspect that I may be the only person reading this journal who would know that SEO is the standard U.S. acronym for Short-eared Owl. Indeed, many types of discourse communities develop shorthand expressions, such as abbreviations and acronyms, to aid speed of communication. Members of such groups can be of different nationalities, ages, and occupations, and can differ quite considerably in their economic circumstances and educational backgrounds. They come together because of a focus on their hobby or recreational preference. Today, these kinds of DC are much aided by modern conveniences such as email and the cell phone. In some cases, they may produce a newsletter or have some other kind of publication that is distributed among the members. The other major kind of focal discourse community is professional rather than recreational. In many professions, there has emerged over the years a national association that is designed to bind the members together and advance the profession in terms of protecting its rights and using its specialized expertise to lobby against what it views as ill-considered policies and in favor of those that it believes to be more soundly based. GERAS and BAAL (the British Association of Applied Linguists) would be typical examples. Many of these associations have a national conference, whereby individuals from far-flung places gather together to learn of latest developments, review the latest products in exhibition areas, and listen to luminaries in their field. These days, they typically have very active websites, wherein members can receive updates and express their opinions and preferences. If they are academically inclined, these associations often also support one or more journals for their members, such as ASp or TESOL Quarterly. “Folocal” discourse communities The third and final main type of discourse community has characteristics of both local and focal DCs, which is why I have coined the fused term “folocal” as a neologistic amalgam of the “local” and “focal”. These are hybrid communities whose members have a double—and sometimes split—allegiance, as they are confronted by internal and external challenges and pressures. Consider the situation of the local branch of your bank, or a car dealership in your area. The people who work in such places have both their own ways of going about their tasks, and their own conventionalized ways of talking about those tasks and with their customers. However, they also are in contact and receive instructions from regional or national offices that in part determine how they carry out their duties. In effect, they are subjected to both centripetal and centrifugal forces. Perhaps a clearer instance is that of a university department in a research-active university. Members of such departments are members of both a local DC and a 14| J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19
focal one. They understand how things operate in their own institution as they go about their teaching and administrative activities. Unlike outsiders, they know when rooms and buildings are locked, and where and to whom to make an application for some small amount of money. But they are also specialized scholars whose closest colleagues are likely to be elsewhere, perhaps even in other countries, and whose activities involve presenting at conferences in other places and publishing in distant journals. As is well known, there often emerges a conflict between the local demands on their time and the focal demands on that time—a conflict that is presumably becoming exacerbated as more and more higher education institutions are pressuring their faculty to publish in recognized international journals (Bennett 2014). These, then, are some of the typical competing pressures of belonging to a “folocal” discourse community.
Discourse community and identity Many people are occasional members of more than one discourse community. In my own case, I am a member of the institute where I have had an office for the last thirty years, but also I am active in the wider world of English for Academic Purposes by, for instance, serving on a number of editorial boards. My current hobbies are bird-watching and butterfly-watching, and I belong to various associations that support these similar but not identical activities. In the past, I was a member of a focal DC that brought together a very disparate group of people who were interested in the postal history of Hong Kong, about a hundred philatelists from some twenty countries. Our student services secretary is a dedicated “Whovian” (i.e., a fan of the Dr Who TV program), and last year he flew to London to attend the Dr Who 50th Anniversary Celebration. As we move from one DC to another, our verbal and social behavior adapts to the new environment, but I do not believe that this necessarily implies that we adopt new identities, or that we are somehow merely an aggregation of different personae. (Unless, of course, we are spies or under-cover agents.) My beliefs about this were brilliantly exemplified (and with an astonishing economy of words, including but a single opening verb) by Alexander Pope: See the same man, in vigour, in the gout; Alone, in company; in place, or out; Early at business, and at hazard late; Mad at a fox-chase, wise at a debate; Drunk at a borough, civil at a ball, Friendly at Hackney, faithless at Whitehall. Epistle 1: To Cobham, 1734 (Williams 1969: 162–163) As Pope avers, it is “the same man” (or woman), healthy or ill, employed or not, at work or gambling, wild at sport or sensible in discussion, drunk at an election, good-mannered at a dance, reliable and amiable in the East End of London, but not to be trusted at the seat of the central government.
J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19 |15
Reconsidering DC criteria Given the foregoing—ossified criteria for DCs, problems with the concept, and three contrasting types of discourse community—it is certainly time to re-imagine the concept itself, first by reflecting on the original six criteria and then more generally. In each case, I will give the Wikipedia summaries followed by updates. 1. A DC has a broadly agreed set of goals A DC has a potentially discoverable set of goals. These may be publicly and explicitly formulated (as in “mission” or “vision” statements); they may be generally or partially recognized by its members; they may be broadly consensual; or they may be separate but contiguous (as when older and younger members have different ideas about the best future direction of the DC, or when there is a clash between academic researchers and practitioners, as in the just-holding-together American Psychological Association). This expansion then is designed to recognize that a DC is not necessarily utopian in flavor; it also acknowledges that DCs can flourish in darker worlds, such as those represented by Al-Q’aida, price-fixing cabals, or industry pressure groups. 2. A DC has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members Fine, but we now need to emphasize the roles of new digital channels, such as emails, blogs, tweets, etc., and we also need to stress that without any means of intercommunication of any kind, there is no real community. Subscribers to Le Monde may share certain characteristics, but they do not form a discourse community. 3. A DC uses its participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback This third criterion was always sadly incomplete. A DC uses its participatory mechanisms to manage the operations of the DC and to promote (usually) recruitment, change, growth, and development, and to orchestrate (rarely) retrenchment and demise. In other words, these mechanisms are used to initiate actions and activities, rather than simply providing information. For instance, the employer and employees in a small shop may get together to discuss relocating; a London club may vote to admit women; or a university department, in a series of faculty meetings, may decide to drop a degree option because of low enrollment. 4. A DC utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims The use of “possesses” is rather strange as it soon becomes clear that there are not enough genres in the world for them to be “possessed” by individual DCs. A DC utilizes an evolving selection of genres in the furtherance of its sets of goals and as a means of instantiating its participatory mechanisms. These sets of genres are often particularized, as the genres are performed, re-performed, and refined, but they are rarely owned (i.e., uniquely the property of a particular DC). For instance, most university departments have regular staff meetings, but these evolve differently, with emerging differences about speaking and voting roles, about 16| J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19
ancillary genres, such as agendas and minutes, and about allowable topics and interventions. 5. In addition to owning genres, it has acquired some specific lexis A DC has acquired and continues to refine DC-specific terminology. Classically, this consists of abbreviations and shorthands of all kinds, not including various kinds of codes. For example, hospitals in the U.S. have a rich menu of codes that the staff employ, especially in emergencies, partly for efficiency and partly to keep information from patients and the general public. So, “code 236 on floor six” might indicate a heart attack on that floor. In the older ELI, when we still had a placement test, we might have said among ourselves of a new international student, “She looks like a 73 across the board”. More widely, at the University of Michigan and indeed elsewhere, unofficial labels are common. Our football stadium is often referred to as “The Big House”; the central administration building is known as “the Mondrian cube” because of its architecture; and the Shapiro Library more often than not goes by its discarded old name “the UGLI” (the old name being “The Undergraduate Library”). Further, disciplinary terminology can be sui generis: recall that the classic genre set for systematic botany consists of treatment, flora, and monograph. 6. A DC has a threshold of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise A DC has an explicit or implicit hierarchy and/or structure which, inter alia, manages the processes of entry into and advancement within the discourse community. The stress here on managing DC affairs reduces the somewhat static impression that the 1990 formulation produces. We can now add two new criteria. 7. A DC develops a sense of “silential relations” (Becker 1995) A DC develops a sense of “silential relations” (Becker 1995), whereby there is a sense of things that do not need to be said or to be spelt out in detail in either words or writing. Bridge players invariably say “four clubs” rather than “I bid four clubs”. Or consider the case of discoveries in the world of nature. If the discovery is of a large mammal, it will make the front pages of the world’s major newspapers. If it is of a bird, it will merit an article, including pictures or perhaps a video, in a specialized journal (Gross 1990). But suppose we have a new plant; here is a typical write-up: Bunchosia itacarensis W R Anderson, sp. nov.–Type: Brazil. Bahia: Mun. Itacaré, 3 km S of Itacaré, forest at edge of ocean, Dec fl, Mori et al. 13081 (Holotype: MICH! CEPEC, NY, not seen). We only know that this is a discovery because of the laconic abbreviated Latin phrase sp. nov.; also note the interesting short hand convention in “MICH!” The exclamation mark indicates that the author has actually examined the University of Michigan specimen.
J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19 |17
8. A DC develops horizons of expectation A DC develops horizons of expectation, defined rhythms of activity, a sense of its history, and value systems for what is good and less good work. Consider again the concept of the university clocks moving at different speeds that was discussed in the opening section. Or reflect on how DCs evolve rotas and rosters. Thus, in the ELI, every other Friday, somebody is responsible for clearing out the communal fridge; every so often, the administrative staff carry out a stock-taking; there is a fire-drill once a year, as well as a Christmas party; the first staff meeting of the year includes the director’s review of the previous year, and so on. Generally speaking, and with some flexibility, all eight criteria can usually be applied to all three types of community.
So, where do we stand? It would seem that we can set up operable criteria for looking at groups in order to examine whether those groups qualify for DC status. On the other hand, actually defining discourse communities, or sub-types of them, has proved rather intractable; twenty years ago Bazerman observed that “most definitions of discourse community get ragged around the edges rapidly” (Bazerman 1994: 128), and today that situation has not greatly changed. And yet, it remains seductive, as Paul Prior explains: Why does DC theory have such strange features: instant adoptability, resilience in the face of critique, resistance to calls for theoretical specification, the protean character of its fundamental assumptions as it migrates across theoretical and empirical traditions? (Prior 2003: 1) It is doubtful, then, in present formulations that the concept is a robust social construct. A historian might argue that it does not account for economic and political forces; a sociologist might say that it fails to acknowledge the effects of broader social structures; an educationist might claim that it downplays acquisitional trajectories, as well as the roles of individual agency; and an anthropologist could argue that it ignores powerful aspects of cultural history. But I would counter-argue that this probably does not matter as long as our focus is on rhetorical principles of organization, on discoursal expectations, on significative linguistic tokens, and on intriguing textual extracts. Such attention on these more surface features provides insight into what at first sight might seem standard, ordinary and predictable. On this topic, I will give the last word to James Porter, whose important book is unfortunately little known outside the United States: The term “discourse community” is useful for describing a space that was unacknowledged before because we did not have a term for it. The term realigns the traditional unities—writer, audience, text—into a new configuration. What was before largely scene, unnoticed background, becomes foreground. (Porter 1992: 84) It is precisely this foregrounding realignment that makes the DC concept useful for languages for specific and academic purposes, and for EAP and other 18| J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19
practitioners as they work to give students the oracy and literacy skills to survive and flourish in their diverse educational environments.
Bibliographical references
BAZERMAN, Charles. 1994. Constructing Experience. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. BEAUFORT, Anne. 1998. Writing in the Real World: Making the transition from school to work. New York: Teachers College Press. BECKER, Alton L. 1995. Beyond Translation: Essays toward a modern philology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. BENNETT, Karen (Ed.). 2014. The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, communities and practices. London: Palgrave MacMillan. BORG, Eric. 2003. “Key concepts in ELT: Discourse communities”. ELT Journal 57/4, 398–400. FLOWERDEW, John. 2015. “John Swales’s approach to pedagogy in Genre Analysis: A perspective from 25 years on”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19, 102–112. GROSS, Alan G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. HARRIS, Joseph. 1989. “The idea of community in the study of writing”. College Composition and Communication 40, 11–22. JOHNS, Ann M. 1997. Text, Role and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LAVE, Jean & Etienne WENGER. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NYSTRAND, Martin. 1982. What Writers Know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York: Academic Press. PORTER, James E. 1992. Audience and Rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. PRIOR, Paul. 2003. “Are communities of practice really an alternative to discourse communities?”. Presentation at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Arlington, Virginia. SWALES, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SWALES, John M. 1998. Other Floors, Other Voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. TANNEN, Deborah. 1998. The Argument Culture. New York: Random House. WARDLE, Elizabeth & Douglas DOWNS. 2011. Writing about Writing: A college reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins. WILLIAMS, Aubrey (Ed.) 1969. Poetry and Prose of Alexander Pope. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
J. Swales / ASp 69 (March 2016) 7–19 |19
John M. Swales is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the University of Michigan, where he was also Director of the English Language Institute. Over a lengthy career, he has authored or co-authored 20 books and about 130 articles and book chapters. [email protected]
ASp 69 |21
Science as vocation? Discipline, profession and impressionistic sociology
La science est-elle un métier ? Discipline, profession et sociologie impressionniste
Michel Dubois Université Paris Sorbonne, GEMASS/CNRS
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Discipline, profession, science, sociology, Discipline, métier, profession, science, vocation. sociologie.
ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ Although key categories in sociology since Max Bien que les catégories de « profession » et de Weber, “profession” and “discipline” are often « discipline » occupent une place centrale en used in a superficial manner, without any sociologie depuis Max Weber, elles sont rigorous definitions. This article provides souvent utilisées de façon imprécise, sans être examples of impressionistic approaches of rigoureusement définies. Cet article fournit des those two notions by analyzing studies on the exemples d’approches impressionnistes de ces socialisation process in the world of science. notions en s’appuyant sur l’étude du processus Building from E. Freidson (1970 [1984]), Y. de socialisation dans le monde scientifique. En Gingras (1991) and R. Stichweh’s (1992) se fondant sur les travaux d’E. Freidson (1970 general line of arguments, I propose three [1984]), de Y. Gingras (1991) et de R. Stichweh main reasons to justify the need to consider (1992), j’avance trois raisons principales qui “discipline” and “profession” as two distinct justifient le besoin de considérer « discipline » phenomena that the sociologist should study et « profession » comme deux entités distinctes from the perspective of their interaction, but que le sociologue devrait étudier du point de also of their transformation. vue de leurs interactions ainsi que de leur transformation.
22| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
“Discipline” and “profession” are two basic categories for describing contemporary societies. Nowadays, most of our social achievements are interpreted as part of professional frameworks. Moreover, the division of labour between professional groups constitutes a pivotal social feature and a major source of social inequalities. Discipline, on the other hand, is generally construed as the basis of expert knowledge on which professional groups heavily rely. The medical profession, which has frequently been studied by sociologists (Merton et al. 1957; Freidson 1984 [1970]), is a case in point. Seen from a wider perspective, disciplines constitute a transnational institutional infrastructure that tends to produce dividing lines between legitimate knowledge and illegitimate knowledge. Sociological literature on the categories of “discipline” and “profession” is abundant.1 As suggested by the title of this article, I discuss this literature through a specific case: science as an occupation. The reasons for this choice are, at least, twofold. First, one of the core objectives of the sociology of science (since its inception) has obviously been to study the many aspects of the “disciplinary regime” of knowledge production (Shinn & Joerges 2002). Disciplines are frequently not only perceived as a primary frame of reference in scholarship and science (Heilbron 2004a), they are also construed by sociologists as “empirical strategic sites” (Merton & Thacray 1972; Lemaine et al. 1977; Heilbron 2004b; Dubois 2014a, 2014b). Secondly, as F. Champy indicated (2009), one of the first contributions to the sociological study of professions has been precisely devoted to the scientific and/or academic occupation. On the occasion of his lecture Wissenschaft als Beruf, delivered on November 7, 1917, Max Weber, the German founder of sociology, chose a term—“Beruf”—that means “profession” but that is also endowed with a religious dimension as it also refers to science as a “calling” (Weber 2004 [1919]). Besides its great intrinsic value, Weber’s lecture shows that it is difficult to clearly distinguish between the professional and the disciplinary dimensions of science. The dual structure of the lecture seems to acknowledge the existence of a strong demarcation between the two categories. The first part of the lecture focuses on the “external organization of science” (Beruf as profession) through a comparative analysis of the scientific careers in Germany and the United States, whereas the second part is centred on the values that are needed (Beruf as calling) to unconditionally embrace the disciplinary organization of scientific practices: “[…] the inner vocation of science […] is determined in the first instance by the fact that science has entered a stage of specialization that has no precedent and that will continue for all time” (ibidem: 7). However, as clear as that distinction might seem at the beginning of the lecture, it is rapidly discarded by Weber. His analysis of scientific values is recast in
1 The recent second edition of the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Wright 2015) for example, presents no less than four entries for “discipline” and seven entries for “profession”: Discipline-Building in the Social Sciences; Collective Memory, Biography and Autobiography; Development and Current Status of the Discipline of Criminology; Discipline Formation in the Social Sciences; Professions and Professionalization, History of; Social Science Professions and Professionalization; Lawyers: Social Organization of the Profession; Medical Profession; Professions in Organizations; Teaching as a Profession: United States; Professions, Sociology of.
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |23
professional terms: “what is the inner attitude of the scientist himself to his profession? […]” (ibid.: 12); “Science today is a profession practiced in specialist disciplines […]” (ibid.: 27). The discipline is conceptualized as cognitive dynamics (a growing specialization of knowledge) but also as a delimited institutional space devoted to scholars sharing the same professional value(s). And there are obviously many good reasons to retrospectively consider Weber’s lecture as a first landmark in the sociological study of the deontology of science. Although sociologists of science, almost one century later, have generally forgotten the Weberian notion of “Beruf”, they nonetheless adopt the same impressionistic outlook on the categories of “profession” and “discipline”. The objective of the first section of this article is to briefly illustrate this interpretative pitfall with a few examples drawn from the sociological literature devoted to the socialization process in science. For the purposes of this article, I have limited my discussion to this specific literature and have not explored whether this impressionistic approach is widespread or not in the contemporary sociology of science, or even more widely in general sociology. The second section of the article aims to address some key conceptual and definitional elements in order to clarify the two categories and, more broadly, the nature of their mutual relations. Building on E. Freidson’s (1970 [1984]), Y. Gingras’ (1991) and Stichweh’s (1992) general lines of arguments, I suggest that “profession” and “discipline” correspond to two distinct phenomena that should not be confused without sufficient conceptual care. In a brief conclusion, I will discuss how an already well-documented trend in the dynamics of science and technology may have important consequences for the balance between these two categories in the sociological analysis of science.
1. Lessons from socialization studies Nowadays, scientific research is “naturally” viewed as a full time occupation. Approximately seven million people daily engage in countless research and development (R&D) activities around the world. 2 This situation is of course dramatically different from the one observed one century ago, in the 19th century and before. At that time, not only was scientific research still practiced on a limited demographical scale, but science was not the main occupation of early practitioners of science. Historians of science have described the German origin of this transformation (McLeeland 1991) but also questioned the illusory simplicity of the notion of “professionalization” commonly used to describe this transformation (MacLeod 1972; Porter 1978; Goldstein 1984; Broman 1995; Golinski 1998; Barton 2003). Following Weber’s focus on the basic values of science, the first American sociologists of science proposed to define the scientific community as a
2 For more details about the volume and distribution of these activities, see the annual science and engineering reports from national and international organizations such as the NSF
professional group providing several means to guarantee its ability to produce a “certified” knowledge, among which a specialized training process (scientific education) and a code of conduct (a normative structure of science). Merton’s 1942 classical description of the ethos of science 3 paved the way for a research programme devoted to socialization in science. Socialization should be understood here as the process through which doctoral students “internalize” the types of commitments that they need to endorse in order to play a useful role in their future professional group. If the main contributors to this programme were at first Merton’s close collaborators (Hagstrom 1965; Zuckerman 1978), the issue has recently been taken up again by social scientists investigating the impact of “new norms of science” on higher education in the 2000s (Delamont & Atkinson 2001; Campbell 2003; Weidman & Stein 2003; Golde 2005; Gardner 2007; Barnes & Randall 2012). There are, at least, two striking features in this recent literature on the socialization process in science: first, its impressionistic use of the categories of profession and discipline, i.e. the absence of clear conceptual elaboration for both categories; second, a general analytical blindness to the differences between the two categories, which very significantly weakens sociological investigation. A few examples may be useful here to illustrate our criticisms of recent literature on these issues. Delamont and Atkinson (2001) provide an interesting account of academic socialization based on interviews with doctoral scientists and their supervisors in biochemistry, earth sciences and physical geography. They recognize that the relevant literature on socialization in science, although limited in volume, comes from the sociology and anthropology of science and technology, the sociology of the professions, and the sociology of education. Their initial claim is undeniably stimulating: “Doctoral students in laboratory and field sciences are being socialized into a profession and into an academic discipline” (2001: 87). But not only is the reader incapable to find in the following pages of the article any in- depth definitions of these two categories—which, however, are central to the study— but the same empirical facts, practices or resources discussed through the article (the know-how, the tacit skills required, etc.) are alternatively described in professional and disciplinary terms,4 just as though these two categories were perfectly interchangeable. Campbell’s (2003) contribution on socialization5 focuses on “the social process of managing students”, or, in other words, how science faculty members view and
3 The sum of “prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and permissions […] internalized by the scientist” (Merton 1973 [1942]: 269). 4 “Successful doctoral students master the tacit, indeterminate skills and knowledge, produce usable results and become professional scientists. As professional scientists, they learn to write public accounts of their investigations which omit the uncertainties, contingencies and personal craft skills” (Delamont & Atkinson 2001: 88). “Those scientists who learn to publish have been enculturated into their discipline, leaving the next generation of doctoral students to repeat the cycle” (ibidem: 104). 5 Socialization defined as an “all-encompassing immersion into an institutional setting, where every aspect of one's behavior appears to be controlled by some objective and impersonal force that is an integral part of the structure of science” (Campbell 2003: 900).
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |25
engage in the process of preparing the future generation of scientists. The empirical material is a series of interviews with scientists in biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Most studies on scientific training suggest that whether scientists become successful or not is—directly or indirectly—linked to the quality of training they received from their sponsors or teachers. But are they trained for science as a discipline, or science as a profession? Campbell’s article actually mobilizes both categories—once again without any substantial definitions—and uses them alternatively to describe the same phenomena. Quoting Barbara Reskin’s study on the issue of academic sponsorship, Campbell claims that “in training students, sponsors transmit to them professional (italics added, MD) skills that will enhance their scientific performance and hence their job prospects” (2003: 902). But a few pages later Campbell (ibidem: 909) notes that through formalized courses, scientists present their worldviews to new members, and provide students with opportunities for developing attitudes, skills and knowledge, appropriate to the discipline (italics added) at hand. Gardner’s investigation (2007) on doctoral students’ socialization in chemistry and history is a third example of literature on the socialization process in the scientific world. Gardner’s general objective (2007: 729) is to understand the processes of socialization that occur throughout the degree programs of […] 20 graduate students in chemistry and history and that assist them in developing the knowledge, skills, and beliefs needed for success in both the professional and interpersonal spheres of the discipline. If, like Delamont, Atkinson or Campbell, Gardner does not provide any clear definition, this sentence seems to imply that the discipline should be understood as a social unit composed of two main “spheres”: professional vs interpersonal. The professional sphere of the discipline refers, according to Gardner, to the development and transmission of “a set of skills […] that the students need to obtain before graduating” (2007: 734). These skills are obviously a precondition for obtaining a post-doctoral appointment and/or achieving a scientific career. But Gardner’s students, in their interviews, do not simply mention jobs and careers, they also describe their socialization in science as a process of “getting into the research mindset”, which means gradually adopting a “set of dispositions” that prepare them to appropriately fit into their own disciplinary milieus (chemistry or history). Once again, regrettably, the categories of discipline and profession appear to be largely interchangeable as analytical categories. There is no need here to multiply examples and references. The general lesson that emerges from this brief discussion is that, before starting any empirical investigation, the sociologist should overcome this mostly impressionistic use of the categories of discipline and profession. 26| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
2. What is a discipline and why should it be distinguished from a profession?6 The notion of “discipline” is commonly used to describe a specific area of specialized knowledge associated with a specific form of collective control over its production and diffusion. The sociological inquiry on disciplines is closely related to a general reflection on the various ways in which modern institutions dedicated to the production and dissemination of knowledge implement a triple degree of differentiation. The first degree, at a micro level, allows to distinguish the pupil from the teacher, the apprentice from the master. Discipline, in its original sense, is a component of the pedagogical relationship. Disciplina is derived from the Latin discere (learning), and the term explicitly focuses on the knowledge transmitted through the pedagogical relationship, but also on the methods used for inculcating this knowledge. It generally represents the side of the student as opposed to the teacher, more inclined toward the doctrina than the disciplina. H. Zuckerman has described the many facets of the discipline conceived as a pedagogical relationship (1978, chapter 4). Most Nobel laureates interviewed by Zuckerman consider that acquiring information and knowledge is part of any apprenticeship in science. But most of them also believe that knowledge is only a small part of what is durably inculcated during this period through the relationship with the master: “It’s the contact: seeing how they operate, how they think, how they go about things […]. It’s learning a style of thinking, I guess” (from an interview of a chemist, quoted by Zuckerman 1978: 122). The second degree, at a meso level, corresponds to the division of scientific labour within the corresponding community. The discipline is a subunit of knowledge production, distinct from other sub-units of knowledge production. The contemporary significance of the disciplinary regime of science is partly anchored in the frequently taken-for-granted idea that the existence of these subunits implies a form of “natural” or “harmonious” division of labour. Innumerable monographs explore the birth, growth and sometimes declining phases of disciplines like chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc. (see Dubois 2014a, for references). The sum of all these subunits constitutes a crucial dimension of the internal structure of the scientific community. Weber’s lecture on science as vocation explicitly refers to this growing internal differentiation of science.7 It is from that same perspective that R. Stichweh (1991, 1992, 2003) or more recently J. Jacobs (2014) defined discipline as a “key unit of internal differentiation in science”, i.e. a delimited set of individuals working simultaneously as researchers but also as teachers within a
6 This second part is an extended version of the first section of Dubois (2014a). 7 “[S]cience has entered a stage of specialization that has no precedent and that will continue for all time […]. Only rigorous specialization can give the scholar the feeling for what may be the one and only time in his entire life, that here he has achieved something that will last. Nowadays, a really definitive and valuable achievement is always the product of specialization. And anyone who lacks the ability to don blinkers for once and to convince himself that the destiny of his soul depends upon whether he is right to make precisely this conjecture and no other at this point in his manuscript should keep well away from science” (Weber 2004 [1919]: 7–8).
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |27
specific cognitive perimeter. Stichweh’s objective is to reconstruct, within a functional framework inspired by the German sociologist N. Luhmann, the long- term historical transition from discipline conceived as a pedagogical relationship (the first degree of differentiation) to discipline conceived as a social system of scientific labour and scientific communication (the second degree of differentiation): The disciplinary differentiation of science is based on the organizational growth and the organizational pluralization of science. In Germany, the first country to witness disciplinary differentiation, organizational growth appears to have been the more relevant causal condition. In the 18th century, the University of Göttingen was the first instance in which considerable growth in the provision of organizational roles, in particular in the philosophy faculty, was accompanied by a readiness to accept increasingly specialized descriptions of professorial chairs. (Stichweh 1992: 9) Finally, at a macro level, the discipline is conceived as a “regime”—the disciplinary regime (Shinn 2002)—i.e. a dominant culture of science. Claiming that a specific area of research has acquired a disciplinary status or regime does not only mean that it has achieved a form of (second degree) internal differentiation within the scientific community. Before that, this area of research has to be collectively perceived as a legitimate component of science. And this process of legitimization associates the notion of discipline to an external form of (third degree) differentiation. It is in that sense that the disciplinary regime of science (among many other possible regimes) should be interpreted as a transnational infrastructure aiming to produce a boundary between science and non-science. The sociological analysis of disciplines is most often “differentiationist”, to the extent that it stresses the ability of scientists to produce, through the notion of discipline, a basic discontinuity not only between their practices and the practices of the colleagues belonging to other scientific subunits, but, more importantly, from the practices characteristic of non-scientific social collectives. As emphasized by T. Gieryn (1999: 14-15), discipline redefined as the dominant cultural space of science is a vessel of authority […] [and] this epistemic authority is sustained through repeated and endless edging and filling of its boundaries […] it is enacted as people debate (and ultimately decide) where to locate the legitimate jurisdiction over natural facts. The study of the socio-cognitive origin of these three degrees of disciplinary differentiation, of their organisational and practical implementation, and of their intentional and non-intentional consequences, is of course a major issue for the contemporary study of science. I wish to focus on two particular issues that are a frequent source of confusion in sociological discourse. The first issue has to do with the enduring existence of disciplines and their ability to remain a dominant culture of science, a “vessel of authority” in the words of T. Gieryn. Why should sociologists be cautious about considering “discipline” as an empirical unit of investigation? Because, according to sociologists of science such as Knorr-Cetina (1982: 117), 28| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
scientists' laboratory reasoning not only takes us outside the walls of the research site, it also takes us beyond the borders of the specialty under which a scientist—or a piece of research—comes to be classified. We are thus confronted with arenas of action which are transepistemic; they involve a mix of persons and arguments that do not fall naturally into a category of relationships pertaining to 'science' or 'the specialty' […]. Concepts, such as that of discipline, that are precisely designed to account for the processes of internal and external differentiations, are described as powerless once confronted to the complex texture of knowledge as practiced in the deep social spaces of modern institution. To bring out this texture, one needs to magnify the space of knowledge-in-action, rather than simply observe disciplines or specialties as organizing structures. (Knorr-Cetina 1999: 2-3) The same general point was made by Gibbons et al. in their controversial essay about The New Production of Knowledge (1994). Their main argument (the evolution of science from mode 1 to mode 2) is based on a striking feature of contemporary science, namely its transdisciplinarity (1994: 22 & 27): The proliferation of sites outside of normal disciplinary structures and institutions developed since the turn of the nineteenth century, in which recognisably competent research is taking place, opens up a vast field of interconnections. As interactions multiply, the epistemological status of the knowledge thus produced does not follow traditional, that is, disciplinary criteria […] the intellectual agenda is not set within a particular discipline, nor is it fixed by merely juxtaposing professional interests of particular specialists in some loose fashion leaving to others the task of integration at a later stage. Integration is not provided by disciplinary structures—in that regard the knowledge process is not interdisciplinary, it cuts across disciplines—but is envisaged and provided from the outset in the context of usage or application […]. Should we really consider these observations as a death certificate for the category of discipline? Are disciplines such as physics, biology, economics, obsolete? My scepticism comes from the observation that the transdisciplinarity described by Gibbons et al. is after all nothing really new. Granted, the notions of trans-, inter- or multi- disciplinarity currently appear as attractive. As emphasized by J. Jacobs (2014: 2), as debates on interdisciplinarity have become more frequent, “the adjective ‘interdisciplinary’ now generally has a positive valence […]. It sometimes seems that interdisciplinarity has become an end in itself”. However, beyond this buzzword effect, it is worth noting that innumerable studies dedicated to the emergence, growth and decline of disciplines and specialties have extensively documented the ways in which scientists are innovating by standing in the interstices of the pre-existing disciplinary framework, or by operating recombinations from multiple available specialties. Innovation in science and technology is frequently the consequence of an interstitial work. One example might suffice: N. Mullins’s (1972) classical study on the origins of molecular biology shows how the emergence of a specific discipline was the product of an interaction
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |29
between physicists (Delbrück), biologists (Timofeeff-Rossovsky), bacteriologists (Luria), biochemists (Cohen), etc. Mullins’s study demonstrates, if needed, the ability of scientists to suspend, intellectually and organizationally, pre-existing disciplinary boundaries in order to develop an innovative research programme. But does it also demonstrate the obsolescence of the disciplinary regime? Obviously not. These interstitial locations, these collaborations and recombinations are possible precisely because of the pre- existence of a disciplinary infrastructure. It is a truism that appears to be overlooked by many: disciplinary infrastructure is what makes them possible. Furthermore, once sufficiently advanced, it is not infrequent (although it is not always the case) that emerging collective transdisciplinary scientific practices change and gradually acquire an institutional status as a discipline or a specialty. A trandisciplinary practice of science does not necessarily maintain a mutually exclusive relationship with disciplinary infrastructure. Rather, it represents a modality of innovation and knowledge transfer within this infrastructure, and a major cause of its evolution. The segmentation of the disciplinary regime of science is not given once and for all, but evolves under the influence of various factors, among which the transdisciplinary practices of the members of the scientific community. There is no point in adopting an a priori binary representation: a static disciplinary regime vs a dynamic transdisciplinary regime. It seems much more relevant to study the specific temporalities related to each of these regimes, and to investigate their various forms of interaction and their collective consequences. Even Knorr-Cetina does not seem to be totally convinced by her own argument since, after proclaiming the uselessness of the category of discipline, she nevertheless claims that her own study has been “performed in two disciplines [italics added, MD], experimental high physics and molecular biology” (1999: 17). This type of inconsistency (proclaiming the abandonment of a category while continuing to use it) stresses the importance for sociologists to clearly dissociate at least two levels of analysis. The first level may be defined in terms of “cluster” (Mullins 1972) or “research area” (Whitley 1976). Both terms represent a minimal form of scientific grouping, the members of which are aware of forming some kind of community. For Mullins, “[a] cluster forms when scientists become self-conscious about their patterns of communication and begin to set boundaries around those who are working on their common problem” (1972: 69). For Whitley (1976: 472), research areas are collectivities based on some degree of commitment to a set of research practices and techniques. Membership is defined in terms of agreed procedures for specifying research problems and for selecting appropriate techniques to operate on them. In different areas these procedures will be more or less clearly formulated, understood and adhered to, but so long as there is some such set of norms to which scientists are committed the intellectual basis for a research area as a social grouping exists. Researchers who, regardless of their different disciplinary backgrounds, share the same commitment to a set of research questions (problems and enigmas), techniques and practices that allow them to maintain relations of exchange and cooperation, belong to these elementary scientific groups. This informal social 30| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
structure of science is an ordinary place for the production of knowledge—one that has attracted the attention of (micro-)sociologists of science in the 1980s. And this interstitial collective body defined in terms of research area or cluster is in itself neither a specialty nor a discipline. Hence the need to properly identify a second level of analysis, that of the actual discipline (the specialty being understood here as a disciplinary subunit) which corresponds to the institutionalized form of research, teaching and training activities. There is no simple relationship between a research area and a discipline. One is not necessarily the cause of the other. As emphasized by Lenoir (1997: 53), one temptation is to treat disciplines as the accreted results of research activity, packed down and distilled into the teaching wing of science. This has the undesired consequence of conflating what goes on at the site of research with disciplinary activity, which […] are not identical. Scientists at the research front do not perceive their goal as expanding a discipline. Indeed, most novel research, particularly in contemporary science, is not confined within the scope of a single discipline, but draws upon work of several disciplines. Lenoir focuses here clearly on the fact that a discipline integrates in a single framework research activities and teaching activities.8 Discipline corresponds to the sum of knowledge produced and taught in the academic sphere, and most of the apprentices in science become familiar with research activities within the existing array of disciplinary divisions. But, more fundamentally, Lenoir stresses the fact that scientists do not necessarily have disciplinary objectives and, further, that not all scientific groups are meant—or sometimes able—to acquire a lasting institutional form. 9 Proclaiming from this unwillingness or this inability a general thesis in support of the so called “end of disciplines” seems at least a bit too hasty. This brings me to the second point I wish to discuss, namely the analytical distinction between “discipline” and “profession”. A discipline is frequently characterized as a primary unit of internal differentiation in science, closely related to the institutionalization of a pre-existing collective scientific practice that has multi-, inter- or trans-disciplinary dimensions. It is generally described in terms of organizational factors such as the existence of learned societies, funds, awards, congresses, journals, doctoral schools or teaching departments, formal and informal networks of communication, etc. As observed in the very case of the sociology of science, a discipline is more than just an amount of shared knowledge and know- how—even though this formal and informal cognitive side is fundamental: it is at the same time a shared narrative about the origin of a social group, a set of rituals, norms, locations, a communication network, and it exists because it has been recognized as a discipline by other pre-existing disciplines (Dubois 2014a). All those various factors, through which disciplinary identity is made visible and collectively reproduced, are generally defined as attributes of scientific “professionalization”.
8 See also Heilbron (2004a: 30): “The distinctive characteristic of modern disciplines is precisely to organize teaching, research and professional organization within the same kind of institutional unit”. 9 For an example, cf. the failed institutionalization of the collective of US sociologists of invention in the 1940s, Dubois (2014b).
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |31
Hence the recurring idea that the categories of “discipline” and “profession” are almost synonyms, and the fact that it is common to refer to the “professional identity" of any discipline (Merton & Thacray 1972). The difficulty lies here in the fact that all scholarly activities do not maintain the same relationship to the categories of “profession” and “discipline”, and that the term “professionalization” amalgamates various occupational realities that it is essential to distinguish. Obviously, in private as in public, scientists frequently depict themselves as “professionals” of science, i.e. individuals earning their living through the exclusive practice of science, and building, in the long run, a “career” in a three dimensional space—organizational, cognitive and relational (Prpic et al. 2014; Gläser & Laudel 2015). However, beyond this rather loose usage of the term, do scientists really share a same view of the notion of “profession”? It is useful here to note that elaborating on this notion is closely related to a focus on a specific activity. Regardless of the numerous theoretical backgrounds that underlay their research, the first sociologists who became interested in “profession” as an analytical category agreed on considering medicine as a “prototype” for all professions.10 What are the main characteristics of this prototype? Without claiming to be exhaustive, four elements seem to play a central role. (1) Authority and Power, first, are important components of medicine as a profession. As suggested by Parsons (1939: 460) in his classical lecture on The professions and social structure, […] the professional practitioner in our society exercises authority. We speak of the doctor as issuing ‘orders’ even though we know that the only ‘penalty’ for not obeying them is possible injury to the patient's own health. A lawyer generally gives ‘advice’, but if the client knew just as well what to do it would be unnecessary for him to consult a lawyer. While being sharply critical of the Parsonian functional theoretical framework, Larson (1977) or Abbott (1988) nonetheless considered that authority is a strategic dimension of any profession. A professional project is systematically a will to construct a “monopoly” and to increase, through this monopoly, occupational status and power. (2) Specialized knowledge, skills, capacities and services (and corresponding fees) are a second important component of medicine as profession. Medicine is constructed as a specific area of applied knowledge.11 For the physician to be considered as a professional, s/he must find, in the words of Wilensky (1964: 138), “a technical basis for it, assert an exclusive jurisdiction, link both skill and jurisdiction
10 “[I]t was felt that sociological study of the medical school would afford a prototype [italics added, MD] for comparable studies in the other professions […] the other professions frequently look to medicine as a model […]” (Merton 1957: 37); “[…] the profession of medicine […] has come to be the prototype [italics added, MD] upon which occupations seeking a privilege status today are modeling their aspirations (Freidson 1984 [1970]: xviii). It is also worth noting that in one of the first seminars on professions in Columbia University in 1950, eight professions were represented: medicine, law, architecture, engineering, social work, the ministry, nursing and education. 11 Eliot Freidson’s book on the profession of medicine has a subtitle: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. 32| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
to standards of training, and convince the public that its services are uniquely trustworthy”. The traditional divide between “occupation” and “profession” heavily relies on the reference to a sum of know-how and technical capacities described as inaccessible to lay persons.12 The physician enjoys professional authority and social prestige as long as s/he is collectively perceived as the bearer of expert knowledge accumulated through a long process of education. In this respect, Parsons clearly emphasized the centrality of rationality for professions, such as medicine, that are closely related to the growth of scientific knowledge. In the same vein, Merton (1957: 21) observed that the link between medicine and the various sciences upon which medicine draws its cognitive support imposes a specific form of education and socialization: “Every considerable advance in medical knowledge […] brings in its wake the pressing question of how this new knowledge can be most effectively taught to the student.” (3) Ethical conduct is a third important component of medicine as profession. On the basis of his early studies on the normative structure of science, Merton had no trouble developing a normative approach of medicine. To his eyes, the physician is a professional as long as, like any other professional, he has internalized a set of norms, standards and values indicating what is permitted and what is proscribed, in other words, a set of normative principles that guarantee the possibility of self- regulation: [T]he physician in his private office is largely subject to the controls only of the values and norms he has acquired and made his own. The medically uninformed patient is not in a position to pass sound judgment upon the normative adequacy of what the physician does. (1957: 77) This Mertonian discussion brings me to a fourth key component of medicine as profession. (4) Autonomy understood as the capacity of the community of physicians to regulate themselves through several mechanisms. The professional order of medical doctors in France, or the College of Physicians and Surgeons in the USA are the most obvious manifestations of this collective self-regulation process. And these self-regulation bodies generally claim the exclusive right to determine who is legitimate to work as a physician and who is not. Studying the medical profession, Freidson (1970: 71-72) described “organized autonomy” as a strategic characteristic for any profession: a profession is distinct from other occupations in that it has been given [generally by the State, MD added] the right to control its own work. […] And while no occupation can prevent employers, customers, clients, and other workers from evaluating its work, only the profession has the recognized right to declare such “outside” evaluation illegitimate and intolerable. It is however important to note that this autonomy is not given once and for all: it is often challenged and reactivated through continuous competition and disputes
12 This divide between occupation and profession has no real equivalent in French, see Champy (2009). For a critical discussion of this divide, see Adams (2010).
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |33
with other professional groups. Wilensky has rightly pointed out that medicine is regularly doing battle with “marginal practitioners” such as osteopaths or chiropractors. More recently, these professional disputes were extensively analysed by A. Abbott (1988). For Abbott, it is not possible to understand individual professions without reconstructing the interplay of the “jurisdictional links” between professions. He uses the case of American medicine to demonstrate the complexity of such an interplay. Medicine “is not a continuous entity. Development activity, and interprofessional relations are bound together. The medical professions absolute control of bodily ills required defensive work in a number of borders” (Abbot 1988: 21). Given the four elements that characterize medicine construed as a prototype for all professions, why is it still important not to adopt an interchangeable approach of the categories of “discipline” and “profession”? In my opinion, one should keep in mind at least three basic reasons. Firstly, failing to distinguish between the categories of discipline and profession bars us from understanding the differences in nature between the activities of biologists and physicians, physicists and engineers, historians and lawyers, etc. A discipline (biology, physics, history, etc.) corresponds to an occupation devoted to the production of original and robust knowledge. Its core defining component is oriented toward a cognitive dimension.13 A profession (medicine, law, engineering) is an occupation devoted to the application of available knowledge to human problems. Its defining component is the service relation between the professionals and their clients. This elementary distinction between, say, biologists and physicians, does not mean, of course, that they do not share some basic formal characteristics. Obviously biologists and physicians are highly trained experts: they use specialized knowledge and skills and contribute to producing them. They have their own specific normative subculture, a body of shared and transmitted ideas, values and standards—for the scientist, the ethos of science described by Merton. They both also have jurisdictional claims (Abbott 1988), meaning rights to control the provision of particular services and activities. But these common features should not obscure the fact that some crucial differences remain. As emphasized by Freidson (1970: 22), there is a conceptual need to distinguish between profession and discipline, physicians and biologists: The former survive by providing to a varied lay clientele services that are expected to solve practical problems. […] The latter, however, […] can gain their monopoly over work solely by the conjunction of […] association and state support. […] These two types of occupation may be members of one very general class […] but the conditions for their establishment and maintenance are so distinct that one risks great confusion by considering them together. Secondly, failing to distinguish between the categories of discipline and profession
13 This prevalent cognitive dimension of the category of discipline was emphasized by Mary Joe Nye: “the core of the scientific discipline is missed if the discipline’s particular values and characteristic problems are not noted and understood” (1993: 20). 34| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
bars us from adequately describing the socio-historical process of emergence of the scientific disciplines. All known modern disciplines stem from the three faculties that, in early modern Europe, provided a professional education: theology, law and medicine. However, as indicated by Stichweh (1992: 10), in the 19th century, scientific disciplines developed for the first time exclusively with their own personnel and separated themselves completely from the traditions of the three pre-existing faculties as far as their knowledge base and methodology was concerned. […] Actually the classical professions, after the turn of the 19th century, represented not scholarly knowledge systems but action systems specializing in contacts between members of the profession and clients. Their respective knowledge bases were activated primarily for that purpose. Increasingly they developed a dogmatic—that is, action-stabilizing—character. In contrast, the disciplines represented closed communication complexes in which colleagues were seen as the disciplinary audience and clients were not known. A difference developed between internal closure and exclusive concentration on elaborating scientific truths on the one hand and reorientation toward action and application of knowledge in the contact between professional and client on the other. This difference is an indication of the increasing distance between scientific disciplines and professional action systems, not of the professionalization of science. Through this historical narrative, Stichweh shows that the advent of our modern disciplinary infrastructure supposes a process of “de-professionalization” that led to assign the scientist to a “closed market”, meaning a market in which there was only one kind of consumers: the other members of the scientific community, redefined as both “associates” and “rivals” in the production and circulation of knowledge. Lastly, failing to distinguish between the categories of discipline and profession bars us from identifying not only the variety of regimes of scholarly activities, but also the capacity of the members of the academic sphere to switch, during their career, between these regimes. Against a too simplistic vision of science (mode 1 vs mode 2 or in other words discipline vs profession), there are only advantages in adopting a pluralistic approach oriented toward the analysis of the variety and the dynamics of scholarly activities and regimes. This general perspective was developed by T. Shinn (2002: 101) in his discussion of the transitory regime of science and technology: Analyses of the transitory science and technology regime maintain the idea of a demarcation between academia (discipline) and engineering (profession), but at the same time show how practitioners intermittently pass back and forth between the two arenas. In studies of the transverse science and technology regime, the idea of the institutional boundedness of science and engineering is preserved, but the focus is on situations where back and forth movement in unceasing. Practitioners structure divisions of labor in particular ways according to task requirements. One historical example is enough to demonstrate the importance of this pluralistic approach: in their biographical study of William Thomson (known as Lord Kelvin), Smith and Wise (1989) documented how Thomson switched from mathematical physics to engineering, and from engineering back to physics. They
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |35
incidentally point out that it is Thomson’s involvement in the grandest of all Victorian engineering projects—the Atlantic telegraph cable—that earned him his knighthood. If one agrees to consider discipline and profession as two differentiated institutional arenas, one immediately sees the various amalgams at work in the ordinary discourse on the “professionalization” of science. This discourse contributes to mask the variety of identities associated to the functioning of the primary units of internal differentiation in science: “profession” (engineers) is one of these identities, “discipline” (researchers) is yet another.
Conclusion: “asymmetrical convergence” and the changing balance between discipline and profession Recognizing the importance of the analytical distinction between “profession” and “discipline” does not imply that one should adopt a static representation of the equilibrium between these two categories. On the contrary, it is precisely that distinction that makes it possible to approach certain dimensions of the contemporary dynamics of science and technology (henceforth S&T); dynamics viewed as the consequence of the interaction between S&T construed as a profession, and S&T construed as a discipline. One of these dimensions was depicted by Kleinman and Vallas (2001, 2006) as a process of “asymmetrical convergence”. In the area of biotechnology, scientists working within the disciplinary regime are more and more compelled to respond to the constraints of the commercial world, while engineers and research engineers working in science-intensive firms find an autonomy and collegiality that are traditionally thought not to be available in the professional realm. For Kleinman and Vallas (2006: 36–37), [o]n the one hand, science-intensive firms find it useful to invoke academic conventions, such as the publishing of journal articles, sponsoring of intellectual exchanges, and supporting curiosity-driven research (though in complex and often contradictory ways that articulate with corporate goals). On the other hand, academic institutions increasingly resort to entrepreneurial discourses and practices […]. The result, we contend, generates contradictions, anomalies, and ironies […]. This simultaneous and ironic change at work in the life sciences is obviously a key issue. Every sociologist of science working on regenerative medicine (Brunet & Dubois 2012), nano-medicine (Louvel 2015) or epigenetics (Landecker & Panofsky 2013) is aware of this general trend. But such a phenomenon does not mean that the occupational dimensions of discipline and profession have nowadays merged into one single dimension. It means mostly that S&T actors have the capacity to transform, through their strategies and the corresponding structures of opportunity, the equilibrium between the arenas of profession and discipline, and by doing so to achieve a new collective identity. Yet, such a transformation generally corresponds to a new temporary equilibrium, and remains partly shaped by pre-existing norms and practices that belong to one occupational arena or the other. 36| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
Bibliographical references
ABBOTT, A. 1988. The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ADAMS, T.L. 2010. “Profession: A useful concept for sociological analysis?”. Canadian Review of Sociology 47/1, 49-70. BARNES, B. & J. RANDALL. 2012. “Doctoral student satisfaction: An examination of disciplinary, enrolment and institutional differences”. Research in higher education 53/1, 47-75. BARTON, R. 2003. “’Men of science’: language, identity and professionalization in the mid- Victorian scientific community”. History of Science 41/1, 2003, 73-119. BROMAN, T.1995. “Rethinking professionalization: Theory, practice, and professional ideology in Eighteenth-century German medicine.” J. Mod. Hist. 67, 835–72. BRUNET, P., & M. DUBOIs. 2012. “Stem cells and technoscience: Sociology of the emergence and regulation of a field of biomedical research in France”. Revue Française de Sociologie 53/3, 241–286. CAMPBELL, R. 2003. “Preparing the next generation of scientists: The social process of managing students”. Social Studies of Science 33/6, 897–927. CHAMPY, F. 2009. La sociologie des professions. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. DELAMONT, S. & P. ATKINSON. 2001. “Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge”. Social Studies of Science 31/1, 87–107. DUBOIS, M. 2014a. "Private knowledge" et "programme disciplinaire" en sciences sociales : étude de cas à partir de la correspondance de R.K.Merton”. L’Année Sociologique 64/1, 79- 119. DUBOIS, M. 2014b. “From discovery to invention. Sociological study of academic correspondence”. European Journal of Social Sciences 52/2, 7–42. FREIDSON, E. 1984 [1970]. Profession of Medicine. A study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. GARDNER, S. 2007. “'I heard it through the grapevine': doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history”. Higher education 54/5, 723–740. GIBBONS, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schartzman, P. Scott & M. Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. GINGRAS, Y. 1991. “L’institutionnalisation de la recherche en milieu universitaire et ses effets”. Sociologie et sociétés 23/1, 41–54. GIERYN, T. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science. Credibility on the Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. GLÄSER, J. & G. LAUDEL. 2015. “The three careers of an academic”. Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft, discussion paper 35. GOLDE, C. 2005. “The role of department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: lessons from four departments”. Journal of higher education 76/6, 669–700. GOLDSTEIN, J.1984. “Foucault among the sociologists: The ‘disciplines’ and the history of the professions”. History and Theory 23, 170–192. GOLINSKI, G. 1998. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HAGSTROM, W. 1965. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books, Inc. HEILBRON, J. 2004a. “A regime of disciplines: Toward a historical sociology of disciplinary knowledge”. In CAMIC, C. & H. JOAS, The Dialogical Turn. New Roles for Sociology in the
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |37
Postdisciplinary Age. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 23–42. HEILBRON, J. 2004b. “The rise of social science disciplines in France”. Revue Européenne de Sciences Sociales 42/129, 145–157. KLEINMAN, D.L. & S. VALLAS. 2001. “Science, capitalism, and the rise of the ‘knowledge worker’: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States”. Theory and Society 30/4, 2001, 451–492. KLEINMAN, D.L. & S. VALLAS. 2006. “Contradiction in convergence. Universities and industry in the biotechnology field”. In FRICKEL, S. & K. Moore, The New Political Sociology of Science. Institutions, Networks and Power. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 35–62. JACOBS, J. 2014. In Defense of Disciplines. Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. KNORR-CETINA, K. 1982. “Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economics models of science”. Social Studies of Science 12/1, 101–130. KNORR-CETINA, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. LANDECKER, H. & A. PANOFSKI. 2013. “From social structure to gene regulation, and back: A critical introduction to environmental epigenetics for sociology”. Annual Review of Sociology 39, 333–357. LARSON, M. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. LEMAINE, G., R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay & P. Weingart (Eds.). 1977. Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines. Chicago: Aldine. LENOIR, T. 1997. Instituting Science. The Cultural Production of Scientific Disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. LOUVEL, S. 2015. “Effects of interdisciplinarity on disciplines: a study of nanomedicine in France and California”. Revue Française de Sociologie 56/1, 69–97. MACLEOD, R. 1972. "Resources of science in Victorian England: The endowment of science movement, 1868-1900". In MATHIAS, P. (Ed.), Science and society 1600-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111–145. MCLEELAND, C.E. 1991. The German Experience of Professionalization. Modern Learned Professions and their Organizations from the Early Nineteenth Century to the Hitler Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MERTON, R.K. 1973 [1942]. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. MERTON, R. K. 1957, “Some preliminaries to a sociology of medical education”. In MERTON, R. K., G. Reader & P. Kendall (Eds.), The Student Physician. Introductory studies in the sociology of medical education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MERTON, R. K., G. Reader & P. Kendall (Eds.). 1957. The Student Physician. Introductory studies in the sociology of medical education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MERTON, R. K. & A. THACRAY. 1972. “On discipline building: The paradoxes of George Sarton”. Isis 63/4, 472–495. MULLINS, N. 1972. “The development of a scientific specialty: The Phage Group and the origins of molecular biology”. Minerva 10/1, 51–82. NYE, M.J. 1993. From Chemical Philosophy to Theoretical Chemistry. Dynamics of Matter and Dynamics of Discipline–1800-1950. Berkeley: University of California Press. PARSONS, T. 1939. “The professions and social structure”. Social Forces 17/4, 457–467. PORTER, R. 1978. "Gentlemen and geology: The emergence of a scientific career, 1660-1920". 38| M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39
Historical journal xxi, 809–836. PRPIC, K., I. van der WEIJDEN & N. ASHEULOVA (Eds.). 2014. (Re)searching Scientific Careers, Institute for the History of Science and Technology. St Petersburg: Russian Academy of Science. RESKIN, B. 1979. “Academic sponsorship and scientists' careers”. Sociology of Education 52/3, 129–46. SHINN, T. 2002. “Intellectual cohesion and organizational divisions in science”. Revue Française de Sociologie 43, 99–122. SHINN, T. & B. JOERGES. 2002. “The transverse science and technology culture: Dynamics and roles of research-technology”. Social Science Information 41/2, 207–251. SMITH, C. & N. WISE. 1989. Energy and Empire. A biographical study of Lord Kelvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. STICHWEH, R. 1991. Études sur la genèse du système scientifique moderne. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. STICHWEH, R. 1992. “The sociology of scientific disciplines: On the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science”. Science in Context 5-1, 3–15. STICHWEH, R. 2003. “Differentiation of scientific disciplines: Causes and consequences”. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Paris: UNESCO. WEBER, M. 2004 [1919]. The Vocation Lectures. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. WEIDMAN, J. & E. STEIN. 2003. “Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms”. Research in Higher Education 44/6, 641–656. WHITLEY, R. 1976, “Umbrella and polytheistic scientific disciplines and their elites”. Social Studies of Science 6/3-4, 471–497. WILENSKY, H.L. 1964. “The professionalization of everyone?”. American Journal of Sociology 70/2, 137–158. WRIGHT, J.D. (Ed.). 2015. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. ZUCKERMAN, H. 1978. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
M. Dubois / ASp 69 (March 2016) 21–39 |39
Michel Dubois is a CNRS Senior Research Fellow at the Groupe d’Étude des Méthodes de l’Analyse Sociologique de la Sorbonne (GEMASS, Paris Sorbonne University). He teaches and publishes on issues of the sociology of science and technology. His most recent publications address issues at the crossroads between sociology and biomedical research. He is a member of the French National Research Committee and a member of the editorial boards of the European Journal of Sociology and the French Sociological Review. He is the author of Social Dynamics of Biomedical Research. An Actionist Perspective on the Sociology of Science (The Bardwell Press 2012) and co-author of "Stem cells and technoscience: Sociology of the emergence and regulation of a field of biomedical research in France" (Revue Française de Sociologie 53/3, 2012). [email protected]
ASp 69 |41
A proposal to establish epistemological foundations for the study of specialised languages
Proposition pour construire les fondements épistémologiques de l’étude des langues de spécialité
Michel Van der Yeught Aix-Marseille Université, LERMA EA 853
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Intentionality, specialised community, Intentionnalité, communauté spécialisée, specialised encyclopaedia, specialised encyclopédie spécialisée, langue spécialisée, language, specialised pragmatics, specialised pragmatique spécialisée, variété spécialisée variety of English. de l’anglais.
ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ The aim of this paper is to propose L’objectif de cet article est de proposer des epistemological foundations for the study of fondements épistémologiques pour l’étude des specialised languages (SLs) which have gained langues spécialisées (LS) qui gagnent en in global importance over the last sixty years. importance dans le monde depuis soixante In spite of notable advances in the field, the ans. Malgré des avancées notables dans le paper suggests that their theoretical domaine, l’article suggère que leurs foundations remain unsatisfactory and that fondements théoriques restent insatisfaisants objective knowledge on SLs cannot be properly et que du savoir objectif sur les LS ne peut être built, accumulated and passed on to future correctement construit, accumulé et transmis teachers. It proposes not to found the domain aux futurs enseignants. Il propose de fonder le on language, but on the notion of domaine non sur le langage, mais sur la notion specialisation which it interprets as a form of de spécialisation qu’il interprète comme une philosophical intentionality. From this premise, forme d’intentionnalité philosophique. De ces developments examine specialised domains, prémisses, des développements successifs communities and languages and capitalise on traitent des domaines, des communautés et the advances of pragmatics to account for the des langues spécialisés et utilisent les avancées functionality of SLs. On these foundations, de la linguistique pragmatique pour rendre methodical descriptions of SLs are expected to compte de la fonctionnalité des LS. Sur ces be built and disciplinary knowledge structured. fondements, il est espéré que des descriptions . méthodiques des LS pourront être construites et le savoir disciplinaire structuré.
42| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
Introduction In this paper, I propose to establish epistemological foundations for the study of specialised languages (SLs). Specialised languages, e.g. financial English, legal German or medical Spanish, have gained in global importance over the last sixty years as an increasing number of non-linguists have to use them in their professional or research activities. Among them, the demand for English stands ahead in most fields, especially in scientific, business and technical domains. Studies on these SLs have also developed in proportion and the number of teaching and research papers has sharply increased lately all over the world. In spite of numerous notable advances and useful propositions in the field, this paper suggests that their epistemological foundations remain shaky and that the study of SLs does not yet form a structured domain of scientific research. The main problem to be solved lies in the puzzling relationship that SLs establish between the language and their “specialities” or specialised domains. This issue has been identified long ago, ever since the study of SLs emerged, but it does not seem to have been addressed thoroughly enough to provide solid foundations for research in the area. The paper first examines why available definitions and approaches of SLs fall short of expectations in providing a satisfactory building ground on which their study could be established. Because of the global reach of English in many professional and research activities, a special focus is put on “English for Specific Purposes” (ESP), the generally accepted umbrella name given to the study of “specialised Englishes” in English-speaking countries. In this part, I show that most perceptions of SLs characterise them by the circumstantial conditions of communications where they are used and I argue that these approaches, although true in their observations of these language phenomena, cannot deliver what would be necessary to develop a robust scientific field of knowledge. From these developments, I draw the conviction that the general linguistic angle of approach should be reversed and that the organising principle of a theory of SLs should not be found in language but in the notion of specialisation. In the second part, I develop this premise and I suggest that specialisation can be interpreted as a form of philosophical intentionality. Hence, I progressively derive interconnected descriptions of specialised domains, specialised communities and specialised languages. The third part, devoted to a study of the functionality of SLs, shows that much in the pragmatic approach to linguistics is relevant to distinguish specialised from general language. The notion of “specialised encyclopaedia” is proposed to account for the competence of interpreting coded specialised messages in social and historical contexts. The discussion section examines the debatable character of the theory, the issue of the amount and nature of specialised knowledge to be mastered by teachers, and the legitimate use of specialised fiction (FASP). The ultimate purpose of the paper is to pave the way for methodical descriptions of SLs and to structure disciplinary knowledge for transmission to future generations of teachers and scholars. M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |43
1. Local conditions and objective knowledge on specialised languages 1.1. Approaching the nature of specialised languages from circumstantial communicative conditions Specialised languages have received many definitions over the years. Yet, the ones we generally come across approach these languages from the circumstantial conditions where they are used for communication. They are characterised by who uses them (specialists), when they are used (in specialised communication), and why they are used (to convey specialised information). The two following definitions broadly exemplify these “conditional” approaches. SLs are characterised by the “sphere of communication”, “the subjects” conveyed, the “intentions” of the actors and the “conditions” of use: Specialised languages: a generic phrase describing languages used in communication situations (oral or written) which imply the transmission of information that pertains to a particular field of experience. (Galisson & Coste 1976: 511; my translation) By LSP [Languages for Specific Purposes] we understand a complete set of linguistic phenomena occurring within a definite sphere of communication and limited by specific subjects, intentions, and conditions. (Hoffmann 1979: 16) Similarly, the following definitions exemplify characterisation by users and purposes: Special languages, or more precisely special subject languages, are usually thought of as the means of expression of highly qualified subject specialists like engineers, physicians, lawyers, etc. and are often derogatively referred to as ‘jargon’: The fact that humbler occupations like nursing, book-keeping and cooking and even hobbies also involve special areas of human interest and therefore also require and indeed have their own special languages is much less often acknowledged. (Sager et al. 1980: 3) [specialised languages] are the basic instruments of communication among specialists. Terminology is the major aspect which differentiates specialised languages from the general language but also the different specialised languages. (Cabré 1998: 90; my translation) A French expert in SLs, Pierre Lerat, also illustrates this circumstantial approach. He defines an SL as a “natural language regarded as a carrier of specialised knowledge” (1995: 20); as “the use of a natural language to account for specialised knowledge” (1995: 20–21); and as “a language in a situation of professional use” (1995: 21; 1997: 1; my translations). Similarly ESP features this circumstantial approach. In The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes published in 2013, a work of reference for the ESP community (hereafter The Handbook), ESP is defined by its conditions of use as “the teaching and learning of English as a second or foreign language where the goal of the learners is to use English in a particular domain” (Paltridge & Starfield 2013: 2). Yet, 44| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
compared with other approaches, ESP has taken this conditional logic particularly far by developing sophisticated methods to take circumstantial determinations into account in order to adapt language learning and teaching as closely as possible to learners’ needs. Indeed, refined needs analyses detail the conditional requirements of language teaching and learning and are the building blocks on which language specificity is based. While I readily admit that these definitions and approaches aptly describe the phenomena of SLs when they are put to communicative use, I think that their capacity to characterise SLs’ core nature as an object of knowledge is not satisfactory from an epistemological point of view. More explicitly, the “specialised” nature of SLs, i.e. the central feature by which they differ from general languages, seems to me ill-defined if its characterisation only derives from the circumstances where these languages are used. To clarify this objection, I turn to an Austrian epistemological philosopher, Karl Popper, and make use of his theory of the three worlds. 1.2. Popper’s three worlds and the study of specialised languages as objective knowledge Karl Popper (1902–1994) developed his theory of the three worlds in various works, including chapters of Objective Knowledge (1994 [1972]) and his Tanner Lecture, Three Worlds, delivered at the University of Michigan in 1978. He argues that three different orders of reality, which he calls “three worlds”, coexist: […] the first is the physical world or the world of physical states; the second is the mental world or the world of mental states; the third is the world of intelligibles or the world of ideas in the objective sense […]. (1994: 154; Popper’s italics) In Popper’s view, the three worlds are largely autonomous although world 2 stems from world 1, and world 3 from world 2. However, one of the crucial differences between worlds 2 and 3 is that world 2 mental states are attached to people and their real life experience whereas world 3 knowledge is “exosomatic” (1994: 120), i.e. it comprises abstractions which exist outside people’s bodies. Popper calls them “knowledge without a knowing subject” or “objective knowledge” or “objective thought content” (1994: 109, 111, 156). On the other hand, world 2 knowledge remains attached to people’s “thought processes”, i.e. to particular subjects. Popper calls it “knowledge in the subjective sense” (1978: 156): I suggest that we must distinguish between world 2 thought processes and world 3 thought contents. The thought processes are concrete, in the sense that they happen to certain people on certain occasions; at a certain place and at a certain time. (1978: 160) Popper’s theory helps us to understand the limited relevance of characterising SLs by the circumstances where they occur. These determinations place them in the second world of subjective knowledge because they remain attached to their local conditions of existence. In other words, if an SL only appears when specialists communicate, the presence of these specialists is a prerequisite for the language to
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |45
exist; and it fails to exist when no specialist uses it. The same demonstration applies to the various external circumstances that are selected to characterise SLs: sphere of communication, conditions of use, intentions, etc. If they are only defined by their conditions of use, SLs cannot exist autonomously as world 3 objects of study. This observation emphatically applies to the linguistic knowledge produced by ESP. It is purposefully aimed at real learners and is designed to meet real needs. It is clearly based on concrete world 2 thought processes which develop in certain life contexts. The increasing sophistication of needs analyses to adjust teaching accurately to the requirements of learners only roots the resulting knowledge deeper into world 2 and further from world 3. Indeed, the more specific the needs, the more particular the answers and the more subjective the knowledge. Although English for engineering or accounting clearly serve engineering and accounting “specialities”, the very choice of “specific” instead of “specialised” in the name “English for ‘Specific’ Purposes” deliberately anchors the resulting knowledge in world 2 and precludes the development of world 3 knowledge in SLs. I readily admit that, as a consequence of this conditional approach, ESP has produced an impressive amount of valuable second world teaching knowledge to meet learners’ needs: for example in English for business, medical or legal purposes. However, this need-driven knowledge has not been consolidated nor generalised along more abstract notional lines to produce world 3 knowledge that could be accumulated and passed on to future teachers and scholars. As far as I know, there are no methodical descriptions of legal or medical English available for study by would-be practitioners and researchers. As recently as 2013, Diane Belcher recognised in The Handbook that knowledge building and transmission for ESP teachers remain inadequate: What we do know about the education of those interested in specific-purpose- driven teaching is that there is little preparatory course-work available. Very few programs in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), applied linguistics, or language education offer ESP as an area of specialization, though relatively more provide elective classes in the ESP approach. Given the limited formal ESP pre-service options, it is no surprise that ESP professional education has not been a popular research topic [...]. (2013: 544) In a strikingly prescient way, John Swales provided a similar critical analysis of ESP’s conditional and local short-termism in a 1983 plenary lecture. Remarkably, he developed a logic akin to Popper’s worlds 2 and 3: Yet, despite 20 years’ work in ESP and despite the large number of descriptions and discussions of its theory and practice, ESP practitioners in my experience tend to ignore the past. [They] are concerned with the ‘here and now’ of their own working situation; in general, they do not look across to see what other people in similar situations are doing and they do not look back to see what people in their own or other situations have done. […] By locking ourselves into the ‘here and now’ there are lessons that are not learnt, there are insights that are not gained and there are short cuts that are not made. […] At this point, it may be objected that such historical information is of little 46| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
value to the hard-pressed ESP practitioner. However, I would answer this objection by suggesting that background knowledge is useful, perhaps even necessary, if we are to distinguish local solutions from general conceptual developments […]. (1983: 2–3: Swales’s italics) It is clear that the notions of ‘here and now’ and ‘local solutions’ point to a Popperian-like second world while his “general conceptual developments” hint at some world 3 of a more objective type of knowledge. The passage “there are lessons that are not learnt, there are insights that are not gained and there are short cuts that are not made” means, as I see it, that tailoring language teaching to ever more specific needs makes it hard to generalise and consolidate teaching experience, and that this approach leads to knowledge fragmentation and hampers conceptual knowledge building. Diane Belcher’s 2013 remark shows that Swales’s concerns largely remain valid today. The lack of accumulation and transmission of objective knowledge in ESP should be a cause of worry for the academic community because it does not fit properly with what is generally understood by scientific progress: scientists share results which can then be transmitted to new generations to be criticised and improved over the years. The issue is also a problem in the many countries that suffer from a shortage of qualified ESP teachers and scholars. Teaching the learners fully justifies world 2 approaches to SLs; on the other hand, teaching the teachers and scholars justifies a world 3 approach. If objective knowledge in specialised languages cannot be adequately built on the circumstances surrounding specialisation, it follows that it has to be built on its essence, i.e. specialisation described as a world 3 Popperian object, independently from local circumstances. This is what I tentatively propose to do in the following section.
2. Describing specialisation as objective knowledge 2.1. Specialisation as a form of philosophical intentionality The concept of specialisation has already been addressed by disciplines such as economics (firms specialise in their activities to be more competitive) and adaptive zoology (species specialise to adapt and survive), but more rarely as the general and human philosophical notion we need to clarify in order to make sense of SLs. I hypothesise that human specialisation is a mental state that entails some type of relationship between the human mind and the world. Further, I suggest that the nature of this relationship is best approached as a specific form of “intentionality” in the philosophical sense of the word – distinct from ordinary intentions as in “I intend to apply for a scholarship this year”. Philosophical intentionality has been extensively studied by John R. Searle (1983, 2004) who defines it as “that capacity of the mind by which mental states refer to, or are about, or are of objects and states of affairs in the world other than themselves”, as for example when I think of the sun or that Caesar crossed the Rubicon (2004: 19, 112; see also 1983: 1). He calls it “the directedness or aboutness of the mind” (2004: 3) and underlines that intentionality always comes with an
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |47
aspectual shape. In other words, “intentional states, like beliefs and desires, represent the world under some aspects and not others” (2004: 65, 117). For example, some person may refer to a liquid we drink as “water” while another may refer to the same thing as “H2O”. As a rule, intentional states are rather fleeting mental dispositions, but if a person selects one object for focused and durable reference under the same particular aspectual shape, this disposition may be called a “specialised” type of intentionality because the mind forms a selective, concentrated and durable “directedness” when referring to a particular object in the world. Searle writes that “intending, in the ordinary sense in which I intend to go to the movies tonight, is just one kind of intentionality among others along with belief, hope, fear, desire and perception” (2004: 19). Similarly, I suggest that specialisation also is one such kind of intentionality. Searle then explains that intentional states relate to the world in different ways, generally under the forms of beliefs or desires. If a person believes that an object is as it is, he develops a mental state which fits or does not fit the world, depending on whether his belief is right or wrong. Searle calls it a “mind-to-world direction of fit” because the mind tries to adapt to the reality of the world. On the other hand, he calls a desire “a world-to-mind direction of fit” since the mind aims at making the world match the content of the intentional state (1983: 8; 2004: 118). He also identifies a “null direction of fit” when no belief or desire is expressed (as when I am sorry that I stepped on your foot or when I am glad that the sun is shining) because a fitting relation is presupposed instead of believed or desired. The difference between the two former directions of fit and the null one is that the former contain their conditions of satisfaction: the belief is satisfied or succeeds if it is true, it fails if it is false; the desire is fulfilled if it gets reality to match the intentional state, or dissatisfied if not. Null directions of fit, on the other hand, have no conditions of satisfaction because no belief or desire is expressed (2004: 118–119). From these considerations, we can derive the idea that “specialised intentionality” is a durable form of intentional state where focusing on one particular object under one single aspect is motivated by specific beliefs and desires and their conditions of satisfaction. The mind concentrates on the object because it develops about it cognitive and volitive mental states which aim at being satisfied. Conversely, null directions of fit seem to be alien to the specialisation process since no aim at knowing the object and no desire to act on it is expressed. Hence, it appears that cognitive and volitive mental states form the “purpose” of specialised intentionality which is either to know more about the object or to make it match our desires. As I see it, these two processes, (1) focusing durably on one object under one aspectual shape and (2) developing a cognitive and/or volitive purpose about it, describe the elementary and structural components of specialisation independently from local circumstances. Searle complements his description of intentionality by writing that “intentional states do not in general come in isolated units”, they come attached to other intentional states: 48| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
If I believe, for example, that it is raining, I cannot just have that feeling in isolation. I must believe for example that rain consists of drops of water, that these fall out of the sky, that they generally go down not up, that they make the ground wet, [...] and so on more or less indefinitely. [...] [I]n general it seems that the belief that it is raining is only the belief that it is because of its position in a network of beliefs and other intentional states. (2004: 121; Searle’s italics) Furthermore, intentional states also presuppose certain capacities which are not intentional states themselves, but which are necessary for intentionality to exist at all. Searle calls them “the Background” (1983: 141–159): If you follow out the threads of the network, you eventually reach a set of abilities, ways of coping with the world, dispositions and capacities generally that I collectively call the “Background”. [...] I hold the controversial thesis that intentional states in general require a background of non-intentional capacities in order to function at all. (2004: 121) The following sections will show how specialised intentional states similarly require networks of intentionality and background abilities to function. 2.2. From individual to collective specialised intentionality Intentionality, as presented by Searle, describes the mental state of individual minds, and we can indeed observe that individual persons develop specific forms of specialised intentionality when they “specialise” in some form of durable activity, passion, hobby or interest. Yet, the minds of such individual specialists rarely develop SLs and we are principally interested in “collective” forms of specialisation from which SLs may emerge. When many minds share an identical type of specialised intentionality and all durably focus on the same object under the same aspect, a collective form of specialised intentionality develops. History provides noteworthy instances of transitions from individual to collective intentionalities when pioneering individual intentionalities turn into collective ones after being adopted by many followers. For example, the intense private interests of Carl von Linné for plants and of Frederick W. Taylor for worker effectiveness can be seen as individual specialised intentionalities that came to be shared by many and evolved into collective ones (and eventually into specialised fields in their own right, respectively modern botany and scientific management). If we now pause to relate these advances to Popper’s theory of the three worlds, it appears that specialised intentionalities, whether individual or collective, belong in his second world of subjective mental states because they stem from the real minds of real people. In that respect however, an interesting refinement to Popper’s theory is proposed by Geoffrey Leech and it may help us to gain in analytical accuracy. While admitting much in Popper’s approach, Leech suggests that Popper’s world 2 should be broken into two distinct worlds, namely a world of mental individual subjective objects or states (which becomes world 2) and a world of societal objects and states (world 3; my italics), thus making of Popper’s world 3 a fourth world (Leech 1983: 51–56). Leech’s argument is that “the missing link, in
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |49
Popper’s evolutionary epistemology, is a world of societal facts (or what Searle had called ‘institutional facts’) intervening between the second (subjective) and his third (objective) worlds” (1983: 51). Leech goes on justifying this new world 3: This is no longer a subjective world, but rather an intersubjective one, for as the triangulation performed by more than one observer can establish the location of some observed object, so a number of individuals from the same social group can mutually confirm the meaning of some phenomenon which is external to all of them. (1983: 51; Leech’s italics) Using Leech’s framework, we may infer that individual specialised intentionalities belong in the second world of individual subjective states and that collective intersubjective ones belong in world 3. Leech’s valuable distinction paves the way for the idea that collective forms of specialised intentionalities may morph into specialised social groups. 2.3. From collective specialised intentionalities to specialised domains via specialised communities Popper (1994 [1972]: 119–120) and Leech (1983: 48–56) show how language plays a major role in the constitution of the different worlds they identify. Popper explains that the expressive and signalling functions of language contribute to the development of subjective knowledge. To this, Leech adds that intersubjective communication confirms the meaning of phenomena within social groups and accounts for the formation of institutions: On the basis of such confirmed communicative values, there may arise social institutions such as ownership, marriage, rights, obligations: these ‘institutional facts’ could not exist outside a world in which the signalling function of communication has established a reality beyond the individual. The intersubjective world of social facts in turn becomes the prerequisite of the descriptive function of language. Concepts of reference, truth, and falsity could not exist outside a social world in which individuals can share and compare their descriptions of reality. (1983: 51) Similarly, I suggest that language contributes to the development of social specialisation. Its expressive and signalling functions enable individuals to share with others their singular intentional states, their related interacting networks of intentional states and their background abilities (as detailed in section 2.1). Interpersonal communication then helps these persons to combine their related interests into collective forms of specialisation. For example, an intentional state focusing on “sick people” develops in an interacting network of other intentional states. These may contain the beliefs that sick people have bodies (and skeletons, brains, muscles, nerves, breathing, digestive and reproductive organs...) and that they suffer from injuries (and germs, poisonous plants, cold weather...). These states may also contain the desires to cure (and relieve, comfort, find treatment...). Additionally, many background abilities combine to contribute to the satisfaction of these beliefs and desires: abilities to observe, diagnose, operate, advise; together with, for instance, the abilities to communicate with colleagues and to write... These interrelated and complementary intentionalities and abilities are distributed among 50| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
the members of the group depending on their personal inclinations and capacities. They converge on the satisfaction of one common purpose – e.g. cure sick people or preserve health – and form both a complex and homogeneous specialised community of doctors, surgeons, pharmacists, anatomists, etc. The resulting social institution is what we may call a medical community. The same demonstration may be proposed for other fields such as law, engineering, banking, from which similar specialised communities may emerge... When the predominant intentional state is a mind-to-world direction of fit, the cognitive purpose of specialisation aims at the development of knowledge and produces disciplinary or scientific communities. When world-to-mind directions of fit dominate, volition-driven specialised action and practice prevail and form professional communities. As a rule, specialisation processes combine beliefs and desires in varied proportions: medical, legal or banking specialists all need a mix of knowledge and practice to satisfy the purpose of their specialisation. As Michel Petit explains in detail, these specialised groups organise the way they operate. Particularly, they regulate their activities and the way they train new entrants in the group (2010: 10). However, specialised communities will produce subjective knowledge as long as it remains attached to the mental representations of their members. They will generate objective knowledge solely when they produce linguistic propositions which are “exosomatic” to them (Popper 1994: 120), i.e. independent from their members’ bodies and minds. Although objective knowledge stems from mental intentional states, it becomes autonomous from them thanks to the higher functions of language – description and argumentation (Popper 1994: 119) – and can thus form fully-fledged specialised domains. In specialised domains, the beliefs and desires of singular men turn into abstract purposes which transcend the specialised communities determined by time and space that have generated them. The final purpose of the specialised domain of medicine is to cure sick men and preserve health, whether in ancient Greece, traditional China, Renaissance Europe or modern America. That is the reason why I do not follow Petit’s definition of specialised domains: [...] we shall call specialised domain any sector of society built around and with the aim of exercising one main activity which, by its nature, its purpose and its specific modalities, together with the specific competences it puts into play among its actors, defines the recognisable place of this sector within society and among a set of other sectors, and determines its specific composition and organisation. (2010: 9; my translation) While I accept much in this definition, I take issue with its major proposition that specialised domains are “sectors of society”. As far as I can see, Petit describes “specialised communities” and not “specialised domains”. Leech’s theory of the four worlds indicates that specialised domains (world 4) cannot be social actors (world 3) because their knowledge would be inseparable from them and so remain subjective. Indeed, considering that a domain is made of people would be a throwback to the medieval trade corporations where knowledge was transmitted by word of mouth down from masters to companions and apprentices. At that time,
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |51
“domains” were indeed social because they were inseparable from those who mastered them. Scientific advances in the 17th century and the great encyclopaedias of the 18th century put paid to this “knowledge with knowing subjects” by carrying out mass transfers of subjective knowledge to the objective world, thus paving the way for the development of our modern specialised domains. Similarly, I posit that a domain is not primarily characterised by “one main activity”, but by its purpose. Purposes are the original raison d’être of specialised domains because cognitive and volitive specialised intentional states determine activities and not the other way around. Activities are largely subject to time and space determinations and remain attached to persons while purposes transcend local situations and are better suited to the establishment of objective knowledge. Specialised domains are not social in nature, they are sets of knowledge and/or practices which have become independent from their originators and are harnessed to the service of one particular purpose or set of purposes. Specialised domains represent the highest stage of the specialisation process where the higher functions of language, description and argumentation, contribute to the emergence of the idea of truth which is a description that fits the facts and which may be criticised (Popper 1994: 120). In that respect, the invention of writing has proven decisive to develop the argumentative function of language and to create world 4 (Leech) or world 3 (Popper) objects: [I]t is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that the argumentative function of language could not have developed its full potential until the invention of writing. Without the means to record linguistic messages, so that addressers and addresses can be widely separated in time and space, it is difficult to conceive of the existence of ‘objective knowledge’ in Popper’s sense, i.e. knowledge which exists independently of any knower. Popper’s examples of such knowledge (e.g. mathematical knowledge, knowledge stored in libraries, scientific knowledge) all presuppose a written medium. (Leech 1983: 53) A specialised domain is therefore the autonomous linguistic and generally written expression of a complex intentional universe. It is made of focused and durable intentional states, their related intentional networks and background abilities that combine and interact to satisfy their beliefs and desires. To shorten the definition, I propose that specialised domains are sets of knowledge and practice which transcend their originators and are harnessed to the service of one particular purpose. 52| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
3. From specialised domains to specialised languages 3.1. Subjecting communication to purpose Among the background abilities that enable specialised domains to function, we find the capacity to create and use semiotic systems to convey meaning among specialised communities. They express the domain in signs in order to serve its purpose. For example, such systems include symbols (the asklepian is the symbol of medicine, a pair of scales represents the law, anchors indicate navies, wings air forces...) and professional attire (military uniforms, legal and academic attire...). Yet, the most sophisticated of these semiotic systems is language and it specialises when it loads itself with the specialised intentional states of the domain. An SL is an “intentionalised” form of a natural language that puts its communicative function at the service of the purpose of the domain among specialised communities. In that respect, most scholars in the field think that the foremost function of languages for specific purposes is to enable communication. They share Ken Hyland’s view that “ESP itself steadfastly concerns itself with communication” (Hyland 2013: 96). As I see it, SLs have no purely communicative functions. They are background abilities that subject communication to the purposes of the domains. Engineers communicate when they discuss the weather, but when they work to contribute to the conditions of satisfaction of engineering beliefs and desires, they use English for engineering. Specialised languages need not be highly technical or abstruse to qualify as such, the major criterion is that their communicative capacities are not deployed for communication’s sake, but are harnessed to the service of the purpose of the domain. Searle clearly explains that the intentionality of the mind cannot be explained by the intentionality of language: Language is derived from Intentionality and not conversely. The direction of pedagogy is to explain Intentionality in terms of language; the direction of logical analysis is to explain language in terms of Intentionality. (1983: 5) The intentionality of language has to be explained in terms of the intentionality of the mind and not conversely. [...] The meaning of language is derived intentionality and it has to be derived from the original intentionality of the mind. (2004: 113) This is emphatically the case for specialised languages and, for instance, the “discourse communities” carefully described by Swales (1990: 21–29) are indeed discourse communities because they are specialised communities in the first place. They have to share a collective set of intentionalities and their conditions of satisfaction to develop a common discourse. Swales presumably implies as much since his first criterion to characterise a discourse community is “a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (1990: 24; my italics); the communicative criterion (“mechanisms of intercommunication among its members”) only takes second place (1990: 25). I fully agree with him when he specifies: It is commonality of the goal, not shared objects of study that is criterial, even if the former often subsumes the latter. But not always. The fact that the shared object of study is, say, the Vatican, does not imply that students of the
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |53
Vatican in history departments, the Kremlin, dioceses, birth control agencies and liberation theology seminars form a discourse community. (1990: 25) The purpose served by the specialised community is of course a major determining factor, but Swales underplays the criterial importance of objects of study because he does not take into account the “aspectual shape” of the object, and that intentionality first requires an object to develop beliefs and desires. So, if a community first specialises in a shared object of study under the same aspectual shape, it is highly likely that it will share a common purpose (or goal or objective) and that it will form a discourse community. For example, if Kremlin specialists, historians and liberation theory seminars all decide to study the Vatican under the aspectual shape of a historical phenomenon, they will presumably share the same beliefs and desires about it and are likely to form a discourse community, even if the practical probabilities of them ever working together are scant. In the last analysis, the fact that communication is subject to specialised purpose in SLs provides the rationale for founding the domain on specialisation and not on language. If indeed, “the philosophy of language is a branch of the philosophy of the mind” (Searle 1983: vii), the epistemological foundations of SLs are to be found in intentionality rather than in communication. 3.2. The social dimension of specialised languages Studying SLs implies studying the relationships they establish between Leech’s world 4 objects (specialised domains) and world 3 ones (specialised communities). Because specialised communities are composed of the “bodies” of their members (Popper 1994: 120), they are subject to the physical determinations of world 1. Among these determinations are space and time. Thus, the geographical distribution of languages generates linguistic specialised communities (e.g. English- speaking lawyers who use a specialised variety of English [SVE], legal English). Moreover, the political structuration of human space generates national specialised communities (i.e. Canadian lawyers). These two space factors rarely frame the same territories and national specialised communities may comprise two or more linguistic communities (Canadian lawyers may speak English or French). Conversely, linguistic specialised communities may comprise several national ones (English- speaking lawyers may be British [including the sub-groups of English and Scottish lawyers], American, Australian, etc.). These distinctions matter because languages and nations have cultural idiosyncrasies which may shape intentional states and the resulting specialised domains. Certain domains develop background abilities to avoid these cultural influences because, for example, their purpose aims at building culture-proof universal knowledge. This is generally the case for hard sciences that have generalised the use of formalised languages such as mathematics so that their various linguistic and national communities may communicate without cultural distortions in meaning. On the other hand, some domains are highly culture- sensitive. A case in point is English common law which only develops in English- speaking countries and within the English language. In that respect, a general theorem may be proposed that the culture sensitivity of a domain and of its related 54| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
language is inversely proportional to its universality. For example, serving the purpose of a highly mathematical domain such as nuclear physics is theoretically insensitive to the language or the nationality of its specialised communities. Conversely, a domain such as accounting remains fairly culture-sensitive as outlooks and practices may differ widely among national communities, with significant influences on language. The feedback cultural influence of specialised domains and languages on countries is also of interest in SL studies. Some domains have deeply influenced certain nations’ cultures and civilisations and have made their idiom the language of choice to approach the domain. For example, musicians have long enriched the cultural identity of Italy and have given the Italian language its prominence in the domain. As far as the temporal determination is concerned, it implies that SLs, as all human phenomena, have a historical dimension. In that respect, the main drawback of needs analysis in ESP is that learners’ needs are generally today’s needs; sometimes tomorrow’s, but never yesterday’s. Thus, while ESP has a history of its own, the needs-analysis paradigm generally opens up to synchronicity. Yet, common experience indicates that SLs have a life of their own, that some appear as mature (e.g. medical English, legal English) while others seem younger (e.g. IT English) and that many emerge every year. As a rule, most SLs start as (Leech’s) world 3 objects because they are simply the way members of a community communicate with each other in habitual specialised conversation. At that stage, members are generally more concerned with the final purpose of the domain than with its expression in language, and their awareness that a specialised language exists may take decades or centuries. Yet, there comes a time when some languages specialise out of general conversation and the need for specialised word-books, glossaries and dictionaries appears. In itself, this dictionarisation process does not produce an SL, but it is one of the clear signs that one is in the making. Specialised dictionaries play a crucial role in transferring SLs from world 3 to world 4. Specialised words and expressions leave world 3 of personal interchange and access the world 4 status of objective knowledge. Thanks to a specialised dictionary, a complete outsider may start to learn the language of a specialised community on his own, however exclusive it may be. Objectors may argue that specialised lexis is only a small part of SVEs. This is a fair point, but we must bear in mind that, beyond their singular meaning, specialised words also convey a lot about the directness of the domain, its intentionality, its objects and their aspectual shapes and its related background abilities. Studies in the diachronic dimension of SLs and in the historical developments of specialised dictionaries are still rare (Charpy 2011: 25– 42), but they should be encouraged as part of a methodical study of SLs. 3.3. The functional dimension of specialised languages 3.3.1. The pragmatic analysis of specialised functionality Because specialised languages serve the purposes of domains, they are functional in essence. What is meant by a functional explanation? It means explaining why a given phenomenon occurs, by showing what its contribution is to a larger system of
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |55
which it is itself a sub-system. As far as language is concerned, a functional theory is one which defines language as a form of communication, and therefore is concerned with showing how language works within the larger systems of human society. Talk of purpose, ends goals, plans also presupposes functionalism. (Leech 1983: 48) Leech’s explanation neatly accounts for the case of SLs. Yet, it is applied to general language and an enduring question in the field bears on the difference between general language and specialised languages. Catherine Resche wonders about the “frontiers between general and specialised language” and asks “at what point can we say that a language is specialised and what criteria can we use?” (2001: 37; my translation). I try to address the issue by resorting to an example. Suppose sentence [1]: [1] There are many bears in New York and London zoos; but in 2007-08 the most dangerous bears were in Wall Street and in the City. The casual reader basically understands what the sentence says, but remains unsure as to what it means, especially in the passage following “but in 2007-08”: bears in zoos are familiar but not in financial centres. Nothing in the grammar of the sentence hints at specialisation and general semantics does not really help. We find ourselves in a situation where the conceptual arsenal of pragmatics is of great help (see Leech 1983: 35–45, 13–14, 176). Interpretation here presumably involves the “context of the utterance” and takes the form of a “problem-solving” exercise. The addressee’s task is to understand the “goal of the utterance”, i.e. the meaning intended by the addresser. The interpretation process takes a “heuristic form” in that the addressee must use a trial-and-error method to form hypotheses and check them against available evidence. Eventually, among likely hypotheses, one will tentatively connect “bear” with Wall Street and the City, and scrutinising the “specialised” entry for bear in an advanced reader’s dictionary will reveal that it is a pessimistic investor who expects to speculate on falling prices (“Compare bull”). This decoding key will be found fairly “felicitous” as it introduces some consistency in meaning. The correct interpretation of this single word is enough to tip the utterance over from general to specialised language. It summons the whole intentional universe of stock market finance which intervenes as an overall “presupposition” (Grice 1991: 269–282) which pre-determines interpretation. In general English, Wall Street and the City could be places of tourist interest just like the zoos mentioned in the passage. Here, they definitely represent the specialised communities where “bear” makes sense and they confirm that the talk-exchange is taking place in the specialised domain of the stock market. In order to understand the utterance, the addressee must cooperate with the addresser, i.e. resort to the “cooperative principle” (Grice ibid.: 28–31; Leech ibid.: 79). Here, cooperating means accepting the specialised domain of stock market finance as the relevant “context of the utterance”. In doing so, the addressee has access to the “purpose” of the utterance or what is called the “illocutionary point” in pragmatics (Searle & Vanderveken 1985: 13–15). This illocutionary point conveys the beliefs and/or desires of the addresser within the domain’s intentional universe, which means that it stems from the 56| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
purpose of the domain and is itself specialised. 3.3.2. Introducing the notion of specialised implicature At that stage, the addressee is able to form a broadly satisfactory interpretation of the utterance, but why financial “bears” can happen to be more dangerous than their plantigrade namesakes remains unclear. Further trial-and-error research in the “context of the utterance” (i.e. the domain, the specialised community, the related background abilities together with space and time factors) reveals that “bears” often resort to short-selling techniques to make money on falling prices and that these speculative methods have repeatedly been perceived as dangerous by stock market authorities and often banned as a result. The fact that financial “bears” may be as dangerous as wild beasts is therefore “implied” in the utterance and may be analysed as a specialised form of “conventional implicature” (i.e. directly derived from the meaning of the words as opposed to “conversational implicature”; see Grice ibid.: 25–26 and Leech ibid.: 11). Specialised implicature is common in SLs and can be analysed in pragmatic terms. 3.3.3. Introducing the notion of specialised encyclopaedia A final question has to be addressed: why were bears particularly dangerous in 2007-08? Further contextual trial-and-error research identifies these years as the climax of the subprime crisis when short-selling bears made fortunes on the death throes of prominent investment banks and precipitated their downfall (e.g. Bear Stearns in 2007 and Lehman Brothers in 2008). So much so that short-selling was regarded as a serious threat to the survival of the financial markets by the American and British authorities and was temporarily banned at the time. The analytical outcome is that an apparently unspecialised sentence yields a highly-specialised meaning and requires a highly-specialised interpretation. If the addressee fails to cooperate with the addresser, his likely answer will remain general, puzzled and external to the intentional universe of the domain; something like [2]: [2] Really? I did not know there were bears in Wall Street and in the City. Conversely, if he can cooperate, his answer will probably be highly specialised as in [3]: [3] Quite so. John Paulson and his friends nearly finished western market finance at the time. Answer [3] bears little apparent connection with the addresser’s surface formulation in [1]. While [2] is a reply to what [1] says, [3] is a reply to its pure meaning, the specialised illocutionary force of the utterance. Now, [3] suggests that the felicitous interpretation of [1] implies some prior knowledge that the addressee shares with the addresser. Vijay K. Bathia insists on the role played by prior knowledge that enables insiders to understand specialised messages. He calls it “specific disciplinary cultures”, “prior knowledge of disciplinary or institutional conventions”, “existing knowledge” or “pre-knowledge” (2004: 186–188). Here, prior knowledge is both linguistic – it successfully uses the language game “bear (animal)/bear (speculator)” – and extralinguistic – it is able to connect the language game to an aspect of the specialised domain and to history. Referential connections
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |57
of this type are unpredictable and potentially infinite. Language actors cooperate successfully when they can adapt their prior knowledge to the countless contextual requirements of interpretation. I suggest that the competence to make successful interpretive use of such connections is “encyclopaedic” in nature as it may draw from an infinite amount of knowledge. I borrow the notion of “encyclopaedia” from Umberto Eco (1986: 68–86) and from Jean-Jacques Lecercle (1990: 140; 1999: 202–204, 211) and I suggest it might be adapted to specialised domains. Eco contrasts dictionaries, which merely apply semantic labels to words, with encyclopaedic knowledge which is required every time a given text is to be interpreted. In the interpretive process, encyclopaedic knowledge operates as a set of instructions that properly insert textual elements in their relevant contexts and achieve the correct disambiguation of terms (1986: 68). It feeds on structured knowledge and culture but is different from both. It represents the infinite potentialities of interpretive processes that can relate any element to any other in any imaginable order. In 1990 and 1999, a French literature and linguistics scholar, Jean-Jacques Lecercle, revisited Eco’s concept of encyclopaedia to adapt it more closely to literary interpretation. Yet his elaborations fittingly accommodate specialised domains. For Lecercle, encyclopaedias “provide contextual meaning and deal with pragmatic interpretation” (1990: 140). They are linked to sets of contexts, that is, to cultures, and to sets of beliefs and knowledge held by speech communities or social (religious, ethnic, professional...) subparts of them. They provide “the link between the abstract system of language and the extralinguistic, not so much ‘the world’ itself as the lived and partly structured world of a culture”. They offer a capacity to understand historical hints and allusions. They are naturally diachronic and use figures of speech like metaphors and language games (1999: 202–204, 211). Following Eco and Lecercle, I propose that the “pre-knowledge” required to interpret coded specialised discourse is similarly encyclopaedic and that specialised domains and languages contain specialised encyclopaedias that facilitate interpretations. 3.4. Concluding on the difference between general and specialised language The likely answer to Catherine Resche’s question is that the difference between general and specialised language lies in the intentional universe that is conveyed by the discourse. Once the intentionality and its purpose are specialised, the language expresses the related domain and serves its purpose. In [1], one single word (“bear”) expresses financial specialisation, but it is enough to contaminate the whole utterance and harness its illocutionary force to serve the purpose of the domain. It follows that the frontiers between general and specialised language are mostly porous. Since specialisation does not automatically result from the complexity or abstruseness of the language surface, nor from the quantity of the technical words used in the discourse, the same utterance may accommodate an infinity of specialised domains or, indeed, specialised and non-specialised language. The only condition is that context-shift indicators facilitate the passage from one 58| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
context to the next to eliminate the opacity resulting from the multiplicity of competing intentionalities and purposes. Stephen Levinson explains how “presupposition triggers” function in conversation (1983: 181–185) and I suggest that “specialised presupposition triggers” operate in the same way in specialised discourse. The final analytical say on these language frontiers lies in pragmatic rather than grammatical linguistics because pragmatics relates the functional mission of the language to the social environment where it is used. In Leech’s words: If we now return to the distinction [...] made between grammar and pragmatics, it can be seen that the grammar is a ‘World 4’ phenomenon and that linguistics is unique, among scientific disciplines, in that it aims to provide World 4 explanations of World 4 phenomena. [...] Pragmatics on the other hand, deals with the relations between language as a World 4 phenomenon, and language as a World 3 (social) phenomenon. Grammar, studying language as a thing in itself, provides formal explanations. Pragmatics, studying language in relation to society as a whole, aims at a functional perspective. (1983: 55–56; Leech’s italics)
4. Discussion Discussing the epistemological foundations of SLs and this particular approach could prove to be an infinite subject. I shall limit the scope of this section to addressing briefly three issues, one general and two specific. 4.1. On the debatable use of this paper I suspect most readers will be disconcerted by this paper and will wonder about its use in improving the way we teach SLs. While I understand their qualms, I believe that meeting the needs of learners without meeting those of teachers and scholars leaves the job half-done and that building some objective knowledge about SLs will sooner or later come to be seen as indispensable. When other scholars finally decide to grapple with the issue, they will probably have to find some organising principle in the field of knowledge under construction and they will face the same problems as I have. My own proposition is that combining epistemology, the philosophy of intentionality and pragmatics offers interesting insights on how to build foundations for the study of SLs. While I am ready to admit that my approach may be misconceived, I encourage authors to come up with alternative theories to debate and progress. 4.2. How much specialised knowledge are SL teachers supposed to know? The issue of the quantity and quality of specialised knowledge that SL teachers have to master has long been debated in the field. Teachers have to position their own knowledge input in relation to the knowledge of the domain and many are loath to step on the turf of specialists and pretend to master their knowledge. In 2004, Bhatia remarked that “ESP practitioners still get nervous about having to deal with disciplinary knowledge as part of linguistic training” (ibid.: 204) and, as recently as 2013, The Handbook recalled that “[o]ne of the most vexing issues for ESP praxis
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |59
is the need for at least some specialist knowledge” (Belcher 2013: 545). My answer is that SL teachers are not concerned with the specialised competences of the domain, but with the expression of the specialised domain in the language. By specialised competences I mean the set of knowledge and/or know-how directly involved in the implementation of the purpose of the domain. These competences enable the doctor to diagnose, prescribe and cure, the judge to examine cases and pass judgement, the engineer to build machines, etc. These competences are acquired by study and/or experience and they precisely characterise the domain’s specialists who master them. They are out of the language teacher’s area of intervention although general knowledge about them is of course recommended. On the other hand, the expression of the specialised domain in the language comprises the countless linguistic means used by domains to serve their purposes and they are the teacher’s domain par excellence. They form the main subject matter of the methodical description of any specialised variety of a language. Such a description would include an introduction to the intentional universe of the domain and its purpose and to its specialised linguistic and national communities. It would outline its diachronic evolution, including dictionarisation processes if any. It would list and examine the different ways the domain accesses the language to insert its own specialised illocutionary force into communication: specialised lexis, terminology, phraseology, specialised discourse, genres, registers, specialised fiction... The study would examine the culture of the domain to determine if the latter is culture-sensitive or not and will tentatively chart its encyclopaedia. Specialised encyclopaedias facilitate coded interpretation, and they may be defined as all potential knowledge necessary to interpret a domain’s specialised communication. As such, they cannot be exhaustively described although interest in the question is emerging (Resche 2013). Tentative charting of specialised encyclopaedias will offer teachers and scholars enhanced capacity to interpret specialised communication and should be included in SL studies. To conclude on this point, I do not follow authors like Laurence Anthony (2011) who advocate minimal specialist knowledge for SL teachers. I believe that ignoring SL content and history prevents access to their encyclopaedias, and will result in limited comprehension of specialised communication and poor interpretive capacity of insider messages. 4.3. Is FASP specialised language? Specialised fiction, called fiction à substrat professionnel (FASP) in France, has proved a popular research topic among French SVE practitioners since Michel Petit and Shaeda Isani opened it at the turn of the century (Petit 1999; Petit & Isani 2004). It appears as “literature for specialised purposes”, a name proposed by Alan Hirvela, in The Handbook (2013: 89). FASP refers for example to medical, legal or financial thrillers where specialised environments play a central role in the plots. Petit suggests that they offer “another access to specialised varieties of English” (1999), but objectors claim that FASP is not authentic material and should not be used to teach SLs. This is an interesting theoretical debate. Can the present epistemological 60| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
approach offer insights? My first answer is that FASP cannot be part of a specialised domain because it is based on a “null direction of fit” in relation to the objects of the domain (see section 2.1). For example, medical FASP presupposes that medicine exists. It contains no direct belief or desire concerning the objects of medicine and does not serve its purpose. Students in medicine and law do not read FASP to train as doctors and lawyers. Similarly, FASP discourse is not part of specialised discourse for the same reason: it does not convey the intentionality of the domain and its illocutionary force serves narrative fiction, not a specialised purpose. Yet, FASP works often provide a highly accurate mimesis of domains and SLs. As they are generally produced by talented insiders, they evoke specialised communities and cultures in scrupulous detail. Authoritative introductions to specialised worlds are not always available to SL teachers and learners and they should not be lightly brushed aside. Yet, the foremost merit of FASP is probably that its enticing verisimilitude is based on the authors’ thorough mastery of specialised encyclopaedias which are part of specialised domains. I even suggest that FASP plots are essentially fictionalised encyclopaedic knowledge because they rely on an uncanny capacity to produce a discourse made of a large quantity of cross- connecting references. These close-knit networks of meaning relate fictional characters to the domain, but also to historical contexts, sometimes invented, sometimes real. They stimulate specialised questioning and interpretation and offer a valuable, albeit indirect, access to specialised encyclopaedias. Some FASP productions even contribute to social debates in relation to domains like medicine or law, and they edge close to their intentionalities since these debates often take place within the specialised communities themselves. Finally, FASP authors often carefully follow the evolutions of specialised domains and they promptly adopt linguistic innovations. If we add that many teachers also enjoy FASP teaching because of the motivating experience it offers to learners, we have a strong case to use FASP in SL teaching and its study should be part of the objective knowledge developed on SLs.
Conclusion This paper proposes theoretical foundations for the study of SLs. As a methodological prerequisite, it uses Popper’s 3 and Leech’s 4 worlds theories to distinguish carefully between the different orders of reality where relevant phenomena belong: SLs in social interaction, specialised communities, SLs as objects of study, specialised domains... In an admittedly controversial move, it does not opt for language as the initial organising principle of the theory, but for the concept of specialisation instead. Drawing from the philosophy of intentionality, it analyses specialisation as a form of intentional state and successively derives from it the notions of specialised purpose, individual and collective specialised intentionalities, specialised communities, specialised domains and SLs. The theory then capitalises on the complementary philosophical and linguistic propositions of K. Popper, G. Leech, J. Searle and P. Grice to suggest that the functional nature of SLs is best envisaged through pragmatic analysis. Specialised pragmatics offers
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |61
precious insights into the nature of specialised communication but it remains crudely simple compared to conversational pragmatics. Once a specialised context of utterance has been identified, specialised conventional implicature subjects interpretation to the purpose of the domain and specialised pragmatic meaning is pre-determined until contextual change is signalled. The theory helps to establish the primacy of specialised purpose over communication per se and contributes to understanding the difference between general and specialised language. It offers insights into the issue of the specialised knowledge that SL teachers should master, including specialised encyclopaedias, and on the specialised nature of FASP. The main purpose of the theory is to structure the field as a scientific discipline and to pave the way for the methodical description of SLs. It aims at building objective and cumulative knowledge that can be passed on to future scholars and teachers in the field. It is based on the observation that the training of SL teachers falls dramatically short of expectations and needs in many countries, and on the belief that building objective and constantly updated knowledge will make a significantly positive difference in SL research and training.
Bibliographical references
ANTHONY, Laurence. 2011. “Products, processes and practitioners: A critical look at the importance of specificity in ESP”. Taiwan International ESP Journal 3/2, 1–18. BELCHER, Diane. 2013. “The future of ESP Research: Resources for access and choice”. In PALTRIDGE, B. & S. STARFIELD (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Boston: Wiley- Blackwell, 535–554. BHATIA, Vijay K. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum. CABRÉ, M. Teresa. 1998. La terminologie : théories, méthodes et applications. Ottawa, Canada: Armand Colin, Presses Universitaires d’Ottawa. CHARPY, Jean-Pierre. 2011. “Les premiers dictionnaires médicaux en langue anglaise : glissements diachroniques du spécialisé au non-spécialisé”. ASp 59, 25–42. ECO, Umberto. 1986. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press/Midland Book. GALISSON, Robert & Daniel COSTE (Eds.). 1976. Dictionnaire de didactique des langues. Paris: Hachette. GRICE, Paul. 1991 [1989]. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. HIRVELA, Alan. 2013. “ESP and reading”. In PALTRIDGE, B. & S. STARFIELD (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, 77–94. HOFFMANN, Lothar. 1979. “Towards a theory of LSP”. Fachsprache 1/1-2, 12–17. HYLAND, Ken. 2013. “ESP and writing”. In PALTRIDGE, B. & S. STARFIELd (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, 95–113. LECERCLE, Jean-Jacques. 1990. The Violence of Language. London: Routledge. LECERCLE, Jean-Jacques. 1999. Interpretation as Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan/Palgrave. LEECH, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow, UK: Longman. LERAT, Pierre. 1995. Les Langues spécialisées. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 62| M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63
LERAT, Pierre. 1997. “Approches linguistiques des langues spécialisées”. ASp 15-18, 1–10. LEVINSON, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PALTRIDGE, Brian & Sue STARFIELD (Eds.). 2013. The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. PETIT, Michel. 1999. “La fiction à substrat professionnel : une autre voie d’accès à l’anglais de spécialité”. ASp 23-26, 57–81. PETIT, Michel. 2010. “Le discours spécialisé et le spécialisé du discours : repères pour l’analyse du discours en anglais de spécialité”, E-rea. Retrieved from
M. Van der Yeught / ASp 69 (March 2016) 41–63 |63
Michel Van der Yeught is a full professor of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at Aix-Marseille University (France). His research interests focus on financial English, Wall Street history and the theoretical aspects of ESP. He is a member of the LERMA (EA 853) research team of Aix-Marseille University. He is the author of several books, among which L’anglais de la bourse et de la finance : description et recherche (Ophrys 2012) and Une histoire de Wall Street (Eska 2009). [email protected]
ASp 69 |65
What can linguistic approaches bring to English for Specific Purposes?
Quel est l'apport des approches linguistiques à l'anglais de spécialité ?
Chris Gledhill & Natalie Kübler Université Paris Diderot, CLILLAC-ARP
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Concept-oriented ESP, context-oriented ESP, Anglais de spécialité, approches corpus linguistics, phraseology, translator conceptuelles, approches contextuelles, training. formation des traducteurs, linguistique de corpus, phraséologie. ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ This paper explores the various contributions Cet article explore les différentes contributions that linguistics has made to English for Specific apportées par les études en linguistique à Purposes (ESP). First, we set out a broad l’anglistique de spécialité. Nous établissons en distinction between concept-oriented and premier lieu une distinction entre les approches context-oriented approaches in linguistics. conceptuelles et les approches contextuelles en Although in theory these traditions are largely linguistique. En théorie, ces approches sont incompatible, there are signs that the incompatibles ; cependant, l’emploi de plus en pervasive use of corpus analysis is producing a plus répandu des corpus a généré une certaine convergence of the two. Then, we demonstrate convergence entre elles. Nous présentons a small number of key ideas based on the ensuite quelques idées issues des présupposés techniques and theoretical assumptions which théoriques et de la méthodologie que nous we have developed in our own research and avons développés dans notre propre recherche teaching: 1) use of corpora to identify “lexico- et dans notre enseignement : 1) l’utilisation des grammatical patterns”, the basic building- corpus pour identifier les « schémas lexico- blocks of ESP texts, and 2) the use of grammaticaux », qui représentent les unités de phraseological training and databases to structure pour la construction des discours enhance the learning process and skill-set of spécialisés, et 2) la formation à la phraséologie future technical translators. Finally, we look at et à l’utilisation de bases de données comme how other linguists have contributed to the facteurs d’amélioration, à la fois du processus general development of linguistic approaches d’apprentissage, et des compétences des futurs over the history of the journal ASp. traducteurs spécialisés. Enfin, nous examinons comment d’autres linguistes ont contribué de manière générale au développement d’approches linguistiques dans l’histoire de la revue ASp. 66| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
1. Introduction What is a ‘linguistic approach’ in the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP)? And what can contemporary linguistic approaches contribute to the theory and practice of ESP? A linguistic approach to ESP attempts to answer the following broad questions: (1) What qualifies as ESP, and what textual forms can it take? (2) What are most relevant language skills needed to learn ESP? (3) What features of language do we typically find in ESP? 1.1. What qualifies as ESP, and what textual forms can it take? ESP is the study of a specific configuration of the English language that is used by a group of specialists for that group's particular purposes (whatever their language origins, whatever their degree of expertise). For each type of specific English, it is important to specify which one we are discussing (for example ‘English for Academic Purposes’, ‘English for Business Purposes’ and so on). For many linguists, the study of ESP involves the study of a conceptual domain (economics, the law, medicine, etc.). In this paper, we contrast this ‘conceptual’ approach with our own ‘contextual’ point of view, which assumes that each type of ESP can be most usefully apprehended in context, i.e. in the form of texts (whether spoken, written or in a hybrid form). For example in English for Academic Purposes, the core linguistic activities (genres) are typically represented by a whole ‘ecology’ of text types, such as university-level science lectures, textbooks, PhD theses, conference presentations, research articles, and so on. Most linguists interested in this question (conversation analysts, ethnographers of communication, genre analysts, etc.) are also interested in the social and pragmatic factors which lead to the development of an ESP among a particular speech or discourse community, and they turn to the experts or practitioners in order to decide what is a core or a peripheral text type in their particular domain. 1.2. What are most relevant language skills needed to learn ESP? This question can be framed either in terms of communication skills (oral/ written comprehension, oral/written production, etc.), or in terms of language forms and systems (terminology, lexis, grammar, rhetorical structure, etc.). This question necessarily leads to a debate about methodology, materials, testing (see for example Bloor & Bloor 1986) or ‘needs analysis’ (the design of a language syllabus on the basis of learners’ or practitioners’ needs, as discussed in Basturkmen & Elder 2006). In this paper, we leave these issues to the ‘didacticians’ (as they are called in the French ESP context). In the following sections, we limit our discussion to the forms and systems of language, and we argue that it is necessary to adopt a systematic framework when describing the architecture of language (such as the Systemic Functional model). In addition, a key tenet of the context-oriented approach is that both students and teachers of ESP need direct experience of working not only with authentic texts as exemplars of a particular type of discourse, but also with large ‘bodies’ of interrelated texts (hence the term ‘corpus’).
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |67
1.3. What features of language do we typically find in ESP? Again, this question can only effectively be answered in relation to a particular type of ESP. For example, in written scientific discourse, linguists prototypically find: specialised technical vocabulary, phraseological paradigms such as ‘cells express genes, genes express proteins’, a preference for grammatical structures such as the passive, conventionalised rhetorical moves such as ‘create a research space’, and so on. This type of description looks straightforward, for what else could one find in a typical ESP text apart from specialised words (terminology) and specialised combinations of words (phraseology)? However, here, we suggest that the advent of corpus-based analysis has changed the ways in which we identify and categorise different ESPs (as discussed for example in Biber et al. 2010; Groom et al. 2015; Hoffmann et al. 2015). Following Rundell & Stock (1992), Granger (1994), Hanks (2012) and others, we find it appropriate to talk about a ‘corpus revolution’, especially in relation to many areas of applied and descriptive linguistics. This paradigm has changed the names of the features we can observe in relation to their naturally-occurring environment. Thus for example, whereas a discourse analyst or grammarian might analyse a passive clause such as “The gene was expressed in middle ear mucosa” (cited in Gledhill 2011b) as a ‘thematicisation’ of an affected object gene in initial position in the clause, the corpus analyst also sees a ‘collocation’ involving a co-dependence between the lexical items gene + express as well as a ‘colligation’ or an ‘extended lexical pattern’ (involving the co-selection of the passive and a prepositional expression of location). Furthermore, the widespread use of corpora has also changed the way we discuss the status and typicality of these features in relation to the language system: it is no longer enough to look at one particular occurrence in one particular ESP text – it has become now possible to compare similar instances across the larger ‘ESP corpus’ and then an even larger ‘reference corpus’ (see, for example, large-scale comparative cross-disciplinary studies such as Biber 2010; Biber et al. 2010; Grey 2015). The first two questions mentioned above (What qualifies as ESP? What are the most relevant skills in ESP?) are crucial to the theory and practice of ESP. However most linguists would agree that it is the third issue, with its focus on the forms of language, which lies at the heart of the linguistic approach to ESP. In the following pages, the authors of this paper set out our own personal view of ESP, and we admit that this is a very personal, subjective perspective. It is also important to bear in mind that we are both applied linguists and teachers of specialised translation at a French university. We therefore appreciate the various issues involved in, for example, ESP syllabus design. However, we also believe that by providing systematic corpus-based descriptions of ESP texts, and by training our students to do the same, we are not only helping them to learn a specialised variety of English, we are also introducing them to an important transferable skill-set which will serve them in their careers as language specialists, namely: the ability to do research in descriptive linguistics. It follows from what we have just said that, in this paper, we are not attempting to provide a comprehensive survey of all of the different linguistic approaches that 68| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
have so far made significant contributions to the field of ESP. We have however instead conducted a survey (presented in Appendices 1-3) of the main linguistic topics and linguistic approaches that have been addressed in the present journal (ASp – for Anglais de spécialité) since 1993. While clearly not a complete overview of the field, these data do provide some interesting indications about where linguistic approaches stand in relation to ESP as an academic field. We comment briefly on the main themes that emerge from the Appendices later on in this paper (section 4). However, before looking at these data, in section 2 we present what we believe to be the two main linguistic schools of thought which have had a major influence on to ESP studies: the concept-oriented approach and the context-oriented approach. Both represent very different schools of thought in linguistics. However, more recently both traditions have begun to converge in a number of interesting ways, most notably through the widespread use of corpora and the rise of computational methods in formal linguistics. In the final parts of this paper, we examine how ESP may be shaped in the future by new concepts arising in linguistics. We cannot claim to represent the majority of linguists; all we can hope to do is to set out our own perspective on what may be fruitful lines of enquiry for future research in ESP. In the first instance (section 3.1), we make the case for the analysis of lexico-grammatical patterns in ESP texts. Then (section 3.2), we examine how teaching students of specialised translation to become corpus analysts can help them to become familiar with the technical terminology and phraseology of their chosen specialist domains.
2. What are the main linguistics approaches to ESP? There are two basic approaches to the study of ESP (also known more generally as ‘Languages for Specialised purposes’, LSP), namely: (1) the concept-oriented approach, and (2) the context-oriented approach. This distinction is based on: a) The differences in theoretical orientation and methodology which can usually can be observed in any research paper published in the field of ESP; b) Our own observation of linguistics papers published in this journal (ASp), and set out in the Appendices and summarised in section 4 of this paper. In the following discussion, it is important to realise that both the concept- oriented and context-oriented approaches can sometimes be found within the same study. However, it occurs to us that it is still useful to make a basic distinction between at least two main perspectives on ESP which also happen to coincide with a distinction often made between structural or formal linguistics on the one hand and discourse-analytic or functional linguistics on the other. 2.1. The concept-oriented approach A concept-oriented approach to ESP/LSP focuses on the conceptual structures of specialist domains. We mention three typical examples of this kind of study below (English 1998, Resche 2013 and Peraldi 2012). Concept-oriented linguists take an interest in the technical words, notions, definitions, symbols, semantic networks
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |69
and ‘spaces of knowledge’ with which specialists and other practitioners represent and construe their specialist domain. We would suggest that there are at least three main subtypes of concept-oriented study in ESP. Below we give some prototypical examples of these subtypes, as represented by studies published in the journal ASp. a) Metaphor analysis. A typical example of this is English (1998), who adopts the terms and methodology of metaphor theory (including notions such as assumptive frameworks, metaphorical description and explanation, blending, etc.) to examine the processes by which experts and learners use metaphors to name and understand new concepts in mathematics. b) Domain analysis. For example, Resche (2013) underlines the importance of disciplinary labels and definitions in the conceptual construction and historical development of economics (including early terms such as ‘social philosophy’ and sub-branches such as regeneration economics, gender economics, etc.). Resche is careful to point out the extent to which domain labels can involve heterodoxic as well as conventional status; she also points out that a dynamic domain undergoes the multiple influences of other disciplines, as evidenced by blends such as ‘neurofinance’ and ‘econophysics’. c) Ontology analysis. For example, Peraldi (2012) uses large-scale corpus analysis as well as the traditional techniques of componential analysis to explore the conceptual domain of organic chemistry: she points in particular to the fact that the syntax of multiply-modified nominal groups can be used to build up a complex ontology in this domain. It has to be recognised that here are many different perspectives in the concept- oriented approach, as demonstrated by the different studies mentioned above. However, we would suggest that many of these studies share some core assumptions. In particular, we would point to a position paper by Pierre Lerat (1997), “Linguistic approaches to specialised languages“. In the following paragraphs, we describe the main positions taken by Lerat (1997), and we make the case for seeing some of his assumptions as fairly typical of an approach which places a specialised discipline and the semantic networks of a discipline (in terms of terminology) as central components of ESP. The starting point of Lerat’s paper is to argue that specialised languages (he uses the abbreviation LSP) are “nothing more than specialised uses of natural languages” (1997: 1 [our translation]).1 He later adds that “Paradoxically, specialised languages are relatively simple, because they are subject to a high degree of lexical, semantic and pragmatic constraints” (1997: 5). Clearly this is a point of contention, and we will return to this later. For Lerat, the main differences between LSP and LGP (language for general purposes) can be found in what he calls ‘lexico-semantic’ and ‘lexico-syntactic’ features. As far as semantic specificity goes, he has three features in mind: a) monosemy (LSPs reduce the meanings of polysemic words to single, specialised meanings), b) denomination (the most typical features of LSPs are nominalised expressions; significantly Lerat states that these “can only be validated as
1 In this and following quotations from Lerat (1997), we have translated the quote from French. 70| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
denominations by professionals” [Lerat 1997: 2]), and c) distortion of the link between signifier and signified, or as Lerat puts it: “the link between the technical term and its root tends to be stretched” (1997: 2). Turning to syntactic specificities, Lerat points briefly to a general tendency for LSPs towards a more abstract, more impersonal, and more explicit style. It could be argued that these are essentially semantic rather than formal features of syntax. However, Lerat does not elaborate on this; rather at this point in his article, he turns more specifically to the analysis of language above the level of the sentence: At a higher level of analysis, that of the text, the linguistic tools are still very limited: ‘text-grammar’ has obtained few results – apart from work on anaphora, the typology of speech acts still lacks rigour, and the notion of cognitive environment is necessary but lacks technical accuracy for the moment; currently this has more to do with logic than with syntax proper. (Lerat 1997: 3)2 As we discuss below, this point would be contested by many linguists. Nevertheless, according to Lerat, it is at the lower levels of linguistic analysis, that of the group or word, that theoretical linguistics has most to contribute to the description of LSPs (1997: 4). He cites in particular G. Gross’s (1996) notion of the “class of objects”; that is to say the set of arguments which are typically used with each particular predicate in the LSP, thus revealing the typical semantic relations of a specialised domain (Lerat gives examples from the medical domain such as to catch + contagious disease vs. to contract + non-contagious disease, etc.). Thus linguists who conduct this kind of analysis can contribute to the study of LSP, since they can “provide a better conception of the whole by lexicalising syntax and establishing the typical conceptual relations between words [...]”. By ‘lexicalising syntax’, Lerat means ‘establishing the distinct terminological units of the LSP’ [our reformulation], thus enabling the linguist to study the conceptual relations of the given domain. According to Lerat, by examining these relations linguists can contribute practically to LSP by “creating the best kind of database, that is, one which can combine linguistic as well as encyclopedic knowledge” (Lerat 1997: 1). Finally, it is worth mentioning Lerat’s views on the relationship between linguistic research and LSP as a field, especially in relation to translation. Lerat mentions that the principal aim of LSP is “to assist translation, technical writing, documentation and learning” (1997: 1). It occurs to us that this corresponds to a very negative view of applied linguistics: essentially, Lerat considers that these applied activities can benefit from linguistic research, but he does not mention the possibility that research in these areas might be of any interest to theoretical linguistics – in this respect, Lerat is echoing Corder, who once stated that “the applied linguist is a consumer or user, not a producer of theories” (1973: 10). Later on in the paper, Lerat states that: “because specialised translation supposes a good
2 The original French text: "À un niveau plus global, celui du texte, les instruments linguistiques d’analyse restent très limités : la « grammaire de texte » obtient peu de résultats en dehors du traitement des anaphores, la typologie des actes de langage manque encore de robustesse, la notion d’environnement cognitif est nécessaire mais peu technique pour le moment, et elle relève plus de la logique que de la syntaxe proprement dite.” (Lerat 1997: 3)
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |71
command of both languages, most of the difficulties to be encountered will be lexical.” (1997: 6). It is because of this comment that we characterise Lerat’s approach as essentially ‘conceptual’: i.e. when Lerat uses the word ‘lexical’, he is not talking about the behaviour of a lexical item as used in a given text or context, he is referring to its semantics. Similarly, for the conceptual linguist, the term ‘lexis’ refers primarily to a structured system of concepts, i.e. an ontology or taxonomy (as discussed, for example in Thelen 2002). Let us take Lerat’s comments about translation as a starting point for some critical discussion. It is true that for many professional translators, one of the central problems they encounter is the search for conceptual and terminological equivalence between source and target text. This is certainly the assumption behind university courses which train translators to use terminological databases (including our own). However, we would suggest that for translators who are experts in their own domain, or translators who are not writing in their mother tongue (despite having ‘a good command of both languages’), terminology may not be the only problem, or even the main one: we would suggest that these translators need help with phraseology. This is particularly the case of our own students of translation – mostly native French speakers – who are asked to translate technical texts into English (on this point see Gledhill 2011a; Volanschi & Kübler 2011, and section 3.2 below). And of course for all translators and revisers, there is the issue of clarity and the desirability of producing reliable, readable copy. Thus in our view, Lerat’s comment about the centrality of lexical (i.e. semantic) problems appears to be rather limited. More generally, such an approach assumes that meaning is entirely dependent on the abstract network of concepts, with little or no consideration for the phraseological constructions which make up a text. Yet at the same time, Lerat’s comment does raise an interesting research question, and one which may be tested empirically: do lexical or terminological problems really represent a core difficulty for technical writers or translators? We now return to the assumption underlying Lerat’s paper that ESP/LSP can somehow be discussed as a homogenous notion, or that it is possible to identify and characterise certain features of language as (purely) LGP. Many readers of ASp will be familiar with the debate about the all-embracing or overlapping status of LGP in relation to LSP, but it seems appropriate here to review the issue again in the light of our distinction between concept-oriented and context-oriented approaches. For Lerat and many other linguists, it seems to be important to make a distinction between a LGP on the one hand and LSP. However, these linguists are also often careful to point out that any one type of LSP corresponds to a selection of potential resources in relation to the LGP, as Resche (1999) puts it: The idea that “specialised language” should be closely linked to general language is now commonly accepted. Thus this expression is preferred today in order to emphasise the idea of a continuum, not that of a break [...]. (Resche 1999:121 [our translation])3
3 The original French text: “L’idée que la langue spécialisée est ancrée à la langue générale a maintenant fait son chemin et, à juste titre, on préconise désormais cette appellation de préférence à 72| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
Yet the idea of a continuum between LSP and LGP raises the question of whether it is possible to identify any elements of language which might characterise the LGP. One possible position would be to claim that, as Bloor & Bloor once put it [...] the Common Core does not exist as a language variety. It is as much an idealization as Chomsky’s “ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogenous speech-community”. (Bloor & Bloor 1986: 19) For these linguists (see also Maingueneau 2002), the notion of LSP as variety can be replaced by a more porous notion of ‘mode of discourse’, i.e. the idea that any type of language is necessarily adapted to a specific discourse context, and as such may involve distinctly specific rhetorical functions (such as: reporting, recommending, exploring, expounding, etc.). It follows that, for each register, there is a specific repertoire of different discourse functions, and these are realised by specific lexical and grammatical phrases which are derived from, but also constitutive of, the repertoire of all potential lexico-grammatical resources. As we suggest below, this view is also that of the ‘register’ approach put forward by linguists such as Halliday (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014). So far we have discussed a handful of questions arising from Lerat (1997), but the main technical point of his paper is that linguistic analysis can contribute to our understanding of ESP/LSP by developing conceptual ontologies on the basis of argument-predicate patterns. On this particular issue, there is no doubt that both theoretical and applied linguists have made useful contributions to the understanding of how conceptual and terminological structures operate within the context of various types of ESP/LSP. It will be sufficient for our purposes here to mention a sample of studies from our own circle of colleagues and associates, such as Volanschi & Kübler (2011) on the relationship between recurring collocational frameworks and the expression of key metaphors in biology, Pecman (2012) on the recurring lexical patterns associated with particular terms and the interpretation of these patterns as definitions in the multilingual terminological database ARTES, or Sánchez-Cárdenas & Buendía-Castro (forthcoming) on the observation of specialised collocations and their role in determining the argument-predicate structure of a particular domain relating to water disposal. These studies represent an interesting development of the traditional approach to terminology, in that they involve corpus analysis, the statistical observation of specialised word combinations (collocations), and the building of extensive, user-oriented databases. To this extent, Lerat’s predictions about the ways in which the language sciences could contribute the practice of ESP/LSP were entirely well-founded. 2.2. The context-oriented approach The ‘context-oriented approach’ is a term that we have temporarily adopted (see also Williams 2003b) in order to gather together various kinds of linguistic analysis. One common feature of these studies, in our view, is a concern for the analysis of
« langue de spécialité », précisément pour souligner l’idée d’un continuum et non d’une rupture...” (Resche 1999: 121)
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |73
language in its social or cultural context, as well as a focus on language forms as they occur in actual text (hence an overlap between the terms ‘context’ and ‘co- text’). We would suggest that the context-oriented approach includes at least three subtypes, as typified by the following studies previously published in ASp. a) Socio-cultural analysis. For example Banks (2009) describes the historical development of two of the earliest scientific journals in English and French, with a description of the scientific debates, technical topics, textual sub-genres and other factors which have defined the social and ideological context in which each journal issue evolved over time. b) Discourse and genre analysis. An example of this is Resche (2003), who analyses a specific text type – Press Releases from the US Federal Reserve – in terms of their salient lexical, syntactic and phraseological features, as well as their rhetorical move structure: Resche is careful to emphasise the extent to which this is a ‘living genre’, involving productive features which evolve over time. c) Language feature analysis. This category ranges from small-scale manual studies of single texts, to large-scale computational comparisons of whole text collections. In some cases, the linguistic features in question lend themselves to small-scale analysis. Thus for example, Banks (1998) examines vague quantification and hedging in three hard-science texts and three ‘not-so-hard’ texts. On the other hand, large-scale analyses can be subdivided into ‘corpus-based’ studies, in which a corpus has been built in order to target specific features of language. For example Pic, Furmaniak & Hugou (2013) compare the use of three reformulation markers (that is, i.e. and namely) in two different corpora of scientific research and popular science articles (over a million words), themselves subdivided into five sub-corpora corresponding to different scientific disciplines. Another category of study involves the ‘corpus-driven’ approach: in such studies, the linguistic features of interest emerge from statistical data analysis. In Biber et al.’s (2010) method of ‘multifactorial’ analysis, for example, lexical and grammatical similarities are first observed across a large range of different text types, and it is only after this comparison that functional differences are assigned to each major ‘register’ (type of discourse). Looking at more terminological types of analysis, Williams (2003a) describes how to build a specialised ESP dictionary on the basis of concordances (derived from the analysis of reference corpora involving several hundreds million words) as well as collocational networks (derived from the statistical correlation of key lexical items). Admittedly, the approaches set out above are very different in scope. However, we would argue that most of these studies share a degree of overlap, in that they often simultaneously combine two or more complementary methodologies. Thus as Poole & Samraj point out, “most studies of the discourse of target communities employ some form of genre analysis” (2010: 129). And as Biber et al. have claimed: […] English for specific purposes and English for academic purposes have been especially influenced by corpus research, so that nearly all articles published in these areas employ some kind of corpus analysis. (Biber, Reppen & Friginal 2010: 559) 74| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
Aside from methodological considerations, we would add that many of these studies share some or all of the following theoretical assumptions (as argued especially in Gledhill 2000 & Kübler 2003). 1) ESP can only be understood properly in relation to situational and social context; most notably in terms of the speech communities or networks of experts who are responsible for each particular ESP; in other words the conditions in which any type of ESP text is produced and received determine its form. 2) The semantics of a domain (its conceptual frameworks and cognitive potential for meaning) can only be observed through language, thus from the point of view of the context-oriented analyst (but not necessarily all concept-oriented linguists), the knowledge structure of a domain is in effect equivalent to the language of the community of specialists, i.e. a particular type of ESP (or LSP). It follows from this logo-centric perspective that the systematic analysis of ESP should proceed from the bottom-up, i.e. from the analysis of language in particular texts. 3) The task of the applied descriptive linguist is not to analyse artificial examples of invented data, but rather to analyse authentic language phenomena in context, that is to say the use of language in a particular co-text (by ‘co-text’ we mean the language features in the immediate textual environment of a particular example, and by ‘text’ we mean spoken, written or otherwise transmitted units of coherent communicative activity; this can include such disembodied items as headwords in a dictionary, diagrams in mathematical proofs, non-verbal semiotic gestures, etc.). 4) Any authentic example of a language form has a relevant context of use, and thus belongs to at least one genre or register. As mentioned above, the context- oriented approach questions the relevance of a ‘core language’, and is suspicious of examples which are claimed to be representative of ‘the LGP’. It is perhaps worth noting that this argument has most often been adopted by proponents of the Systemic Functional approach which, unlike many other linguistic theories (Generative Grammar, Dependency Grammar, Lexical-Functional Grammar, the Frames approach to Semantic analysis, etc.), defines itself as a theory of language in context: [Systemic Functional Grammar is] a theory of functional variation in the genre system correlated with contextual variation. (Matthiessen 1993: 223) 5) Second-language learners of ESP have to learn the most typical patterns of usage of the ESP much in the same way native speakers have to learn it, i.e. learning ESP by doing ESP. This principle is expressed by Bloor & Bloor in the following terms: LSP employs teaching strategies (in particular the “Deep End Strategy”) that are incompatible with certain theories of language acquisition. We explain the success of these strategies by claiming not only that learners need to be involved in the use of language appropriate to their needs, but also that by its nature this language must be “specific”. It is only by exposure to “specific” language that learners can learn the appropriate grammatical and lexical dependencies […]. A language learner is as likely to acquire “the language” from one variety as from another, but the use of language, being geared to
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |75
situation and participants, is learned in appropriate contexts. (Bloor & Bloor 1986: 28) The notion of ‘context’ thus emerges as a central theme for many linguists who have worked on ESP/LSP. Of course, the term itself is rather slippery, and we have used it here rather opportunistically, in order to group together a variety of studies under the same label. But it seems clear to us that many linguistic studies do simultaneously attempt to provide an account of ESP in terms of both its extralinguistic context (context of situation) and its discursive context (i.e. by studying the communicative function of language forms as they occur in actual texts). Nevertheless, although we have attempted to bring together the various strands of the context-oriented approach, there are many dissenting voices and contrasting visions. We discuss some of these details in the following sections of this paper. However, before moving on, we would like to add a final assumption, which is not shared by all context-oriented linguists, but which appears to have been observed by several other analysts (see for example Sockett 2011), and which certainly underlies our own approach to ESP. 6) The typical linguistic features of ESP cannot be characterised as a list of discreet items (technical terminology, the passive, hedging, impersonal expressions, etc.), rather the most typical features of ESP texts are chains of meaningful interlocking lexical and grammatical structures, which we have called lexico-grammatical patterns (Gledhill 2011b; Kübler & Volanschi 2012). As mentioned below, these are not the same as fixed collocations or other phraseological units (such as formulae or idiomatic expressions), which may occur from time to time in ESP texts, but which are not, as we claim, the basic building- blocks of ESP. In the following sections of this paper, we make the case for the ‘lexico- grammatical pattern’, and suggest ways in which this approach to language description may contribute very positively to the field of ESP in the future.
3. What can linguistic approaches bring to ESP now, and what can they bring in the future? In the following sections, we make the case for two simple ideas which we believe have shown considerable potential in the development of ESP studies, namely: 1) the basic building blocks of ESP: extended lexico-grammatical patterns, 2) research skills and the ESP learner: how corpus linguistics can help trainee translators become experts in their chosen specialist domain. 3.1. The building blocks of ESP: extended lexico-grammatical patterns As we suggested above, the development of corpus analysis has been one of the main contributions from contemporary linguistics to the field of ESP. And one of the main consequences of the widespread use of corpora in linguistics has been the development of increasingly sophisticated corpus tools which have not only allowed linguists to provide more detailed and statistically accurate descriptions of different ESPs, but have also enabled learners and practitioners to explore their own ESPs. We explore this important ‘autonomising’ feature of corpus work in the 76| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
following section. However, another important consequence of the spread of corpus analysis has been the development of new ways of analysing language. In linguistics the introduction of new methods generally involves a focus on different linguistic forms, as well as the invention of a new metalanguage. For example, in the era of generative grammar (1960s-1970s), linguists were preoccupied with grammatical paraphrase, derived structures and movement rules, while during the development of text linguistics (1970s-1980s) linguists focused on features of cohesion, discourse markers and information structure. It is not surprising then that with the availability of large-scale machine-readable corpora since the 1990s, corpus analysts have similarly developed their own analytical apparatus. From our point of view, the most significant concept to emerge from large-scale corpus analysis has been the notion of ‘phraseology’, as defined succinctly by Stubbs: Phraseology: the identification of typical multi-word units of language use and meaning. (Stubbs 2006: 115) This definition is based on the approach developed by John Sinclair and the lexicographers of the Cobuild dictionary (Sinclair 1987; Hunston 2002; Williams 2003b). As we have argued elsewhere (Gledhill 2000, 2011a, 2011b), this context- oriented perspective to phraseology has profoundly altered the way in which linguists view phraseology and phraseological phenomena in ESP. Whereas it is possible to analyse proverbs and idiomatic expressions out of context, using intuition for example, it is practically impossible to identify ‘multi-word units’ without using a corpus and the appropriate corpus software. Similarly, from the point of view of the corpus linguist, it may be meaningful to say ‘a typical ESP text contains few idioms’, but it would not be meaningful to claim ‘this ESP text has no collocations’, because corpus analysis has demonstrated time and time again that regularities of expression can always be found in any type of text (as long as a representative corpus can be analysed). But even if we accept this very inclusive view of phraseology, there are many different ways of identifying phraseological phenomena within a corpus. It is not our purpose here to review this topic in detail, but we suggest the following overall typology, which covers many of the commonly described types referred to in the literature. - Lexico-grammatical patterns (a formal category which covers: bound collocations, bundles, clusters, colligations, collocational frameworks, n-grams, phrasal schemas, etc.): the definitions for each of these terms vary, but basically these are all sequences of recurrently co-occurring word forms (whether lexical or grammatical) which range from very fixed sequences (for example, a 3-gram such as proceed as follows is a fixed sequence which is three orthographic words in length) to highly variable sequences (collocational frameworks, for example, involve two or more fixed pivotal items surrounded by more variable elements, as in: Failure to do (so / this) + will result in (death / serious injury / property damage, etc.). - Semantic patterns (a functional category which includes: discourse prosody, extended lexical units, semantic preference, stabilised expressions, etc.): again, the
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |77
details vary, but generally these are regularities of expression which correspond to conventionalised units of meaning within a text, whether this meaning corresponds to a well-defined semantic field (semantic preference) or a marker of speaker attitude (semantic prosody, as discussed in the next section). When semantic patterns correspond to lexico-grammatical patterns, they signal something about the conventional meaning or communicative function of the expression (e.g. Proceed as follows = INSTRUCTION, Failure to do so = WARNING, etc.). But semantic patterns can be more diffuse: they can correspond to abstract networks or paradigms of meaning which are built up over time, either within a single text or across a whole discourse (for example the lexical item ‘express’ in the ESP of biology and biochemistry which conventionally signals a transitive chain of relationships between cells, genes and proteins, as in: cells express genes, genes express proteins, etc.) - Register patterns (a contextual category which includes such notions as Biber et al.’s (2010) dimensions of register variation, Maingueneau’s (2002) modes of discourse, Swales’ (1990) rhetorical moves, etc.): we use this term to refer to various types of high-level regularities, which for a particular register (a variety of language corresponding to a specific context), correspond to the overall configuration of all of the relevant lexico-grammatical and semantic patterns which are conventionally (or potentially) associated with that register among a particular community of language users. The categories above clearly cannot do justice to a very rich and complex field, but at least by setting them out in this way we can see how various related concepts may appear to fit together in a unified scheme. These categories were chosen intentionally; they correspond to the main strata of language posited in the systemic functional model (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014), namely: Lexicogrammar, Semantics and Context. We would suggest that what emerges from all of these different categories is the notion of ‘pattern’ or ‘regularity of expression’. We would also suggest that the analysis of one type of phraseological phenomenon (e.g. lexico-grammatical pattern) systematically implies the analysis of the others (semantic pattern, register pattern), to such an extent that it in effect becomes redundant to specify at which point one has entered the analytical system. In order to demonstrate this point, in the following discussion we examine two related lexico-grammatical patterns in order to make a more general point about their communicative functions (semantics) and their typical context of use (register). The following examples were first identified as part of a Master’s level exercise in corpus linguistics (as reported in Gledhill & Kübler 2015). As part of their training in corpus linguistics, we ask our students to analyse five ‘generic collocations’, that is to say a selection of five lexico-grammatical patterns used in a corpus of French or English specialised texts. In the examples we examine below, one student (initials FS) collected an unannotated corpus of 94 English-language technical manuals (a typical title being Yale Electric Wire Rope Winch: Installation and Operator's Manual), all roughly corresponding to around 20 different makes of electric winch (all of these machines are used to launch gliders, so the products and their technical 78| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
manuals are subject to very stringent safety regulations). According to the AntConc4 wordlist tool (Anthony 2014), the Technical Manual corpus includes 568,998 words. Not all students use ‘n-grams’ to look for generic collocations, but early in his project FS decided to use the AntConc clusters tool to look for fixed sequences of words in the corpus. For example, if we look for 4-gram sequences, the tool finds over 230,000 occurrences (although over 60% of these are ‘hapaxes’: sequences which occur only once). Many at the top of the list represent noise or meaningless examples. Others are meaningful, but not obviously related to other sequences, as in: West Artesia Blvd Compton, Refer to Dwg MHP, please call Smittybilt West, REDUCTION WORM GEAR DRIVES... Finally, a third category of n-grams are meaningful, especially when they are associated with other sequences, such as: Owner’s manual for, The wire rope is, And replace as necessary, Failure to observe these, Instructions could lead to, Instructions could result in, Observe these instructions could, Exceed the wire rating, On the wire rope, Serious injury or death... Evidently, the search for n-grams does not provide the analyst with immediate results, and so some ‘manual’ interpretation of the evidence is still necessary. Still, such a tool can be used to reveal some of the more statistically salient patterns in this type of text. Looking at the above results, FS found that one of the most statistically salient patterns to emerge in this text type is ‘failure to follow instructions could result in...’. Although many of our students (including FS in this case) consider this type of occurrence to be an exemplar (a pattern in itself), it is clear that such examples have to be analysed in terms of a more generic pattern (involving potential variations), but also across a more extended stretch of text, as in the following schema (based on 230 occurrences): Pattern 1. FAILURE TO + V (where V = comply with, follow, heed, observe, understand, etc.) MAY/CAN + LEAD TO / RESULT IN + N (where N = death, fire, injury, property damage, etc.) The following examples show a variety of different possible instantiations of this overall pattern (NB we usually try to present examples in the same way: pivotal elements – the stable elements of the pattern – are in bold, while paradigms – regular but more variable elements – are underlined): (1a) Failure to comply with safety precautions described in the manuals supplied with the winch, this manual or any of the labels and tags attached to the winch is a safety violation that may result in death, serious injury or property damage. (1b) WARNING! Read all instructions. Failure to follow all instructions listed on pages 4 to 7 may result in fire, serious injury and/or DEATH.
4 AntConc is available at
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |79
(1c) Failure to heed these instructions may result in personal injury and/or property damage. (1d) WARNING RISK OF BURNS. Failure to observe these instructions could lead to serious injury or death. (1e) Failure to understand the proper operation of this product can result in serious injury and/or property damage. These examples demonstrate a number of general principles about lexico- grammatical patterns: - the pattern is non-linear (it can be interrupted by other lexical material); - the pattern can extend over several phrases and even clauses (and one pattern appears to lead on to or ‘cascade’ into another); - the pattern involves several permanent or ‘pivotal’ elements of grammatical structures as well as lexical items (nominal group: failure, embedded clause: to follow instructions, main verb group: can result in, etc.) as well as a ‘paradigm’ of more variable elements (lead to / result in + death / injury, etc.); - the pattern involves lexical items which belong to related semantic fields (for example, the verb introduced after failure refers to behaviour: comply, follow, heed, observe, or in a minority of cases cognition: understand, while the complement refers to the text itself: instructions, safety precautions); - the pattern has a regular textual function (it constitutes a formal legalistic warning) as well as a regular context (it is often used in close proximity to a textual signal such as ‘Warning!’). However, it is necessary to examine another set of examples in order to demonstrate a further general principle: similar patterns are usually contrastive, and do not necessarily have the same contexts of use. Thus, for example, if we look in the Technical Manual corpus for variants of pattern 1, such as failure to do so... /failure to do this..., we find that the semantic range of the pattern is more restricted. In this case, while the embedded verb refers to a generic process to be retrieved in the preceding text (to do so, to do this), the complement of the main verb (results in) refers exclusively to undesired technical consequences–but not as bad as the dire consequences we saw for pattern (1), giving the following schema (based on 45 occurrences): Pattern 2. FAILURE TO DO SO / THIS (MAY/CAN etc.) + (modal) + V (where V = result in) + N (where N = the cable parting, damage to the cable, pressure buildup, electric shock, equipment damage, etc.). (2a) Failure to do this could result in the cable parting from the drum under load. (2b) CAUTION: ... Failure to do so will result in the outer wraps pressing against the inner wraps resulting in the damage of the cable. (2c) Failure to do so could result in pressure buildup which can cause the gearbox to leak or damage the equipment. 80| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
(2d) All electrical work must be performed by a licensed electrician. Failure to do so could result in electric shock or poor winch operation. (2e) Remove port caps from exhaust ports for operation. Failure to do so may result in equipment damage and limit performance. In this section, we have identified one of the most typical multi-word units of language in technical manuals. More generally, we would argue that this kind of analysis represents a relatively simple but systematic method for identifying the most typical lexico-grammatical patterns – in other words the ‘building blocks’ – of ESP and indeed of any specific type of language. Of course, it has to be borne in mind that much of this analysis is dependent on human interpretation, and requires the ability to identify a representative corpus of relevant texts. It is for this reason that corpus analysis is increasingly seen as a key feature of the contemporary language syllabus (for a discussion, see Leńko-Szymańska & Boulton 2015). 3.2. Research skills and the ESP learner: how corpus linguistics can help trainee translators become experts in their chosen specialist domain The spread of corpus analysis mentioned above has also triggered new approaches in translation studies, and especially in specialised or pragmatic translation training. Aston (1999) was one of the first to explain how corpus linguistics could be applied to the training of translators in this area. In his analysis of the different corpora that can be of use in specialised translation, such as monolingual corpora in the target language, parallel corpora and comparable corpora, he underlines the advantages of comparable specialised corpora that are very often ad hoc corpora, i.e. compiled for a specific use in a specific field. Following Aston’s work, a series of conferences entitled Corpus Use and Learning to Translate (CULT) led to several publications in this area (Bernardini & Zanettin 2000; Zanettin et al. 2003; Beeby et al. 2009). More recently, other researchers (Frankenberg-Garcia 2009; Stewart 2009; Gledhill 2011a, 2011b; Loock 2014) have emphasised the advantages of using corpora and corpus linguistics in translation training, although in France not many courses have implemented this approach. In this section, we describe a corpus-based approach that has been adopted and effectively applied at our university over many years (Kübler 2003) in the training of specialised translators. The translation process is presented to trainees as including three phases: 1) a documentation phase, 2) a translation phase, and 3) a revision phase. Corpora play different roles in all these three phases. We will not go into details here, as the three phases have been described elsewhere (Kübler 2011), but we will give a few examples to make our point on what our theoretical approach can bring to linguistics and translation training. - Documentation phase The analysis of genre and register for technical writing can also be applied to the text to be translated, as a thorough understanding of the linguistic features of the source text is necessary to achieve a high quality translation. Subsequently, translators have to explore the domain and understand concepts that are difficult or unknown. As mentioned above in our discussion of the concept-oriented
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |81
approach, the technique of querying specialised parallel and comparable corpora in order to understand a domain and to find out its terminological system (in both source and target languages) has been widely used for many years in the training of translators (Maia 2003 for example). Moreover, there has been much research on linguistic markers, which allow the translator to come up with definitional contexts (Pearson 1998) in the source and target language. Markers of course differ from one language to another. In English, for example, a very common marker appears in the following definition, as shown in example (3):5 (3) The motion of continents relative to the Earth’s spin axis may be either due to the drift of individual continents or due to a rotation of the entire Earth relative to its spin axis; the latter is called True Polar Wander (TPW) Here is called signals a definition followed by the name of the defined term (in italics). In French, our students’ target language, a similar marker is on dira (literally ‘one will say’): (4) Si l’arête est la diagonale intérieure d’un quadrilatère concave, on dira que cette arête est flippable ‘If the edge corresponds to the internal diagonal of a concave quadrilateral, this is called a flippable edge.’ Not only does this example represent a regular lexico-grammatical pattern, it can be also be used as a template for the observation of regular patterns of meaning. In this case, we can infer that the term arête (edge or ‘arête’ in English) is the hyperonym of arête flippable, whose definition appears before the actual lexical item is actually named. Generally speaking, such examples show how the trainee translator can come to understand the conceptual structure of a domain by the systematic observation of a corpus, and without any specific computational skills (as mentioned above in our discussion of the concept-oriented and context- oriented approaches). The advantage of querying a corpus for domain-specific knowledge lies in the fact that the corpus yields contexts and definitions that are not in specialised dictionaries, and gives information on the semantic relationships of the terms in the domain (hyperonyms, hyponyms, meronyms...). Apart from finding terms in the source language and their equivalents in the target language, which is what specialised corpora are widely used for today, our approach also involves the detection of important lexico-grammatical information in the second learning phase mentioned above, namely, the translation process. - Translating phase One of the most interesting problems which can arise in the translation process is the recognition, and then translation, of semantic prosody. Louw defines semantic prosody as “a consistent aura of meaning with which a form is imbued by its collocates” (1993: 157), while Sinclair, who originally coined the term, points out that it is attitudinal and on the “pragmatic side of the semantics /pragmatics continuum” (1996: 87). As discussed in Kübler & Volanschi (2012),
5 The following examples were taken from the Earth Science Comparable Corpus compiled at University Paris Diderot. 82| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
Semantic prosody is thus situated on the highest level of abstraction in the extended description of the lexical unit: collocation (co-occurrence of a node with a specific word), colligation (co-occurrence of a node with a set of words belonging to a specific syntactic category), semantic preference (co- occurrence of a node with a set of words belonging to the same semantic class, i.e. sharing a set of semantic features), and semantic prosody. (Kübler & Volanschi 2012: 104-105) Thus, in brief, semantic prosody can be defined as the contextually-determined (or ‘pragmatic’) meaning of a word shown by its combination with a series of collocates that have a positive or a negative connotation: the word is then said to have a negative or a positive semantic prosody. The phenomenon is difficult to detect for non-native speakers, and as discussed by Stewart (2009), it may account for a major difficulty in translation. As translators usually translate into their mother tongue, from a second language, semantic prosody constitutes a collocational pitfall for French-speakers translating from English into French. Moreover, as many researchers (Partington 1998; Berber Sardinha 2000) have shown, semantic prosody can differ from one language to the other, and that an equivalent in the target language does not necessarily have the same semantic prosody as the initial word in the source language. It has also been demonstrated that semantic prosody can differ when used in LSPs (Hunston 2007; Louw & Château 2010; Kübler & Volanschi 2012). We think that trainee translators should be trained to spot semantic prosody in a text, as they will have to choose among different equivalents. The verb give rise to for example has a negative semantic prosody in contexts in which human beings or their productions or artefacts are concerned, and no semantic prosody at all in other cases. This ‘semantic pattern’ was first identified by Hunston (2002). The presence (but also absence) of this prosody can be illustrated in the following examples: (5a) widespread changes in erosion rates and sediment flux can have important repercussions and give rise to significant socio-economic and environmental problems (6a) Such a process may give rise to explosive eruptions, leading to important human and material damages, and may have a major impact on the global Earth climate (7a) the relatively planar topography of the caldera may give rise to misinterpretations (8a) Such a phylogenetic distribution in association with the apparent textural stability of nacre throughout the geological times give rise to two fundamental questions (9a) however, it appears unable to give rise to TTG-like magmas (10a) which, upon addition of hyaluronan, give rise to negatively charged composite vesicles Examples (5) to (7) show that give rise has a negative semantic prosody, as the
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |83
pattern give rise to N contains the nouns problem or damages or misinterpretations, which have a negative connotation. Moreover in example (5) the presence of important repercussions and of the evaluative adjective significant reinforce the negative connotation. In all three sentences, the consequences have an impact on human beings. In contrast, sentence (8) has no semantic prosody (or it is neutral), and the pattern give rise to question(s) appears to belong to more general academic discourse. Finally, in sentences (9) and (10), give rise to TERM belongs to the ESP of geology, since it is used with other terms in this domain (L’Homme 1998), namely magma and vesicle. Again, in these examples, there is no observable semantic prosody. If we look up the translation of give rise to in the Wordreference dictionary,6 we find several potential translation equivalents in French: déclencher, provoquer, engendrer, donner lieu à produire, soulever, générer, déchainer, donner suite à, enfanter, prêter à confusion, prêter à rire, etc. Even though it is possible, by relying on our ‘Chomskyan’ (native speaker’s) intuition, to sort out some of the suggested translations, choosing the correct one remains a problem without the help of any context, and without understanding the phenomenon of semantic prosody. As mentioned, the translation equivalents for the first three examples (5, 6, 7) should also have a negative semantic prosody. The only way of finding out which suggested equivalent (or even other possibilities) is adapted in French is to look up each verb in a French specialised corpus, and then to check, for each individual noun, which verb fits best, taking into account the negative or neutral semantic prosody of the verb in French. Here the French corpus suggests: (5b) widespread changes in erosion rates and sediment flux can have important repercussions and give rise to significant socio-economic and environmental problems => engendrer, entraîner des problèmes environnementaux et socio-économiques importants (6b) Such a process may give rise to explosive eruptions, leading to important human and material damages, and may have a major impact on the global Earth climate => provoquer des éruptions explosives (7b) the relatively planar topography of the caldera may give rise to misinterpretations => conduire à des interprétations erronées (8b) Such a phylogenetic distribution in association with the apparent textural stability of nacre throughout the geological times give rise to two fundamental questions => soulever deux questions fondamentales (9b) however, it appears unable to give rise to TTG-like magmas => générer des magmas de type TTG (Tonalite, Trondjhemite, Granodiorite) (10b) which, upon addition of hyaluronan, give rise to negatively charged composite vesicles => amènent à la formation de vésicules composites chargées négativement
6 The Wordreference dictionary is available at
The approach adopted in this translation phase can also be applied to the revision phase, once the trainee’s translations have been revised by the trainers. The revision process is a critical and necessary stage in any professional translation (Mossop 2007); in our case, it is complicated by the fact that the trainers are often neither native speakers of English, nor specialists in the domain. Thus we would suggest that corpus analysis, once again, can be extremely useful when revising a translation to check for potential equivalents and lexico-grammatical patterns. In this section we have picked out just two features in the complex process of training specialist translators: the identification of lexico-grammatical patterns relating to definitions, and the analysis and comparison of semantic patterns in both source and target languages. This approach not only requires that the trainee translators learn how to use a corpus, but also – and more importantly – what to look for in a corpus. This is why it is crucial for them to receive specific training in the analysis of monolingual and comparable corpora.
4. The history of linguistic contributions to the journal ASp So far we have set out our own particular perspective on linguistic approaches to ESP. However, it would be instructive to finish this article by exploring the different ways in which linguistics has contributed to the field of ESP in the particular context of this journal. Despite its international perspective and team of contributors, ASp can still be fairly described as a ‘national’ journal (its readership and editors have traditionally been based mostly in France). So a good case can be made to see ASp as representative of a particular community of specialists.7 A further argument for this is to consider that many contributors to the journal attend the regular GERAS conferences.8 This is of course a subjective observation, but we would suggest that there are likely to be closer professional and social bonds between ASp’s editorial team, contributors and readership than for some other comparable international journals in this field. Given this degree of cohesion, it would be interesting to observe what articles on linguistics have been submitted to ASp, and how the various linguistic approaches to ESP have evolved in the journal.9 Overall, we have found 174 linguistics-oriented articles out of 483 papers published in ASp between 1993-2015.10 In the early years of ASp (1993-2000), articles were separated topically into four areas (Linguistics, Didactics, Culture, Technology). This made our selection fairly easy before 2000. After 2000, the division of papers into topics was replaced by a more synthetic approach. In Appendix 1 we have included all papers which before 2000 were either categorised as Linguistics (or a specific branch of linguistics), while after 2000 we have
7 We would have to conduct a detailed ethnographic survey to prove this. But, our knowledge of the local context suggests that the contributors and readers of ASp form a fairly cohesive, tightly-knit community within the French-speaking ESP world. 8 GERAS is a regular annual conference which usually takes place in France; the abbreviation stands for ‘Group for Study and Research on English for Specific Purposes’ (see
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |85
identified linguistics articles as those which correspond to one of the concept- oriented or context-oriented approaches discussed above (see sections 2.1 and 2.2). In some cases, a paper was not considered to be linguistic even though it might have looked like one (citing several extracts of text, for example, or studies which adopted an essentially literary or ‘cultural’ approach to language: this was particularly the case of studies on ‘FASP’: a French term for ESP in fictional contexts). Generally speaking, Appendix 1 shows that the proportion of papers adopting a linguistic approach in ASp has been gradually increasing. Between 1993-1997, the proportion was approximately 20%, but this percentage rose regularly between 1998-2008 with scores of around 30-40%, despite one or two dips. Between 2008- 2015, the score has risen even more sharply, and has been regularly above 50%. It is not clear to us why this might be. It may be that the apparent growth of linguistics in ASp corresponds to a particular change in the way ESP is taught or researched in the context of French higher education. But perhaps another explanation lies in a relative expansion in the range and diversity of topics. As we mentioned above, the context-oriented approach and the pervasive use of corpora have multiplied the different number of ways in which linguistic analysis can be conducted on different types of ESP. Some support for this may be found in Appendix 2. Although the range is very broad, it can be seen that among the 40 topics listed, the most frequent categories of linguistic contribution to ASp focus on genre analysis (the language of specific text types or disciplines), or discourse analysis (specific discourse modes or discourse markers). Although such studies are typically context- oriented, there have also been many concept-oriented contributions, most notably looking at metaphor, terminology and the morphological aspects of term- formation. It is also interesting to note that although most traditional features of syntax (verbal groups, nominal groups, pronouns, etc.) are represented, these topics do not attract as much attention as higher-level or textual features (Theme/Rheme analysis, cohesive markers, etc.). When we turn to Appendix 3, we see a similar state of affairs. In this table, we have attempted to categorise the theoretical background of each of the linguistic contributions to ASp. This has not been very systematic; in most cases we simply looked at the main references in the bibliography, or the keywords for each article (or failing that, we have made an ‘educated guess’ about the overall approach adopted). As can be seen, the number of ‘approaches’ is not the same as the number of articles, for the simple reason that in many cases, no single approach can be identified. One paper for example (Resche 2006) covers many different linguistic approaches, as can be seen in the keywords: definition, economics textbook, market, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes. Notwithstanding this complexity, we would suggest that the most frequently -occurring contributions to ASp appear, perhaps unsurprisingly, to adopt a context-oriented approach (genre analysis, discourse analysis, descriptive grammar, systemic functional linguistics, etc.). In addition, of the 16 studies in terminology, many of these also happen to be context-oriented, in that many of these studies often involve corpus analysis, or adopt a lexicographic or discourse-analytic approach to the definition of terms (see 86| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
for example, Resche 1998, 2001).
5. Conclusion So, what can linguistic approaches bring to English for Specific Purposes (ESP)? We began this paper with a critical look at the concept-oriented tradition. It is undeniable that concept-oriented linguistics has shaped the field of ESP fundamentally, not least by emphasising the central role of technical terminology in the conceptualisation of specialist domains and the construal of specialised knowledge. We would not like to give the impression that we are critical of all concept-oriented studies, although in section 2.1, we did react to many of the assumptions made by Lerat (1997), whose approach seems to be representative of a certain kind of linguistics which sees LSP or ESP as being restricted to the language (and in particular terminology) of a specialised discipline. In contrast, it should be clear from section 2.2 above that we see ourselves as context-oriented linguists. We would claim that the context-oriented school has also fundamentally shaped the field of ESP, in that it has brought with it a plethora of new methods and research questions, all of them determined not by theoretical considerations, but by the development of new techniques in the observation of language data and changes in the way that we interact with and perceive the practitioners of ESP. However, as we suggested above (sections 2.1 and 2.2), in many ways, the eclectic, empirical approach adopted in context-oriented studies does not stand in total opposition to the concept-oriented approach; rather there has come to emerge a hybrid kind of linguistic analysis which combines both perspectives. Thus a serious in-depth study of a particular ESP might contain a survey of the knowledge structure of the domain, an analysis of ethnographic context, a thorough description of the ecology of genres, a critical discourse analysis of a several key texts in the field, and all of this triangulated by the systematic analysis of one or (preferably several) comparative corpora (not to mention possible diachronic analysis...). In some ways such studies have existed since the beginning of the corpus revolution (1980-1990), but it is not hard to find more recent and certainly more systematic studies which appear to be moving in this direction (to name but one example: Grey 2015). Regardless of whether one accepts or rejects our distinction between concept- oriented and context-oriented approaches, it seems undeniable that the pervasive use of corpus analysis has changed the rules of the game for most linguists interested in ESP. Of course, the corpus revolution has not been adopted by all linguists (see for example the review of current linguistic approaches in Heine & Narrog 2010). And indeed it would be a mistake to assume that all analysts use corpus-informed research in the ways that we have been discussing (in sections 3.1 and 3.2 above). Nevertheless, we would claim that for many linguists working in the field of ESP, academic practice has changed immeasurably in recent years: in the pre-corpus era, the expectation was that all of the lexical forms and phrases of a language variety could be analysed out of context, in terms of an abstract grammar; now these forms can be seen in the light of multi-word patterns (features of text which can only be systematically appreciated by observing corpus data). Similarly,
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |87
the world of the language practitioner has also changed. For example, in the pre- corpus era technical translators relied on translation equivalences set out in static, authoritative dictionaries, now most technical translations are carried out using computer-assisted translation tools which make use of multi-word units, and as a consequence translators almost obligatorily need training in how to manage corpus tools. This final point leads us to mention very briefly an important issue which we unfortunately did not have space to discuss in the main body of this paper: the indirect benefits of linguistics. By ‘indirect’ we mean all of the techniques, tools and theories that have come into the field of ESP (and LSP) without necessarily being associated with linguistic analysis. For example, on-line electronic resources such as the analytical toolbox SketchEngine 11 (Kilgarriff et al. 2004), or terminology databases such as the Grand Dictionnaire Terminologique12 or ARTES13 (Pecman 2012) are of immense use to language-users, but especially so to professionals and practitioners in ESP/LSP. We would argue that such tools, among many hundreds of others, are an indirect benefit of linguistics – mostly because they originated as fundamental research in (applied) linguistics. We have no space here to go into this issue in any detail, but perhaps the best way we can frame it is by echoing the famously tongue-in-cheek question from the film Life of Brian: “Well, just what have the Romans (or in this case ‘the Linguists’) ever done for us?” To this question we could very well reply, as in the film: “Well, apart from online dictionaries and term-banks, keyword searches, concordances and corpora, grammar checkers, style checkers and readability indexes, computer- assisted translation, subtitling and voice recognition software, not to mention knowledge engineering, the semantic web, the use of online grammars, training modules and other corpus-informed materials for the language classroom and teacher training – in other words all the basic theories, tools and techniques that language learners, professional translators, language engineers, technical communicators and for that matter pretty much all literate people in the educated world who need to deal with language – it’s true, what have ‘the Linguists’ ever done for us?” Acknowledgments The authors of this paper are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.
Bibliographical references ANTHONY, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from
11 SketchEngine is available at
Philosophical Transactions and the Journal des Sçavans, 1665-1700”. ASp 55, 5–22. BASTURKMEN, Helen & Catherine ELDER. 2006. “The practice of LSP”. In DAVIES, A. & C. ELDER (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Blackwell, 672–694. BEEBY, Allison, Inés RODRIGUEZ & Pilar SANCHEZ-GIJON. 2009. Corpus Use and Translating. Amsterdam: Benjamins. BERBER Sardinha Tony. 2000. “Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study”. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa 9/1, 93–110. BERNARDINI, Sylvia & Federico ZANETTIN. 2000. I corpora nella didattica della traduzione/ Corpus Use and Learning to Translate, Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice. BIBER, Douglas. 2010. “Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use”. In HEINE, B. & H. NARROG (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. London: Oxford University Press, 159–192. BIBER, Douglas, Randi REPPEN & Eric FRIGINAL. 2010. “Research in corpus linguistics”. In KAPLAN, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 548– 567. BLOOR, Meriel & Tom BLOOR. 1986. “Languages for specific purposes: practice and theory”. Centre for Language and Communication Studies Occasional Papers 19. Dublin: Trinity College CELTS. CORDER, Stephen Pit. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Hamrondsworth: Penguin. ENGLISH, Kathryn. 1998. “Understanding science: when metaphors become terms”. ASp 19-22, 151–163. FRANKENBERG-GARCIA, Ana, Lynne FLOWERDEW & Guy ASTON (Eds.), New Trends in Corpora and Language Learning. London: Continuum. GLEDHILL, Christopher. 2000. Collocations in Science Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. GLEDHILL, Christopher. 2011a. “A lexicogrammar approach to checking quality: Looking at one or two cases of comparative translation”. In DEPRAETERE, I. (Ed.), Perspectives on Translation Quality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71–98. GLEDHILL, Christopher. 2011b. “The ‘lexicogrammar’ approach to analysing phraseology and collocation in ESP texts”. ASp 59, 5–23. GLEDHILL Chris & Natalie KÜBLER. 2015. “How trainee translators analyse lexico-grammatical patterns”. In GONZÁLEZ-REY, M. I. (Ed.), Journal of Social Sciences – Special issue on Phraseology, Phraseodidactics and Construction Grammar(s) 11/3, 162–178. GRANGER, Sylviane 1994. The Learner Corpus: a revolution in applied linguistics. English Today 10/3, 25–33. GREY, Bethany. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline only Tells Part of the Story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GROOM, Sebastian, Maggie CHARLES & Suganthi JOHN (Eds.). 2015. Corpora, Grammar and Discourse. In honour of Susan Hunston. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GROSS, Gaston. 1996. Les expressions figées. Paris: Ophrys. HALLIDAY, Michael & Christian MATTHIESSEN. 2014. Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th Edition). London: Routledge. HANKS, Patrick. 2012. “The corpus revolution in lexicography”. International Journal of Lexicography 25/4, 398–436. HEINE, Bernd & Heiko NARROG (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. London: Oxford University Press. HOFFMANN, Sebastian, Bettina FISCHER-STARKE & Andrea SAND (Eds.). 2015. Current Issues in Phraseology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |89
HUNSTON, Susan. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HUNSTON, Susan. 2007. “Semantic prosody revisited”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12/2, 249–268. KILGARRIFF, Adam, Pavel RYCHLY, Pavel SMRZ & David TUGWELL. 2004. “The Sketch Engine”. In WILLIAMS, G. & S. VEISSIER (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX 2004, Lorient France July 6-10 2004, Lorient: Presses de l’Université de Bretagne Sud, 105–116. KÜBLER, Natalie. 2003. “Corpora and LSP translation”. In ZANETTIN, F., S. BERNARDINI & D. STEWART (Eds.), Corpora in Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome, 25–42. KÜBLER, Natalie. 2011. “Working with different corpora in translation teaching”. In FRANKENBERG-GARCIA, A., L. FLOWERDEW & G. ASTON (Eds.), New Trends in Corpora and Language Learning. London: Continuum, 62–80. KÜBLER Natalie & Alexandra VOLANSCHI. 2012. “Semantic prosody and specialised translation, or how a lexico-grammatical theory of language can help with specialised translation”. In BOULTON, A., S. CARTER-THOMAS & E. ROWLEY-JOLIVET (Eds.), Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 103–134. LAFFONT, Hélène & Jean-Louis TROUILLON. 2013. “La recherche en anglais scientifique et la revue ASp : retour sur vingt ans de publications (1993-2012)”. ASp 63,113–158. LEŃKO-SZYMAŃSKA, Agnieszka & Alex BOULTON (Eds.). 2015. Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. LERAT, Pierre. 1997. “Approches linguistiques des langues spécialisées”. ASp 15-18,1–10. L’HOMME, Marie-Claude. 1998. “Définition du statut du verbe en langue de spécialité et sa description lexicographique”. Cahiers de lexicologie 73/2, 125–148. LOOCK, Rudy. 2014. “La traductologie de corpus : étude de cas et enjeux”. In D'AMÉLIO, N. (Ed.), Au coeur de la démarche traductive : débat entre concepts et sujets, Actes du colloque international « Traduction / Traductologie. Conceptualisations et nœuds de subjectivité en traduction ». Mons: Centre international de phonétique appliquée, 99–116. LOUW, Bill & Carmela CHÂTEAU. 2010. “Semantic prosody for the 21st century: Are prosodies smoothed in academic context? A contextual prosodic theoretical perspective”. In BOLASCO, S., I. CHIARI & L. GIULIANO (Eds.), Statistical Analysis of Textual Data: Proceedings of the tenth JADT Conference, 754–764. LOUW, Bill. 1993. “Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies”. InBAKER, M., G. FRANCIS & E. TOGNINI-BONELLI (Eds.), Text and Technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157–176. MAIA, Belinda. 2003. “Training translators in terminology and information retrieval using comparable and parallel corpora”. In ZANETTIN, F., S. BERNARDINI & D. STEWART (Eds.), Corpora in Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome, 43–54. MAINGUENEAU, Dominique. 2002. “Écrit/oral”. In CHARAUDEAU, P. & MAINGUENEAU D. (Eds.), Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil, 202–205. MATTHIESSEN, Christian. 1993. “Register in the round”. In GHADESSY, M. (Ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter, 221–292. MOSSOP, Brian. 2007. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome. PARTINGTON, Alan. 1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. PEARSON, Jennifer. 1998. Terms in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelpha: John Benjamins. PECMAN, Mojca. 2012. “Étude lexicographique et discursive des collocations en vue de leur intégration dans une base de données terminologiques”. The Journal of specialised 90| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
translation (JoSTrans) 18, special issue on Terminology, Phraseology and Translation, 113– 138. PERALDI, Sandrine. 2012. “L’anglais de spécialité en chimie organique : entre indétermination terminologique et multidimensionnalité”. ASp 62, 5–24. PIC, Elsa, Grégory FURMANIAK & Vincent HUGOU. 2013. “Étude comparative de quelques marqueurs de reformulation paraphrastique dans les articles de recherche et les articles de vulgarisation”. ASp 63, 75–92. POOLE, Deborah & Betty SAMRAJ. 2010. “Discourse analysis and applied linguistics”. In KAPLAN, R. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 127–140. RESCHE, Catherine. 1998. “Discours métaphorique et monnaies : les particularités de l’euro”. ASp 19-22, 67–88. RESCHE, Catherine. 1999. “De l’utilité d’une approche syntaxique en langue specialise : exemple de l’anglais économique”. ASp 26, 121–138. RESCHE, Catherine 2001. “Metaphors in English for economics: for a language-based approach with L2 learners”. ASp 31/33, 239–259. RESCHE, Catherine 2003. “Décryptage d’un genre particulier : les communiqués de presse de la Banque Centrale américaine”. ASp 39-40, 21-35. RESCHE, Catherine. 2006. “Étude préliminaire du discours de présentation de la notion de marché dans les manuels d’introduction aux principes de l’économie”. ASp 49-50, 93–118. RESCHE, Catherine 2013. “Dénominations disciplinaires et nouveaux contours d’un domaine specialise : le cas de la science économique”. ASp 64, 29–50. RUNDELL, Michael & Penny STOCK. 1992. “The corpus revolution: A consideration of the prospects and potential of corpus-and-concordance lexicography”. English Today 8/2, 9–4. SÁNCHEZ-CÁRDENAS, Beatriz & Miriam BUENDÍA-CASTRO. Forthcoming. “Comment traiter les différents types d’eaux ? Lorsque les sciences du langage mettent de l’ordre dans les représentations terminologiques”. Paper presented at the Conference TRELA 2014 « Terrains de recherche en linguistique appliquée », 8-10 juillet 2015, Université Paris Diderot, France. SINCLAIR, John. 1987. Looking Up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing and the development of the Collins COBUILD English language dictionary. London/Glasgow: Collins. SINCLAIR, John. 1996. “The search for units of meaning”. Textus 9, 75–106. SOCKETT, Geoffrey. 2011. “From the cultural hegemony of English to online informal learning: Cluster frequency as an indicator of relevance in authentic documents”. ASp 60, 5–20. STEWART, Dominic. 2009. “Safeguarding the lexicogrammatical environment: Translating semantic prosody”. In BEEBY, A., P. RODRIGUEZ-INES & P. SANCHEZ-GIJON (Eds.), Corpus Use and Translating: Corpus Use for Learning to Translate and Learning Corpus Use to Translate. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–46. STUBBS, Michael. 2006. “Language corpora”. In DAVIES, A. & C. ELDER (Eds.) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Blackwell, 106–132. SWALES, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press THELEN, Marcel. 2002. “Relations between terms: a cognitive approach. The interaction between terminology, lexicology, translation studies and translation practice”. Linguistica Antverpiensia 1, 193–209. VOLANSCHI, Alexandra & Natalie KÜBLER. 2011. “The impact of metaphorical framing on term creation in biology”. Terminology 17/2, 198–223. WILLIAMS, Geoffrey. 2003a. “From meaning to words and back: Corpus linguistics and specialised lexicography”. ASp 39-40, 91–106.
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |91
WILLIAMS, Geoffrey. 2003b. “Les collocations et l’école contextualiste britannique”. In TUTIN, A. & F. GROSSMAN (Eds.), Les collocations : analyse et traitement. Amsterdam: de Werelt, 33–44. ZANETTIN, Federico, Silvia BERNARDINI & Dominic STEWART (Eds.). 2003. Corpora in Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Appendix 1. Authors of 174 linguistics-related articles in ASp (1993- 2015) Year Authors (listed alphabetically) Linguistics Total % Articles Articles 1993 Boughedaoui, Coulardeau, Diana, Fries-Verdeil, 11 61 18% Miller, Monin, Perry, Petit, Rybar, Videlenc (a), Videlenc (b) 1994 Carter-Thomas, Corbisier, Dudley-Evans, Fade, 9 47 19% Magnet, Miller, Osborne, Petit, Schuwer 1995 Banks, Busuttil, Coulardeau, English, Partington, 8 36 22% Phillips, Resche, Villez 1996 Bondi-Paganelli, Monin, Osborne, Resche, 7 32 22% Tassard, Van der Yeught, Wolosin 1997 Bachschmidt, Banks, Beaufrère-Bertheux, Birch- 23 35 66% Bécaaas, Boughedaoui, Carnet, Chukwu, Coulardeau, Crosnier, Galonnier, Gledhill, Labrosse, Lakic, Lerat, Martin, Mathis, Resche, Sionis (a), Sionis (b), Sionis (c), Petit, Rézeau, Webber 1998 Banks, Dressen-Hammouda, English, Greenstein, 8 22 36% Resche (a), Resche (b), Salager-Meyer, Trouillon 1999 Bachschmidt, Carter-Thomas, Cotte, Fries-Verdeil, 12 25 48% Magnet, Monin, Mullen, Percebois, Resche, Rouveyrol, Rowley-Jolivet, Schuwer 2000 Arleo, Banks, Boulton, Galonnier, Labrosse, 8 22 36% Magnet, Resche, Rowley-Jolivet 2001 Banks, Carter-Thomas & Rowley-Jolivet, 8 20 40% Dechesne, Eason, Fries-Verdeil, Resche, Spalding Andréolle, G. Williams. 2002 Banks, Busch-Lauer, Carnet & Magnet, Divasson 11 16 69% & León, Fontaine & Kodratoff, Hilton, Maniez, Resche, Rotgé, Sionis, G. Williams Sionis & Boucher 2003 Baud, Resche, Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 5 25 20% Trouillon, G. Williams 2004 Banks, Duchet & Chaulet, Negroni & Humbley, 5 19 26% Percebois, Van der Yeught 92| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
2005 Resche 1 8 13% 2006 Banks, Boulton & Wilhelm, Resche, Richard 4 10 40% 2007 Chambers, Hay, Maniez, Moirand & Tréguer- 4 9 44% Felten 2008 Humbley, Pennec, Rowley-Jolivet & Carter- 3 11 27% Thomas 2009 Banks a, Banks b, Davier, Maniez, Robert, 6 12 50% Trouillon 2010 Banks, Bex, Fløttum, Landure & Boulton, Pennec, 6 12 50% Pic & Furmaniak 2011 Bendinelli, Chapon, Gledhill, Isani, Peynaud, 6 12 50% Sockett 2012 Banks, Kusyk & Sockett, Peraldi, Pic & Furmaniak 5 9 56% (a), Pic & Furmaniak(b) 2013 Bardière, Biros, Bordet, Dressen-Hammouda, 8 16 50% Gaillat, Lacase, Pic Furmaniak & Hugou, Resche 2014 Anesa, Bordet, Debras, Fløttum, José-Marin & Rea, 10 14 71% McAlister, Meyers, Percebois, Peynaud, Pic & Furmaniak 2015 Cloarec, Domenec, Gaillard, Millot, Nesi, Resche 6 10 60%
Appendix 2. Features analysed in 174 linguistics-related articles in ASp (1993-2015)
Linguistic features of a genre/text type (conference presentation, presidential 25 debate, email list announcement, headline, film review, letter to the editor, mission statement, military operation order, press release, research article, etc.) or field (astronomy, economics, finance, the law, medicine, etc.) Argumentation, discourse modes/sequences, rhetorical moves 10 Bundles, clusters, collocations, lexical phrases, phraseological units 9 Metaphor, conceptual metaphor (cognitive approach) 9 Morphology in terminology (abbreviation, affixing, blending, composition, 8 derivation) Terminology of a domain (in LSP and/ or LGP) 8 Theme/Rheme analysis, information / thematic structure 8 Cohesive markers of reference (‘this, that’, etc.) 7 Terminology in translation, translation problems (false friends) 7 Cohesive markers of conjunction, discourse markers (‘that is to say...’, etc.) 6
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |93
Modality 6 Aspect, tenses 5 Cohesion across a whole text 5 Clause-level structure (if-conditionals, clefts, extraposition, coordination) 4 Lexical association, complexity, density, comprehension, reading level, AWL 4 Lexical distribution, keywords, “notional networks” 4 Terminological creativity/neology 4 Translation processes, specialised translation 4 Voice (= active, medio-passive, passive, etc.) 4 Error analysis 3 Grammatical metaphor 3 Hedging 3 Interrogatives (direct/indirect) 3 Multimodal aspects of oral and written interaction (images, symbols, non-verbal 3 gestures, etc.) Rhetoric, style, voice (= strategy of communication) 3 Verbal group syntax, causatives, phrasal verbs 3 Verbal semantics (process types – participant roles, transitivity) 3 Adverbs of intensity, modal adjuncts 2 Aphoristic phrases, formulaic language, speech acts, sequences with specific 2 rhetorical functions Denomination, proper nouns, names 2 Nominal group, adjectival group (compound pre-modifiers) 2 Pronouns, relative pronouns 2 Quantifiers 2 Reformulation 2 Citations, quotations 1 Collocational networks 1 Intercultural rhetoric, politeness 1 Language learning/Acquisition 1 Non-standard language (slang) 1
94| C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95
Appendix 3. Approaches adopted in 174 linguistics-related articles in the ASp journal (1993-2015) Genre analysis (V. Bhatia, C. Bazerman, F. Salager-Meyer, J. Swales) 16 Terminological analysis, specialised lexicography (J. Humbley, L. Hoffmann, M.-C. 16 L’Homme, R. Temmerman, P. Thoiron) Corpus-based, corpus-driven, corpus-informed analysis (D. Biber, S. Granger, 14 J. Sinclair) Discourse analysis (J-M. Adam, P. Charaudeau, M. Halliday, D. Maingueneau) 8 Descriptive grammar(s) (D. Biber, R. Huddleston, P. Larreya, M. Riegel, R. Quirk) 9 Systemic functional approach (M. Halliday, R. Hasan, J. Martin, C. Matthiessen) 7 Concordance analysis (T. Johns, M. Stubbs, C. Tribble) 5 Contrastive/comparative analysis (U. Connor, R. Hartmann, B. Hatim) 5 Meta-linguistic discussion of linguistic models 5 Multimodal analysis (G. Kress, Van Leuwen) 4 Diachronic analysis (D. Banks, G. Myers) 3 Lexicological approach, lexical semantics, phraseology (F. Gaudin, I. Mel’ĉuk, 3 F. Rastier.) Meta-linguistic discussion of corpus methodology/construction 3 Meta-linguistic discussion of learning/teaching though linguistic analysis 3 Meta-linguistic discussion of student productions 3 Semiotic analysis (G. Kress, Van Leuwen) 3 Critical Discourse Analysis (N. Fairclough) 2 Lexicometrics, logometrics, textometrics (B. Habert, L. Rouveyrol) 2 Meta-linguistic discussion of glossaries, terminological databases 2 Psycho-systematic theory (G. Guillaume) 2 Stylistics (D. Crystal, G. Molinié) 2 Theory of enunciative operations (A. Culioli) 2 Cognitive approach, mental lexicon (W. Croft, R. Lakoff, P. Thorndike) 1 Conversation analysis (J. Atkinson, E. Goffman, J. Sacks) 1 Pragmatics (J. Anscombre, P. Grice, O. Ducrot) 1 Rhetorical structure theory (W. Mann, S. Thompson) 1 Transformational grammar (N. Chomsky) 1
C. Gledhill & N. Kübler / ASp 69 (March 2016) 65–95 |95
Christopher Gledhill is Professor of English Linguistics at the Université Paris Diderot (Paris, France) where he is currently co-ordinator of the first year Master’s in Applied Foreign Languages (Mention LEA) and co-coordinator with Natalie Kübler of a second year Master’s in Languages for Specific Purposes, Corpus Linguistics and Translation studies (Master 2 LSCT). He has taught and conducted research in interlinguistics, specialised translation, phraseology, systemic functional grammar and text linguistics. [email protected] Natalie Kübler is Professor of English Linguistics and translation at the Université Paris Diderot (Paris, France). She was one of the first to introduce corpus linguistics applied to translation in a Master’s in specialised translation in France. She has taught and conducted research in corpus linguistics and LSPs, specialised translation, and corpus linguistics applied to language and translation teaching and learning. She is currently the head of the research team CLILLAC-ARP and of the Language Resource Center at Paris Diderot. [email protected]
ASp 69 |97
Diachronic aspects of ESP
Diachronie et anglais de spécialité
David Banks Université de Bretagne Occidentale
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Diachronic ESP, Journal des Sçavans, Anglais de spécialité diachronique, discours multimodality, Philosophical Transactions, scientifique, Journal des Sçavans, scientific discourse, systemic functional linguistique systémique fonctionnelle, linguistics. Philosophical Transactions, plurimodalité. ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ Diachronic ESP is a relatively new field of L’anglais de spécialité (ASP) diachronique research, and much of the work which might constitue un champ de recherche relativement be included under this title does not use this nouveau, bien que de nombreux travaux qui term. This paper attempts to give an overview pourraient figurer sous cet intitulé n’utilisent of the work available. Early contributions pas cette expression. Cet article tente de tended to be in the field of sociolinguistics. The dresser un état des lieux de la recherche dans work of Michael Halliday is particularly ce domaine. Les premières contributions important, notably his studies of the étaient souvent de nature sociolinguistique. relationship between nominalization and Les travaux de M. Halliday sont thematic progression. The work of Banks on particulièrement intéressants, notamment ses the scientific research article follows on from études sur la relation entre la nominalisation that of Halliday, and looks specifically at the et la progression thématique. Ceux de Banks Philosophical Transactions, and compares it sur l’article de recherche scientifique se situent with the French Journal des Sçavans. Salager- dans le prolongement de ceux de M. Halliday ; Meyer has made a significant contribution in ils traitent principalement des Philosophical the area of interpersonal aspects of medical Transactions et les comparent avec le discourse. There has also been a small number périodique français, le Journal des Sçavans. F. of edited collections on the question of the Salager-Meyer fournit une contribution development of scientific discourse. Some of majeure à propos des aspects interpersonnels the studies are multimodal in nature, dealing du discours scientifique. Des ouvrages collectifs particularly with the uses of images in scientific sur la question de l’évolution du discours text. The majority of studies in this area have scientifique ont aussi été publiés. Certaines been on scientific text, but there have been études sont plurimodales de nature et traitent sporadic sorties into other genres. Diachronic en particulier de l’usage des images dans le ESP should provide a fruitful field for future texte scientifique. La majorité des études dans research. ce domaine concerne le discours scientifique, mais quelques tentatives ponctuelles ont porté sur d’autres types de discours. L’ASP diachronique devrait être un champ fructueux pour la recherche future. 98| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
Introduction Diachronic linguistics is the study of language as it develops over time. It is conventionally contrasted with synchronic linguistics, which is the study of language at a single point in time without reference to the way in which it develops. These two have respectively sometimes also been called historical and descriptive linguistics (Crystal 1985, 1999; Bynon 1977).1 It is possible to have a synchronic study of a language (or some aspect of it) at a specific point in the past. However, such studies will frequently have, at least an implicit, and more usually an explicit contrast with the present state of the language, and consequently they too may be thought of as having some diachronic import. It seems incontrovertible that knowledge of the development of a language can help in the understanding of its present state. Knowing how the modal auxiliaries of present-day English grew out of full lexical verbs of Old English can help in understanding the semantic complexity of the modern modal system; knowledge of the Great Vowel Shift can be an aid to coming to terms with the apparent idiosyncrasies of contemporary English orthography. Thus, courses in the history of English have long been a standard component of curricula for advanced students of the language. I have previously argued (Banks 2011, 2012, 2015) that this could beneficially be applied to ESP, and suggested the term “diachronic ESP” for the study of diachronic aspects of ESP; others have used the term “diaESP” (Alonso-Almeida & Marrero-Morales 2011). I am not suggesting that this should necessarily be taught directly to students of ESP, but rather that teachers and trainee-teachers of ESP would benefit (and hence their teaching would benefit) from a knowledge of diachronic aspects of ESP. Although very little work so far uses the term “diachronic ESP”, there is a certain amount of work on the diachronic analysis of specialized text, and this may be thought of as being, at least part of, the content of diachronic ESP. Moreover, just like any text, understanding a specialized text from a previous period requires knowledge of the context in which it was produced. Hence this is an area where linguistics proper and cultural studies both have their importance, and thus where both linguists and specialists of cultural studies have a contribution to make. Of course, specialized text is probably as old as writing. The earliest examples of written text, in the 3rd millennium B.C. were specialized in nature, and Swales (1997) points out that these display characteristics that we associate with specialized text today. Morini-Garcia (2000) also sees texts from the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. as “ancêtres du discours spécialisé” (2000: 565). This paper, however, will deal with ESP rather than LSP, and hence with a much shorter time-scale. The work available is fairly piecemeal, but the largest section of the jig-saw puzzle which has been tackled is that of the diachronic analysis of scientific text, so that is where I shall start. I shall look first at the contribution of sociolinguistics to the field. I shall then look at the work of Michael Halliday in this area. His profound and insightful comments are among the most interesting to have been made in this
1 The nature of this paper is such that some references are given as examples, without implying that they are the sole references possible.
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |99
field. My own work on the development of the scientific article follows on from that of Halliday. I shall then consider the particular area of the development of medical discourse, where the work of Salager-Meyer is particularly important. In addition, I shall mention some significant books of edited collections of articles. I shall also look at the question of multimodality, where non-verbal features, notably images, form an integral part of the discourse. Finally, I shall mention some contributions in specialized translation, and in areas other than science.
1. A sociolinguistic approach Those who work in the area of the diachronic analysis of specialized text usually take Bazerman (1988) as the seminal study in this field. Half of the chapters in this book had appeared previously as articles, and the book covers a wide range of topics, including, for example, experimental accounts in the Philosophical Transactions 1665-1800, the controversy surrounding Newton’s theory of optics, and experimental reports in spectroscopy in Physical Review, 1893-1980. Bazerman’s approach is that of a sociolinguist, and so he is interested in the social situation in which the text is produced, and what the text reveals about it. In the wake of Bazerman’s book, a number of others appeared with a similar orientation. Gross 1996, like Bazerman’s book, is based on previously published articles; ten of the twelve chapters had appeared in article form. He also deals with a range of topics, and his interest is in the rhetorical structure of scientific writing. Atkinson 1999 deals specifically with the Philosophical Transactions over the period 1675-1975, and again his interest is sociolinguistic. Valle 1999 also deals with the Philosophical Transactions from a sociolinguistic point of view, over the similar period of 1665- 1965, but restricts her study to the life sciences. Gross et al. (2002) consider scientific articles in English, French and German from the 17th to the 20th century. They are interested in style, presentation and argument structure. Although they have more in the way of linguistic analysis, their quotes and examples from non- English sources are given in English translation only, showing that they are basically interested in what is said rather than how it is said.
2. A systemic functional approach One of the most significant contributions to this area is that of Michael Halliday within the framework, of which he was the founding father, of Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday 2014; Banks 2005). In Halliday 1988, he takes as his starting point the earliest known technical text written in English, Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe, which dates from 1391, and which he never, in fact, completed. This is a manual of instructions for the use of an astrolabe, and was ostensibly written for his son, said to be ten years’ old at the time. It is then not to be confused with something like a research article, being more like a modern teenager’s “how-it- works” type of book (Banks 1995, 1997). According to Halliday, Chaucer’s text is “a kind of technical, perhaps proto-scientific discourse” (1988: 165). He bases this judgement on Chaucer’s use of technical nouns, complex nominal groups, events under study expressed as relational processes, and activities expressed as material or mental processes. In Systemic Functional Linguistics a process is the function 100| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
typically encoded in verbs. Material processes are physical actions and events; mental processes are events of a cognitive type, and relational processes are relationships of an attributive, identifying or possessive kind. Halliday then moves on several centuries to Newton’s Treatise on Opticks, which he takes as constituting the beginning of scientific English proper. This was not published until 1704, but was probably complete by 1687, and followed the controversial reception of his article “A new theory of light and colours” published in the Philosophical Transactions in 1672 (Fara 2002; Hakfoort 1988; Shapiro 2001). Where Chaucer’s text had been instructions for use, Newton’s is a discourse of experimentation: “in place of Chaucer’s instructions for use he has descriptions of action – not ‘you do this’ but ‘I did that’” (Halliday 1988: 166). Experimental activity is expressed through material processes, with mental processes being used for observation and reasoning. In the experimental sections Newton uses clause complexes (in other approaches these would usually be called sentences) with numerous subordinate clauses, but in the mathematical sections the clauses are usually simple but with long complex noun groups. One of the most significant points that Halliday makes relates to Newton’s use of the nominalization of processes. Nominalization is a way of “packaging a complex phenomenon into a single semiotic entity” (Halliday 1988: 167). Moreover, this use of nominalization is closely related to questions of thematic structure and progression. The process will frequently be expressed in its verbal form towards the end of a clause complex, where it constitutes part of the rheme, and would normally be new information. It will then appear in its nominalized form at the beginning of the following clause, thus functioning as theme and given information. This use of nominalization is therefore an important resource in the argument structure of the discourse, and this importance has increased as time has gone by. It is an essential resource for constructing scientific discourse. We see it emerging in the language of this period, when the foundations of an effective register for codifying, transmitting and extending the ‘new learning’ are rapidly being laid down. (Halliday 1988: 169) With this device a clause can express relationships between processes, such as “process a causes process x to happen”. This tendency has gone on developing up to the present day, and Halliday suggests the following schematic representation of this phenomenon. ( a happens; so x happens ( because a happens, x happens ( that a happens causes x to happen ( happening a causes happening x ( happening a is the cause of happening x This does not mean that we will inevitably find the final form in contemporary texts. In fact, any of the forms could occur. What Halliday is suggesting is that over time there will be a tendency to find the later forms (Banks forthcoming a). These points are taken up again in Halliday (1993), where he gives an analysis of the final
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |101
section of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859. Once again he shows how the resource of nominalization enters into the thematic progression, with nominalized processes backgrounded as theme and given information. Moreover, as nouns, these processes are presented as being fixed and stable, something whose existence cannot be challenged: “the nominalization picks up on the preceding argument and presents it in this ‘objectified’ form as something to be taken for granted” (Halliday 1993: 98). As Halliday has said elsewhere, “you can argue with a clause but you can’t argue with a nominal group” (Halliday & Martin 1993: 39).
3. The development of the scientific research article Following on from the work of Halliday, my own recent research has concentrated on the scientific research article. This is notably the case in the second half of Banks (2008) and Banks (forthcoming b). In Banks (2008) I used a corpus of articles from the Philosophical Transactions covering the period 1700 to 1980. The corpus consists of two articles for the year 1700, one from the physical sciences, and one from the biological sciences; this was repeated at 20-year intervals up to 1980, thus giving a total of 30 articles. Analysis reveals an overall picture where the physical sciences are experimental from the beginning of the period and continue to be so until the second half of the nineteenth century when mathematical modelling begins to be a major interest alongside experiment. The biological sciences were originally observational and it is only in the middle of the nineteenth century that experiment begins to be used; from then on, both experiment and observation are significant in the biological sciences. The analysis shows that in the physical sciences the use of passives increased from about 25% of finite verbs to 30% by the middle of the nineteenth century and has remained at that level since then. In the biological sciences, the rate was initially about 15%, and rose to 30% in the course of the twentieth century. The use of nominalized processes seems to have been always fairly common. In the physical sciences, their frequency is about one per 30 words of text until 1920 when there is a rapid increase to about one per 14 words of text. In the biological field, the rate is less stable but settles at about one per 30 words in the mid-nineteenth century, increasing to about one per 23 words in the twentieth century. A significant development in the course of the twentieth century in the use of nominalized processes is their use as modifiers (i.e. with an adjectival function). This never occurs before 1900, but becomes fairly frequent thereafter. There are even cases where a nominal group made up of a nominalized process as modifier plus head itself functions as a complex modifier within a further nominal group, as in the following example from a 1960 article in the Philosophical Transactions, where ionization front functions as a complex modifier in the nominal group A strong R-type ionization front structure: A strong R-type ionization front structure with one shock is the one which is most likely to occur. Analysis of the thematic structure shows that themes relating to the experimental area (that is, the object of study, the experiment or observation and 102| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
the equipment used) account for 75% of all themes in the biological sector throughout the period and in the physical sector until the end of the nineteenth century. From this point on the rate falls significantly, and is replaced by themes of a mathematical nature. Thus, before 1900, examples like the following from an 1860 article are the norm: By the addition of a little water a small quantity of syncoretin was then thrown down, in order to carry down the last traces of the less soluble crystalline compound, in case any were still present.
In the course of the 20th century, examples like the following, from a 1960 article, become fairly frequent accounting for over 30% over the themes: Since z < 1 for all D-types, equation (2.11) shows that v1< c1< a1, so that all D-type ionization fronts move subsonically relative to the fluid ahead. Banks (forthcoming b) concentrates on the much shorter time-scale of 1665- 1700. This period was particularly important for the academic article, since in 1665 the first two academic periodicals began publication. The first was Le Journal des Sçavans on 5 January, and this was followed by the Philosophical Transactions on 5 March.2 The French journal was edited by Denis de Sallo at the instigation of Colbert. It covered the whole range of disciplines of the time, and was made up mainly of book reviews (Morgan 1928). The English journal was edited by Henry Oldenburg, one of the secretaries of the Royal Society. He was the centre of a network of correspondence (Gotti 2006), and his intention was to use his correspondence to create a newsletter as a private money-making venture. It was virtually restricted to the field of science and technology (Hall 2002). The year 1665 was in the middle of the reign of Louis XIV, and the situation in France was totally stable, while England was in the early days of the Restoration, and still recovering from the Civil War, the execution of Charles I, and the rule of Cromwell. The commonest type of theme by far in the Philosophical Transactions is the object of study, which rises from 32% to 57% over the period, whereas in the Le Journal des Sçavans the commonest type of theme (37%) relates to humans other than the author, most frequently the author of a book under review. This is consistent with a primary interest in an object of study in the English journal compared to a primary interest in humans in the French journal. An analysis of the process types of the finite verbs (Banks 2005, forthcoming c) shows that in both journals relational processes account for 30% of the finite verbs. In the Philosophical Transactions however, the most frequent process type is material, accounting for 35%, with verbal process (processes of communication) accounting for 14%. In Le Journal des Sçavans relational is the commonest process type followed by material process, 27%, and verbal process 24%. The incidence of relational process shows that description is important in both journals; however, physical actions and events,
2 Both of these periodicals still exist, and have been published with only minor interruptions since 1665, although their contents has to some extent altered in the course of three and a half centuries. (Just as I was finishing this paper, Notes and Records, the history of science journal of the Royal Society produced a special issue devoted to “350 years of scientific periodicals”).
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |103
indicated by the use of material process is even more important in the Philosophical Transactions. The relative frequencies of verbal process show that communication is more important in the French journal than the English. Study of modality indicates that there is a significant use of deontic modality in Le Journal des Sçavans (18% of all modal expressions), whereas this type of modality is virtually absent in the Philosophical Transactions. This results from the presence of items from such fields as theology and law in the French periodical, while these fields are absent from the pages of the English journal. Overall the results of the analyses show that the linguistic features depend on the editorial decisions made by Oldenburg and de Sallo about the scope and content of their respective publications. Moreover these decisions are themselves comprehensible in terms of the historical context in which they were made. This is a striking illustration of the way in which a text is intimately related to the context in which it is produced, of which it then becomes a part, and without which it cannot be fully understood. For example, the historical situation in which Oldenburg finds himself leads him to produce a journal restricted to the scientific and technical fields, because that is what his potential audience were interested in, but this leads to increased use of material processes (usually expressing physical events, or recounting experiments), whereas de Sallo’s brief leads him to opt for book reviews covering the whole spectrum of disciplines of the time, and this leads to increased use of verbal processes (usually expressing what is said in the books under review). Shorter studies of the scientific article would include such contributions as Magnet (2000) which analyses the discussion sections of articles in the area of nutrition studies over a period from 1929 to the 1990s. She notes that the length of discussion sections falls from an average of 850 words before 1960 to 625 words during the 1960s; this trend is however reversed after 1990 when the length rises sharply to an average of 1300 words. There is an increasing use of quotes and the discussion section in the later part of the period “participe fortement à la stratégie de validation de l’expérience” (2000: 125).
4. Medical discourse Within the general scientific field, medicine holds a particular position. Salager- Meyer has studied a number of features of medical discourse from a diachronic point of view. These can all be considered to be more or less related to interpersonal aspects of the language. In Salager-Meyer et al. (1996), and Salager- Meyer and Defives (1998), the authors looked at hedging in medical articles from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They distinguish between shields (i.e. basically, expressions of epistemic modality), use of the passive, approximators, expressions of doubt, and emotionally charged intensifiers. They find that shields and expressions of doubt were rare in the nineteenth century but became common in the twentieth century. The opposite is true of approximators and emotionally charged intensifiers, which are common in the nineteenth but not in the twentieth century. The use of passives increases from the end of the nineteenth century onwards, with the period of most rapid change being 1930 to 1960. In Salager-Meyer (1999a, 1999b) she considers the question of citations in 104| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
medical discourse over the period 1810 to 1995. In (1999a) she distinguishes between those references which are critical and those which are not. She finds that until 1930 critical and non-critical references occur with more or less the same frequency, but from 1930 onwards there is a rapid increase in the number of non- critical references from about four per paper to twenty per paper by the end of the period. In comparison there is only a slight rise in the number of critical references. She notes that “earlier papers adopted a much more critical tone than modern ones” (1999a: 19), but that before the twentieth century criticism was usually preceded by courtesy markers. In nineteenth century papers, criticism is scattered throughout the paper, whereas in the twentieth century, where it occurs, it is usually restricted to the introductory section. She comments on the importance of the sociological environment in determining these interpersonal aspects of the text: [S]ocietal development is a determining factor in the changing of textual patterns, and that persistence and change in the social system are both reflected in the text and brought about by means of text, i.e. that determining factors of linguistic change are intimately linked to and brought about by the social, historical and cultural context in which discourse is produced. (Salager- Meyer 1999a, 26-27) The question of criticism is also raised in Salager-Meyer (1998), and Salager- Meyer and Zambrano (2001). They distinguish direct and indirect academic conflict in English and French medical discourse. These occur at the same rate in both languages during the period 1810 to 1930. In this period, criticism is provocative and highly polemical, though in the English papers the criticism is frequently preceded by courtesy markers, which is not the case in the French papers. From 1930 onwards criticism in the English papers becomes less personalized and more object-centred, but the French papers remain fairly aggressive until the late twentieth century.
5. Edited collections In recent years there have been a number of collections of papers dealing with diachronic aspects of specialized text. To continue the medical theme, Taavitsainen and Pahta (2011) contains twelve contributions all using Early Modern English Medical Texts, a computerized corpus of just over two million words, which is itself the second of three components which make up the Corpus of Early English Medical Writing. This second component covers the period 1500 to 1700 and includes general and specific treatises, medical recipe collections, health guides, and articles from the Philosophical Transactions. The contributions cover such questions as use of cognitive verbs, definitions, code-switching, controversy and advertising, the development of specialized discourse, and the expression of stance. Moskowich and Crespo (2012) is also based on a computerized corpus, the Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy; again this is part of a larger corpus: the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. As the title indicates it is devoted to texts in the field of astronomy and covers the period 1700 to 1900. The eleven contributions which make up the book cover such questions as use of adjectives, new nouns and
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |105
specific vocabulary, complex predicates, the pattern N + PREP + V-ing, hedging and thematic structure. Diachronic aspects of specialized translation are considered in Duris (2008). This is not specifically about translation to or from English, so it is LSP rather than ESP. Only one of the nine contributions concerns English, and deals with early translations of Newton’s Opticks into French (Baillon 2008). My own edited volume (Banks 2010a) is, again, not totally devoted to English but four of the twelve contributions do deal specifically with English texts, covering topics such as referring to others in academic articles over the period 1700 to 1980 (Banks 2010b), continental drift in the nineteenth century (Château 2010), translations into French of Darwin’s The Descent of Man (Engel-Gautier 2010), and the use of illustrations in The Lancet, over the period 1823 to 1905 (Rowley-Jolivet 2010).
6. Multimodality The final item mentioned above falls into the domain of multimodality, a field of study that has grown rapidly over the last couple of decades, particularly in the wake of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996). Multimodality takes into account all aspects of communication, not just those that are verbal, and the area that has attracted most attention is the contribution made by visual elements in a text. In this article (Rowley-Jolivet 2010), the author shows that over the period 1823 to 1905, images in the Lancet, which were basically figurative, evolved only slowly and in erratic fashion. It was only towards the end of this period that visual conventions in the medical article began to be established. Magnet (2001) looks at the development of images in the area of nutrition studies over a seventy-year period up to the 1990s. She notes that the space allotted to visuals does not increase over this period, but that their nature has changed: [T]he widespread use of computers has only made the production of data easier, quicker and has therefore led to the amplified treatment and display of quantitative measurements, while photography, a more expensive and less rewarding tool has almost totally disappeared. (2001: 72-73) Two of the contributions in my edited volume, Banks 2013a, are of interest in the field of ESP. Somerset 2013 analyses the illustrations in Arabella Buckley’s nineteenth century popularizations of the theory of evolution. My own contribution (Banks 2013b) considers the images in early issues of the Philosophical Transactions for the period 1665 to 1670, a subject which I had previously considered in Banks (2009). One of the interesting features revealed by this study is an apparent circular organization of the images on the page. While the literature on multimodality as such is vast, studies which treat the question from a diachronic standpoint are relatively rare. Similarly, there are many histories of the development of images in specialized documents, and while these might provide interesting background for studies in diachronic multimodality, they lack the linguistic component which would bring them into the field of diachronic ESP. 106| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
7. Translation and lexicology Translation has always been with us, and indeed the first translation of an academic article from French to English dates from 1665 and appeared in the first issue of the Philosophical Transactions, the original French having appeared in the first issue of Le Journal des Sçavans (Banks forthcoming d). The development of translation and translation techniques could be a fruitful area of enquiry for diachronic ESP. Duris (2008) and Engel-Gautier (2010) have been mentioned above. To these could be added Dury (2005) and Dury and Lervad (2008). These are diachronic studies of terminology in the context of specialized translation. In (Dury 2005), based on a corpus from the area of ecology, the author notes that terms do not conserve the same meaning either over time or from language to language. Thus a concept may evolve, but the term used to designate it will not necessarily be modified. Dury and Lervad (2008) is based on a corpus of texts in mineralogy (more specifically relating to petroleum), covering the period 1800 to 1960. They show how initial synonymic variation can lead to specialization.
8. Other than science All of the above may give the impression that diachronic ESP is a question of the diachronic analysis of scientific discourse. This is only because this is the area which has so far received the lion’s share of attention, but all other specialized areas are potential fields of study. Although excursions into these areas are rarer, the following might be cited as examples. Wagner (2003) considers the evolution of legal language in English. The legal language of England had passed from Latin to French by the thirteenth century, and gradually moved to English from the mid-fourteenth century when pleas in English were permitted. The result is that “current legal language is a mixture of Latin, Old English and Norman French” (2003:103). Taavitsainen (1994) compared religious texts from late Middle English with scientific texts from that date up to the late seventeenth century. She brings out the relevance of sub-genre differences. Underestimating sub-genre differences is something which Biber and Gray (2013) have also recently warned against. It is also possible to study the development of language in more restricted and exotic fields. Wozniak (2015), for example, looks at the evolution of the discourse of mountaineering from 1870 onwards.
9. Final remarks An overview of this type can never hope to be exhaustive, and I am sure that many readers will be able to think of work which might have been included, but which has not been mentioned here, partly, no doubt, a reflection of my own personal interests. With due apologies to any authors concerned, I hope nevertheless that this gives a fair picture of the current situation of diachronic ESP. As can be seen from the above, the area that has received most attention is the analysis of scientific text, but even here, what is available is sparse and scattered, and there is vast scope for further research. In areas other than science, there are no
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |107
more than a few fairly isolated studies, so the field is wide open. I am one of those who believe that there is an intimate relationship between a text and its context. A text is produced in, and, in some senses, by its context, of which it then becomes a part. Thus the context produces the text, but the text then modifies the context, so that there is a continual cause and effect operating between the two. In studying diachronic texts this is felt all the more strongly as the contexts in which they were produced are no longer immediately available to us. This can be seen in the differences between early issues of the Philosophical Transactions and Le Journal des Sçavans mentioned above. In my work on late seventeenth century scientific writing, I have found it necessary to read up on the history, and particularly the history of science of the period. Thus this is an area which can combine both linguistics and cultural studies. Just as Petit’s seminal work on FASP (Petit 1999) opened up a research space where those working in ESP, but with an interest in literature could find a place, I would like to think that diachronic ESP could provide a research niche (Swales 1990, 2004) for those working in ESP but who have an interest in cultural studies. This approach also helps put many current features into perspective. For example, the present dominance of English as the language of academic science, and increasingly in many other areas including the humanities, seems so well entrenched as to be virtually a permanent fixture. So it is useful to remember that this is a relatively recent development, probably much more recent than most people realize. Ammon (2012), who studied the period 1880 to 2005, shows that while articles in scientific periodicals, which are written in English, account for over 90% of the total since the mid-1990s, they accounted for only 50% in 1960, showing that there has been a rapid increase in the use of English in the second half of the twentieth century. Going a little further back in time, in 1910, English accounted for only 30% of scientific articles published, and at that time German accounted for a higher percentage of the publications than English; English only overtook German in about 1930. So for a period of about twenty years in the early twentieth century, German, not English, could be seen as the dominant language of science (Gordin 2015). In the social sciences, the percentage of articles published in English increased from 48% in 1951 to 76% in 2005. Work in this area need not be restricted to a particular theoretical approach. As can probably be seen from the above, work that has been done so far has usually been within a more or less functional approach, and this type of approach seems well suited to the task; but this should not be seen as being to the exclusion of other possible approaches, for example cognitive. There are also data banks of texts such as Gallica, the website of the French Bibliothèque Nationale. This is a vast mine of texts, but usually in image form, so not immediately suitable for lexicometrical work. Where text analysis is involved this can be either manual or computerized. Computerized approaches require suitable corpora, and several are already available, such as those mentioned above. This type of approach can treat large quantities of data, but is restricted to features which the machine can recognize. A manual approach is more flexible, but can only deal with a limited quantity of data. I feel that computerized and manual analyses are suitable for rather different types 108| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
of task and that both have a part to play. Hence this is a research field where some inroads have been made, but where there are still vast tracts of virgin territory. I would like to think that established researchers in linguistics with an interest in cultural studies, or vice-versa will find new avenues to be explored in this field, and that novice researchers will find a research space in which to exercise their talents. Acknowledgments I would like to thank three anonymous ASp reviewers, whose comments have enabled me to improve this article. It goes without saying that they are in no way responsible for any shortcomings which remain.
Bibliographical references
ALONSO-ALMEIDA, Francisco & Sandra ARRERO-MORALES. 2011. “Introduction: Diachronic English for Specific Purposes”. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Especificos 17, 13–20. AMMON, Umrich. 2012. “Linguistic inequality and its effects on participation in scientific discourse and on global knowledge accumulation – With a closer look at the problems of the second-rank language communities”. Applied Linguistics Review 3/2, 333–355. ATKINSON, Dwight. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. BAILLON, Jean-François. 2008. “Retraduire la science. Le cas de l’Optique de Newton, de Pierre Coste (1720) à Jean-Paul Marat (1787)”. In DURIS, P. (Ed.), Traduire la science, hier et aujourd’hui. Pessac: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme de l’Aquitaine, 69–88. BANKS, David. 1995. “Your very first ESP text (wherein Chaucer explaineth the astrolabe)”. ASp 15-18, 451–460. BANKS, David. 1997. “Little Lewis and Chaucer's astrolabe, Instructions for use in the fourteenth century”. In BANKS, D. & A. TSÉDRI (Eds.), Sons et Sens, Mélanges offerts à Jean François Raoult. Brest: ERLA, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 56-72. BANKS, David. 2005. Introduction à la Linguistique systémique fonctionnelle de l’anglais. Paris: L’Harmattan. BANKS, David. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing, Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox. BANKS, David. 2009. “Notes on illustrations in some early issues of the Philosophical Transactions”, In SLEMBROUCK, S., M. TAVERNIERS & M. VAN HERREWEGHE (Eds.), From will to well, Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. Gent: Academia Press, 21–41. BANKS, David (Ed.). 2010a. Aspects diachroniques du texte de spécialité. Paris: L’Harmattan. BANKS, David. 2010b. “La référence à autrui dans l’article de recherche scientifique, 1700- 1980”. In BANKS, D. (Ed.) 2010a, 7–20. BANKS, David. 2011. “The place of diachronic studies in LSP”. Moderne Sprachen 55/2, 177– 189. BANKS, David. 2012. “Diachronic ESP: at the interface of linguistics and cultural studies”. ASp 61, 55–70. BANKS, David (Ed.). 2013a. L’image dans le texte scientifique. Paris: L’Harmattan. BANKS, David. 2013b. “Les premières images de la revue scientifique : Les Philosophical Transactions, 1665-1670”. In BANKS, D. (Ed.) 2013a, 41–64.
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |109
BANKS, David. 2015. “Domains of study and genres in late seventeenth century science: evidence from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1675)”. Text & Talk 35/3, 317–336,
of Written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. Pinter: London, 162–178. [reprinted in HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & J.R. MARTIN 1993. Writing Science. Literacy and discursive power. The Falmer Press: London, 54–68; and HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (Ed. Jonathan Webster). 2004. The Language of Science. Continuum: London, 140–158] HALLIDAY, M.A.K. 1993. “The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse, with reference to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species”. In HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & J.R. MARTIN, Writing Science. Literacy and discursive power, The Falmer Press: London, 86–105. [reprinted in COULTHARD, M. (Ed.). 1994. Advances in Written Text Analysis, Routledge: London, 136–156, and Ë, M.A.K. (Ed. Jonathan J Webster). 2002. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Continuum: London, 168–195.] HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (revised by Christian M.I.M. MATTHIESSEN). 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & J.R. MARTIN. 1993. Writing Science. Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press. KRESS, Gunther & Theo VAN LEEUWEN. 1996. Reading Images, the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. MAGNET, Anne. 2000. “Stratégies de validation du discours scientifique : analyse diachronique du rôle de la section Discussion dans l’article de recherche”. ASp 27-30, 123–132. MAGNET, Anne. 2001. “Diachronic analysis of the visuals in the research paper: a corpus-based study of the strategies and semiotics of visual representation in nutrition biochemistry”. LSP & Professional Communication 1/1, 55–77. MORGAN, Betty Trebelle. 1928. Histoire du Journal des Sçavans depuis 1665 jusqu’en 1701. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. MORINI-GARCIA, Pascale. 2000. “De l’image au texte : quelques repères historiques”. ASp 27-30, 563–569. MOSKOWICH, Isabel & Begoña CRESPO (Eds.). (2012). Astronomy ‘playne and simple’. The writing of science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PETIT, Michel. 1999. “ La fiction à substrat professionel : une autre voie d'accès à l'anglais de spécialité”. ASp 23-26, 57–84. ROWLEY-JOLIVET, Elizabeth. 2010. “The evolution of medical imagery in the 19th century: The Lancet”, 1823-1905. In BANKS, D. (Ed.), 2010a, 53–74. SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise. 1998. “Le discours aigre-doux de la controverse scientifique : évolution de la rhétorique des confrontations académiques”. ASp 19-22, 29–50. SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise. 1999a. “From ‘Mr. Guthrie is profoundly mistaken...’ to ‘Our data do not seem to confirm the results of a previous study on...’: A diachronic study of polemicity in academic writing (1810-1995)”. Iberica. Revista de la Asociasión Europea de Lenguas para Fines Especificos 1, 5–28. SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise. 1999b. “Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810-1995)”. English for Specific Purposes 18/3, 279–305. SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise, Gérard DEFIVES & Miguel HAMELYNCK. 1996. “A diachronic study of hedges in medical English written discourse”. In BUDIN, G. (Ed.), Multilingualism in Specialist Communication; Proceedings of the 10th European LSP Symposium, Vol.1. Vienna: IITF/Infoterm, 267–286. SALAGER-MAYER, Françoise & Gérard DEFIVES. 1998. “From the gentleman’s courtesy to the expert’s caution: a diachronic analysis of hedges in academic writing (1810-1995)”. In FORTANET, I., S. POSTEGUILLO, J.C. PALMER & J.F. COLL (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes. Castelló de la Plana: Publications de la Universitat Jaume I, 133–171.
D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112 |111
SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise & Nahirana ZAMBRANO. 2001. “The bittersweeet rhetoric of controversiality in nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and English medical literature”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2/1, 141–173. SHAPIRO, Alan E. 2001. “Newton’s experiments on diffraction and the delayed publication of the Opticks”. In BUCHWALD, J.Z. & I.B. COHEN (Eds.), Isaac Newton’s Natural Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 47–76. SOMERSET, Richard. 2013. “Raconter l’évolution en images : la vulgarisation d’Arabella Buckley”. In BANKS, D. (Ed.) 2013a, 65–82. SWALES, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SWALES, John M. 1997. “The world’s earliest known technical texts: a brief note”. English for Specific Purposes 16/2, 151–152. SWALES, John M. 2004. Research Genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma. 1994. “Subjectivity as a text-type marker in historical stylistics”. Language and Literature 3/3, 197–212. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma & Päivi PAHTA (Eds.). 2011. Medical Writing in Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VALLE, Ellen 1999. A Collective Intelligence. The life sciences in the Royal Society as a scientific discourse community, 1665-1965. Turku: Anglicana Turkuensia. WAGNER, Anne. 2003. “Origins and use of English legal terms through history”. LSP & Professional Communication 3/2, 92–106. WOZNIAK, Séverine. 2015. “Étude des domaines spécialisés et de leurs discours en diachronie : le cas des genres spécialisés de la littérature d’alpinisme aux États-Unis”. ASp 67, 81–99. 112| D. Banks / ASp 69 (March 2016) 97–112
David Banks is Emeritus Professor at the Université de Bretagne Occidentale in France. He is former Head of the English Department, Director of ERLA (Équipe de recherche en linguistique appliquée) and Chairman of AFLSF (Association française de la linguistique systémique fonctionnelle). He is author or editor of thirty books and has published 100 academic articles. His publication The Development of Scientific English, Linguistic features and historical context (Equinox) won the ESSE Language and Linguistics book award 2010. His research interests include the diachronic study of scientific text and the application of systemic functional linguistics to English and French. His non-academic activities include choral singing and ocean rowing. [email protected]
ASp 69 |113
Integrating corpus tools and techniques in ESP courses L'intégration de techniques et d’outils de corpus dans les cours d'anglais de spécialité
Alex Boulton Université de Lorraine, Atilf (UMR 7118) – CNRS
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Corpus, data-driven learning, discovery Apprentissage sur corpus, corpus, learning, Google. découverte, Google. ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ A major goal in English for Specific Purposes, L’un des buts de la recherche en anglais de however defined, is to provide fine-grained spécialité, quelle que soit la définition que l’on analyses of targeted varieties of English. en donne, est de fournir des analyses fines de Corpus linguistics has much to contribute, but différentes variétés de la langue. La still no generic description will be able to cater linguistique de corpus offre de nombreuses for all needs and all questions. This paper possibilités à ce domaine, même si aucune explores some suggestions for introducing description clés en main ne peut parvenir à corpus tools and techniques directly to the répondre à tous les besoins ou à toutes les end-users – learners and teachers – so that questions. Cet article suggère quelques they can examine how language is genuinely propositions destinées à aider l’utilisateur final used in contexts relevant to them. The – apprenant ou enseignant – à mettre en approach builds on common pedagogical œuvre des outils et des techniques de corpus underpinnings (e.g. an inductive approach to afin d’observer, en fonction de ses besoins, des authentic documents) and existing practices usages réels de la langue dans des contextes (e.g. web searches), thus enabling better pertinents. L’approche est articulée avec des integration as an everyday activity for different approches pédagogiques courantes (par types of users. Beyond web searches, general- exemple, l’étude exploratoire de documents purpose corpora can often be queried for authentiques) et de pratiques fréquentes (par specific purposes; users with more clearly- exemple l’utilisation de moteurs de recherche defined or long-term needs may go further and sur Internet), ce qui permet à différent types build their own corpus. The paper provides d’utilisateurs de mieux intégrer ces outils et ces examples of these various uses, and concludes techniques dans leurs activités quotidiennes. with a brief discussion of what research Au-delà des recherches sur Internet, des corpus findings tell us. génériques en ligne peuvent être exploités à des fins spécifiques ; les utilisateurs qui ont des besoins pérennes très ciblés peuvent aller plus loin en construisant leur propre corpus. L’article fournit des exemples de ces divers usages, et conclut par une brève mise en perspective des résultats de la recherche dans ce domaine. 114| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
Introduction At its most basic level, corpus linguistics offers us a range of tools and methodologies to find out about language. In many areas, they have become so ubiquitous that it is hard to imagine work without them – including in English for Specific or Academic Purposes (ESP/EAP). Given their multiple affordances (Leńko- Szymańska & Boulton 2015), users in different disciplines understandably tend to interpret and exploit corpus linguistics tools and methodologies in different ways, depending on their specific needs, aims and contexts. Even defining a corpus is not uncontroversial among corpus linguists (Gilquin & Gries 2009), and determining the scope of corpus linguistics can generate heated debate (Worlock Pope 2010). A prototypical description such as ‘a large collection of authentic texts representative of a target variety in electronic format’ is a rather catch-all definition designed to appease many users. This in itself highlights the interest of a corpus approach, which allows us to get computers to help convert language data from relevant texts into usable and useful information about frequent meaning and use in context (Hanks 2013). In other words, corpus linguistics is not concerned with what is possible in a language, but in what is probable. Experts in corpus linguistics compile and analyse vast quantities of texts to further our understanding of language and fine-tune descriptions, and have informed a wide variety of reference materials relevant to teaching and learning foreign or second languages (L2), the most visible being dictionaries, grammar books and usage manuals. Corpora can also underpin syllabuses, testing and assessment, as well as coursebooks and other materials (cf. McCarthy 2004). They have been widely used in EAP and ESP to derive frequency lists of words and phrases (e.g. the Academic Word List – Coxhead 2000; the New Academic Vocabulary List – Gardner & Davies 2014; the Academic Formulas List – Simpson- Vlach & Ellis 2010; or the Academic Collocations List – Ackermann & Chen 2013), and to improve descriptions of particular genre- or discipline-specific terminology and discourse (e.g. Boulton et al. 2012). There are two main implications of this from the point of view of language teaching and learning. First, though improved descriptions of language can only be applauded, the end-users may be entirely unaware of the corpus input and end up being “consumers” where they could be “active participants” (McCarthy 2008: 565- 566). Using corpora to help with language description may have no impact on teaching practice in terms of the activities covered or the respective roles of teachers and learners. Second, general-purpose tools can only provide general- purpose answers. This is not to criticise such resources, which often provide the relevant information quickly and easily, but merely to acknowledge their inevitable limitations (Frankenberg-Garcia 2014). The goal of any ready-made resource is to simplify and generalise in order to satisfy a maximum number of users in as short a space as possible, a job they do remarkably well. Nonetheless, even resources that describe seemingly specialised varieties such as medicine or research articles cannot reasonably be expected to address every conceivable language point: a biochemist in immunology may find that even corpus-based resources do not
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |115
contain answers to his or her specific questions – what does this word or phrase mean in my field, how is it used, is it worth remembering? We begin with a brief overview of “data-driven learning” (DD)L in its wider sense before homing in on ESP. The bulk of the paper is designed to demonstrate the basic concepts through specific examples of the sort of things ESP learners can do with different types of software and data, accompanied by step-by-step instructions. Though these are discussed, explained and contextualised in some detail, the hope is that they will be more accessible than abstract, theoretical descriptions. All of the examples given here derive from genuine queries conducted by, with or for actual learners in response to their own individual queries or problems. Crucially, they all use free and widely-available resources from the internet. This sets them apart from much DDL work, which may be seen as a theoretical undertaking appropriate for high-level, linguistically sophisticated learners enrolled in language degrees, a view cast into doubt twenty-five years ago (Johns 1991: 12). First, in a weak but potentially highly accessible form, web searches involve querying vast quantities of language; while many learners may already be doing this informally, a little training and consciousness-raising may bring substantial and immediate benefits. The underlying philosophy is not dissimilar to DDL, so this may provide a lead-in to some of the more user-friendly online tools such as those provided by Davies on his website at Brigham Young University (BYU).1 We then move on to generic corpora such as the British National Corpus or the Corpus of Contemporary American English, which are sufficiently large and well-structured to allow quite narrow searches for specific purposes. Nonetheless, users with specific long-term needs may wish to go further and create their own dedicated corpus; in our third set of examples, familiarity with the contents of such small, personal corpora directly in relation to individual needs can help with formulating queries and interpreting the results. We end the paper with a brief overview of findings from DDL research to date.
1. Data-driven learning Though not every user can have a tailor-made set of reference resources, one lead may be to look at the processes involved in creating such resources and see if learners can act in similar ways to create their own. In other words, rather than relying on experts to pre-digest the language, maybe learners could chew on the language data themselves. This is what Johns (1990) christened “data-driven learning” which he characterised as “the attempt to cut out the middleman as far as possible and to give the learner direct access to the data, the underlying assumption being that effective language learning is a form of linguistic research” (p. 18). The term itself is perhaps intentionally provocative (Boulton 2011a), and Johns’ characterisation of DDL as “radical” (1988: 20) and “revolutionary” (1990: 14) may have been intended to attract attention and prompt rethinking of contemporary knowledge-transmission teaching practices. This might have seemed necessary at the time, but the downside is that DDL is often perceived as a
1 Online tools and websites are itemised at the end of the reference list. 116| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
threatening, even scary concept. An alternative might be to build bridges with familiar practices: if, in essence, DDL is perceived as little more than encouraging learners to take a bit of initiative to explore language and figure things out for themselves, it might find a more receptive audience among teachers already attempting essentially the same thing in their own practice (Boulton & Tyne 2014). It might appeal to those who are keen to return language to a central place in their language class, and rather than expecting teachers to make the conceptual leap towards corpus linguistics, it may help to bring DDL closer to them by highlighting how DDL exploits any number of key concepts in existing approaches – including, but not limited to: authenticity, autonomy, cognitive depth, consciousness-raising, constructivism, context, critical thinking, discovery learning, heuristics, ICT, individualisation, induction, learner-centeredness, learning-to-learn, lifelong learning, (meta-)cognition, motivation, noticing, sensitisation and transferability. Certainly DDL would seem to be in line with much of what we know about language and processing. Usage-based theories (e.g. Tomasello 2005) suggest that we need massive exposure to language, but naturalistic contact is simply too rare, especially in foreign-language contexts (e.g. Schmitt et al. 2016). Zahar et al. (2001: 558) calculate that with an hour of reading a week, their students would need 29 years to acquire 2,000 words incidentally from that reading; DDL can help to organise and focus the exposure (Gaskell & Cobb 2004). Language is not rule-driven but fuzzy and probabilistic in nature (Hanks 2013), with grammar and meaning both emerging from use (Beckner et al. 2009). And the mind works with exemplars beyond the level of word in line with dynamic systems theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008), Sinclair’s (1991) idiom principle, Hoey’s (2005) lexical priming or Taylor’s (2012) model of the mental corpus, and finds support in recent psycholinguistic work on ‘chunking’ (e.g. Millar 2011), among others. Human cognition itself is based on pattern detection, which evolutionary psychology explains is a remarkably adaptive system (e.g. Barrett et al. 2002). However, it is not perfect: we often see patterns and find connections that are not really there. For example an English learner of French, on being offered a noix, might assume this refers to the entire class of ‘nuts’ rather than just walnuts. And once beliefs are sufficiently well established, they become remarkably difficult to dislodge: a learner of English who regularly uses discuss about for whatever reason can be remarkably impervious to copious input suggesting that there is usually no preposition involved. Noticing is thus crucial in language learning (Schmidt 1990), but often needs a helping hand, which is where DDL comes in.
2. Parallels to DDL in everyday life McCarthy (2008: 566) claims that “we are, all of us, corpus users, because we use the internet.” While this is controversial in some quarters, one does not need to accept the status of the web as a corpus – still less accept a search engine as a concordancer – to see parallels between corpus queries and web searches. Both involve using software to help turn language data into useful, relevant information, and many learners are already using search engines for purposes explicitly related to their language questions (Geluso 2013). Informal use of Google for language
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |117
learning purposes seems to be extremely widespread (Conroy 2010), but has as yet received very little attention in terms of research, even in language for general purposes. If one road to integrating DDL in the ESP class is to build bridges with ordinary practice (the specificity deriving from the search queries rather than the corpus itself), then this may bear further exploration (Boulton 2015). To the extent that web searches resemble corpus queries, this may be exploited in two directions. Most obviously, we might seek to build on existing skills and techniques to bring learners towards DDL; less intuitively, we might see if we can bring DDL closer to the learner by emphasising search techniques that most closely resemble Googling. In either case, learners do tend to see the parallels of their own accord (Sun 2007), and initially at least tend to approach corpus consultation by applying similar techniques to those they use for web searches (Pérez-Paredes et al. 2012). The transfer of procedures suggests a porous boundary between the two which can be exploited in other ways: the training required for the transition to corpus consultation might be implemented gradually by helping learners in initial stages to improve their web search techniques. From a purely DDL perspective, the further the learners progress before they even encounter a concordancer, the smaller those final delicate steps will need to be. More pragmatically, though we would of course hope that some learners will continue corpus consultation after the end of a course, this is unlikely to be the case for all. All things being equal, the more specialised the tool, the less frequently it will be used, which will in turn lead to a loss of efficiency and thus trigger a vicious spiral leading to ultimate non-use. For many learners, the long-term benefits of training will thus be lost. Conversely, since learners are already using Google frequently (including for language learning) and will continue to do so between classes and after the end of their course, any improvement in their search techniques and interpretation skills is more likely to persist in the long term. Informal surveys among my own students suggest most of them have very limited ideas of how Google works or of the range of options it offers. The joy of such tools is that immediate benefit can be derived without any training at all, just as no training is required to use a dictionary. But as with a dictionary, a little training is likely to dramatically improve the results (Nesi 2000). At an abstract level, learners can find it an eye-opener to learn how Google collects and ranks web sites, or interprets queries in the light of search histories to personalise the output. At a more practical level, a number of advanced search functions can be extremely useful in L2. Filters include language (to discriminate cognate search terms) and region (to isolate American or British English), last update (to exclude older data), site or domain (to limit to a free online academic website or .ac.uk, for example), and format (limiting results to .pdf files may be more appropriate for some queries). Boolean searches can be useful to exclude some words (e.g. – bird in an engineer’s search featuring crane) or to force Google to use the exact search query rather than over-interpret it, a function which can be achieved simply by encasing the entire query within inverted commas – “one of the best tips to teach your students” (Dudeney 2000: 22). This can be combined with the only wildcard that Google allows, the asterisk to signify any word within the phrase as in the following 118| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
example: “play a * role in” This example (see Figure 1) is motivated by a learner’s repeated use of important within a single assignment – a common “lexical teddy bear” (Hasselgren 1994) which learners feel comfortable using frequently in a wide range of contexts. The query returns the usual presentation of short extracts or snippets (akin to the concordance lines produced by corpus software), but the word in the place of the asterisk can vary. Figure 1 shows the unedited results for the first few hits; though these should of course be interpreted with caution, they provide a valuable source of information to enrich productions which may be difficult or impossible to obtain from traditional resources. A thesaurus will of course provide a list of synonyms, but without context will be far more difficult to interpret than this minimally contextualised Google search – here play a [key, critical, significant, important, leading, major] role. The critical thinking involved here in turning the real question into a query that Google can understand, and sifting the results to arrive at a relevant, usable conclusion, are no less crucial in corpus consultation proper: sensitising learners to such issues at the level of web searches is in itself and may help make DDL more accessible later on. Internet search engines are by no means the only everyday parallels to corpus tools or use of corpus-like techniques. A simple CTRL+F search command within a document or web page highlights repeated occurrences of a target item that can be scrolled through easily; the online bookstore Amazon offers a “search inside” feature for many books which not only highlights the target word(s) but also provides snippets in a sidebar (as does Google Books, or some versions of MS Word). Many learners are also familiar with Linguee, which offers human translations of a variety of documents in many European and other major languages. It poses a certain number of problems since it changes from day to day, and we have no way of sorting the items or even knowing which was the source and which the target; nevertheless, it can have its uses. For example, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of English gives one meaning of reflect as “to think carefully and deeply about something”, i.e. a possible translation of réfléchir. Typing réfléchir into Linguee, the first twenty returns in English do indeed include five occurrences of reflect, but thirteen of think/thought (plus 2 other translations). The other way round, reflect gives fifteen occurrences of refléter/reflet and only two of réfléchir (plus 3 other translations). In other words, though a possible translation of réfléchir, reflect seems to be relatively unusual in this sense, and the learner may be better advised to choose an alternative – information impossible to get from the dictionary entry (cf. Boulton & De Cock forthcoming). Again, despite its limitations and the need for careful thinking in interpreting the results obtained, it is an example of how everyday, familiar technology can be used to extract information from language data; a little training can be a useful end in itself, and may make DDL more accessible at a subsequent stage. Other tools such as WebCorp allow more linguistically sophisticated queries and output from the web, and may also serve as a springboard to hands-on corpus work.
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |119
Figure 1. Google hits for “play a * role in”
3. General-purpose corpora Should the teacher decide that the students’ needs justify the investment, a relatively straightforward next step might involve the type of large corpus designed to be representative of a given language as a whole and which therefore covers a wide range of needs. Usually quite carefully compiled and balanced, many can be queried on line from a single integrated webpage (no download necessary) using a simple interface designed partly with non-corpus linguists in mind. For English, one of the most widely used such sources is the BYU interface to a range of varieties of corpora: American, Canadian and British English, as well as GloWBE for twenty 120| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
varieties from inner- or outer-circle countries, and corpora from soap opera transcripts to historical texts and Wikipedia. The platform is entirely free (though registration is required), stable, reliable, unencumbered by advertisements or spam, and relatively straightforward to use. Among the most frequently consulted by users who declare their primary role as language teachers or learners are the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), which will serve as examples here for British and American English respectively. The BNC is a static corpus, while COCA is updated regularly (searches can be limited to recent years if necessary), but they are otherwise very similar in most major respects and use essentially the same interface. COCA’s architecture is modelled on the BNC, being divided into similar sub-corpora (e.g. SPOKEN or ACADEMIC), and searches can be further refined to another level of granularity (e.g. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY or the HUMANITIES). However, Davies does not have the resources available to the BNC consortium and relies on semi-automated procedures for harvesting data from the internet; this is partly compensated by COCA’s larger size (450 million words compared to the BNC’s 100 million), though care will be needed in interpreting any corpus data (Maniez 2012). Rather than providing abstract descriptions, a couple of queries resulting from genuine learners’ needs may provide a glimpse of some of the affordances of such corpora in ESP/EAP. If sports students have difficulty using an appropriate verb (play or do) with different activities, authentic examples can be manually searched for, selected, appropriately formatted and printed out. Figure 2 shows the typical KWIC format (key word in context) that may seem disconcerting on first encounter, but it helps to focus attention on the target item which is centred in bold, and realising they do not represent entire sentences reduces the tendency to read for content and an attempt at understanding every word. The task here is to identify the verbs on the left, sort them, and try to find patterns in the meaning – i.e. what distinguishes the two groups of words. A teacher who knows that sporting activities ending in –ing collocate with the verb go may teach this seemingly simple rule only to find that students have difficulty applying it, perhaps in part because it is so simple. Requiring learners to actively sort the examples, “languaging” their findings in pairs (Swain 2006), can lead to greater depth of cognitive processing, thus enhancing retention. DDL work is often claimed to place considerable demands upon the teacher, and to be mostly suitable for advanced, motivated and linguistically sophisticated learners. However, an activity such as this is not particularly time-consuming to create, and can be used successfully with learners at lower levels of proficiency by virtue of judicious selection of the lines for focused language content, and provision of clear instructions and guided tasks in a simple hand-out (e.g. Boulton 2009).
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |121
Figure 2. Selected concordance lines for [play]/[go] + [sporting activity] from the BNC rday afternoon?" "The senior girls play badminton; others play hockey or netball." " all week. Oh I It's alright. Do you play basketball? Is there a family history of being wn. Who's her? So Mrs. She was going climbing Oh oh! in the Lake District. and loo d stopped moaning and learned to play cricket like we Pakistanis --; properly! Then we loved it there. Well you used to go fishing there didn't you? Yes In (unclear) er at Robinson College, said: "I've played football since I was 10 or 11. It's been a bit en 1m and 2m people who want to play golf but can not get into a club," says Neil H ub's east wall was also used for playing handball, he says "like squash but without t rts ground. There you will learn to play hockey or rugby. Later you may be able to c also plays the piano and harp and goes horse-riding. IT WAS a first-time success fo fty arrowheads. When the Indians went hunting, whether for animals or for rival Ind flamboyancy. "We simply did not play rugby at Strasbourg," explained Dubroca. " o reach it. We took our time. We went sailing and swimming, and once we went ou their children to go on them. If they go skiing they might break their leg … Parents olarships to study for degrees and play soccer in Pennsylvania. Ian, 20, of Briar Wa urgh. Claire, who is 17, started playing squash when she was ten years old at Ellon rafts, but she hates to get changed to go swimming or playing games in the gym or p
There are two obvious objections to this. First, there is no guarantee that learners will come to the correct conclusion. The rejoinder is that if learners do not remember the correct rule as traditionally given, then any even partially correct answer is better than nothing and can subsequently be refined – Aston (2001) sees such learning as a series of gradually refined approximations to the target. Further, a rule which learners come up with themselves is more likely to be meaningful to them and relevant to their own interests (linguistic or otherwise), a view compatible with constructivism (cf. Cobb 1999 for a corpus-inspired take on this). In this particular example, learners are more likely to come up with their own suggestions for linking go with activities that predate modern leisure, occur outdoors, have no limited pitch or terrain, are important for survival, involve travel from one place to another, and so on; play, on the other hand, is typically a modern construct where the only objective is the game itself, often involving a ball, team work, competition, a pitch, etc. Despite their limitations, suggestions such as these are remarkably sophisticated and imaginative, as well as unpredictable; encouraging learners to make sense of language in this way is likely to lead to increased language sensitivity. The teacher’s role, especially in initial stages, is not just to provide the language but to help refine the patterns detected, signal obviously erroneous ones, suggest alternatives including the right answer where appropriate – in the present case, simply thinking about the use of the –ing form can lead to a genuine and salient “a- ha moment” and promote further learning (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008: 59). A second objection is that the process takes considerable time for relatively little result (Thompson 2006). This is undoubtedly true to an extent; for the most immediate short-term effects, simply giving the students the essential information in a traditional knowledge-transmission model can be highly effective (Kirschner et al. 2006). The advantage of DDL is that the processes may take some time to begin with, but with practice become much quicker and more sophisticated, and help the 122| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
learner to become more linguistically aware and autonomous in dealing with authentic language (Boulton 2010b), though of course such things are extremely difficult to test empirically (Boulton 2012b) given the number of variables involved (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008). The use of printed concordances or other corpus data may lead to hands-on corpus work (Boulton 2012c) such as in a second example here. The simplest queries with the BYU interface, as with most other corpora, consist of simply entering one or more words and pressing ENTER. For example, let us return to important, which is not just a lexical teddy-bear but is also used differently in English and French. A master’s student writes of an important number of studies in her field, a formulation which the teacher feels uncomfortable with, and guides the student in using COCA to find out why. If the student has not registered to use it, or has no previous experience of the BYU corpora, the teacher can perform the searches automatically generating a separate URL for each query (here http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/?c=coca&q=41635465). This can then be emailed to the student who is guaranteed to see the same thing as the teacher – both query forms and results. Alternatively, the instructions might run as follows:
1. Open COCA and in the WORD(S) box, type important number. Click SEARCH (or press ENTER). How many occurrences of important number are there in COCA? Is this a lot or not? 2. Click on the result for important number and look at the concordance lines. What numbers are qualified as important? Is the meaning similar to what you want to say in your context? 3. Reset, select the ACADEMIC section to limit your search. In POS LIST (part of speech), select ADJECTIVE followed by number so that your query looks like this: [j*] number. What adjectives typically precede number? Are there any that might be appropriate for what you want to say in your context? The set of queries (or “transactions”, to use Park and Kinginger’s 2010 terminology) becomes increasingly sophisticated, highlighting some of the different functions and reasoning involved. In Step 1, frequency is a slippery concept and may need discussion. The phrase important number occurs thirty-two times in the 450M words of COCA; if the average book sold by Amazon contains 64K words, then you would expect to encounter important number just once in about 220 books. This would probably seem lower than most French speakers’ intuition for nombre important in their own language; so though it may not be impossible in English, it certainly seems to be relatively unusual. In Step 2 (Figure 3), the specific numbers qualified as important are 9.5, five, 350, one, twelve, 7.5%, four, 13%, and eight; tellingly, 13% is described as “a small but important number”. In other words, important doesn’t simply mean big in English as the student originally intended, a conclusion which she might have difficulty in deriving from dictionaries (which include such definitions as “of great value”) or in noticing through chance encounters with the word in context, especially in the absence of negative evidence. In Step 3 (Figure 4), important does not make it to the list of the twenty most
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |123
frequent adjectives preceding numbert; its frequency of just nine puts it well behind the more usual choices with the desired meaning here such as large, substantial, high, great, and so on, which the student might decide to settle on in her writing. Figure 3. The 32 concordance lines for important number in COCA
124| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
Figure 4. Query details and the 20 most frequent adjectives preceding number in academic texts in COCA
4. Purpose-built corpora The BYU corpora have all the advantages of general-purpose tools: they are large, professionally compiled, and suitable for many purposes. However, this is also potentially their failing for some specific purposes. A number of specialised corpora are available for use on line (e.g. the Business Letters Corpus; the British Law Report Corpus via LexTutor; or the Michigan Corpora of Academic Spoken English/Upper- level Student Papers); others can be downloaded (e.g. the British Academic Written/Spoken English corpora, both available from the University of Oxford Text Archive). Nesi (2015) provides a useful rationale for small, manually-sampled corpora, rich in contextual information, for research, teaching and learning in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Even here though, the user may find that the texts selected for inclusion do not reflect their specific needs closely enough. In such cases, the teacher or learner may decide to compile their own corpus. One of the quickest ways to compile a corpus is with a tool such as BooTCaT. Inputting a handful of seed items – i.e. words chosen to be specific to the target field – will bring up webpages that contain combinations of these in just a few seconds. Various options are available for types of pages to include or exclude, and individual pages can be deleted or added as required. More usually, however, local corpora are built by manually selecting texts for use with free downloadable software such as AntConc. This can be used for serious research in corpus linguistics, and a number of additional tools are available on the website. But AntConc itself
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |125
has a streamlined interface in English (Figure 5) and is accompanied by a series of short video tutorials for the main tools which makes it suitable for use with very little training among non-linguistics students, as evidenced in a number of studies to date (e.g. Charles 2012). Having students build their own small corpora can also lead to a sense of ownership and familiarity with the contents (Smith 2011). Figure 5. The AntConc interface
In the corpus compilation stage, a number of decisions need to be made about the types of texts to include from different sources, the number of texts and the overall word count, and any editing to be carried out. There are no blanket answers to such questions. A simple corpus might consist only of a single textbook, a business report, or a dozen research articles in .txt format. While more and cleaner texts may be theoretically desirable, the specific decision will depend on the individual’s needs and objectives, as well as their technical know-how and the time they are prepared to invest. If they can gain the information they need from a small, relatively dirty corpus, then that will be enough (Aston 1997). Again, rather than discussing the procedures in abstract terms, the rest of this section will outline the type of query learners can usefully perform to answer their own questions using AntConc. For present purposes, the corpus here consists of 110 published academic papers that evaluate some aspect of corpus use in language learning and teaching. This is highly specialised and rather larger than most learners would want to produce, and has been cleaned so that it includes mainly the authors’ original text 126| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
(deleting headers and footers, appendices, reference lists, tables and figures, long quotations and lists of examples, etc.), but it will serve to demonstrate the basic procedures involved for ESP users. Once the text or corpus has been opened via the FILE menu, it is often as well to get to know what it contains. Choosing the WORD LIST tab simply counts all the words in the corpus (here 613,708 words) and ranks them in descending order of frequency. The most common items are the, of, to, and, in, which may not appear very meaningful (though see Gledhill 2000 on their potential importance); but even scrolling down the top twenty words we already come across some with lexical content: students, corpus, language. It is possible to apply a stoplist so that selected items are automatically excluded, and a lemmatiser so that different forms of the same word are counted together, e.g. student and students (free tools are available on the AntConc website). But without any tagging or markup it is still quite easy to scroll down and identify the top ten lemmas: student, corpus, use, learn, language, learner, word, study and write. These items alone account for over 13% of all lexical words in the corpus, and give a fairly accurate picture of the contents – what Scott and Tribble (2006) call its “aboutness”. They are also words which the user will encounter frequently in this type of text, and will probably want to know extremely well for productive purposes too. An alternative is to create a KEYWORD LIST to compare the words in this corpus to, say, one of student writing or a larger corpus of general English; this will highlight the words which are significantly more (or less) frequent in the target corpus and which may thus be worth further investigation. Of course, text is more than a list of words, and it is essential to see how words group together as chunks, clusters or bundles. Similar processes are involved in the creation of such lists by choosing CLUSTERS/N-GRAMS, and selecting the number of words in each string; it can also be useful to set a minimum range, i.e. how many different texts the string must appear in. For example, the most frequent bi-grams (two-word sequences) are: of the, in the, to the, the students, on the. As before, these may not carry much meaning, but can lead to discussion of the importance of prepositions and determiners. Looking at longer stretches such as 10-grams shows that very few occur in more than one paper, and are almost invariably quotes that are attributed to an original source, e.g. Johns (1991: 2) positing the language learner as a “research worker whose learning needs to be driven by access to linguistic data.” This can lead to discussion of where intelligent plundering of the language for genre-appropriate recyclable phrases (patch-writing) becomes genuine plagiarism. The strings likely to be most useful to students tend to be of intermediate length; Byrd and Coxhead (2010) identified four-word bundles as particularly helpful across disciplines in academic writing. The most frequent in our corpus are given in Table 1; several of the 4-grams are not phrases in the traditional sense, insofar as they have no psychological validity, since of course the computer does not understand the language it is retrieving. Top of the list is on the other hand with 100 occurrences in 49 texts. Students can benefit from noting that nearly half of all texts in our corpus use it, twice each on average, and taking that as typical usage. It
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |127
is notable too that on the one hand does not appear on this list, occurring only 24 times (and there are no hits at all for on one hand here), suggesting that the two forms do not have to go together. Even for such small words as prepositions, learners might benefit from noting specific formulations such as at the same time (rather than in the same time). The sequence students were asked to might also seem surprising to speakers of French, since the grammatical structure does not calque directly between the two languages and it might not occur spontaneously to them or their teachers. The fact that it is present in over a third of all the texts here – on average twice in each of them – can serve to bring their attention to an item that might otherwise be overlooked. Scrolling further down the list reveals many more potentially useful strings and points for discussion, reflection or follow-up searches. Table 1. The most frequent four-word sequences rank freq range 4-grams 1 100 49 on the other hand 2 84 50 the end of the 3 84 43 the use of the 4 83 32 the use of corpora 5 81 45 at the end of 6 81 38 in the case of 7 79 39 students were asked to 8 75 36 in the context of 9 73 36 the results of the 10 72 39 in the form of 11 63 31 the students in the 12 55 26 with the help of 13 53 37 the british national corpus 14 52 33 in the use of 15 49 29 at the beginning of 16 46 28 the beginning of the 17 45 32 at the same time 18 44 32 to the use of 19 43 32 the fact that the 20 42 18 in the present study
The CLUSTERS/N-GRAMS function presents only fixed sequences; greater flexibility may be sought using the COLLOCATES tool to specify any words that occur within a given span left and/or right of a chosen item. For example, within three words of the search term learner, the corpus contains (in addition to grammar-function words) corpus and corpora (13 occurrences to the left, 105 occurrences to the right, suggesting learner corpus/corpora); language (49L, 17R for language learner); autonomy (1L, 46R); and English (4L, 17R). Lower down the list but still occurring at least ten times within three words left or right of learner, we also find data (19); learning, centred (16); teacher (13); individual, analysis, access (12); research, DDL (11); researcher, performance, NS, approach, advanced (10). Again, all of this tells us more about how the target item learner is used in context in this corpus, and the various combinations can be followed up with further searches just by clicking on them (see CONCORDANCE below). 128| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
The CONCORDANCE PLOT shows the position of a target item within each text. The literature review section which occurs early in papers is likely to take a historical perspective, as witnessed by the distribution of items such as 1980s indicated by the vertical lines towards the left of the bars in Figure 6. A corpus of research articles divided or marked up according to IMRAD (introductions, methods, results and discussion) sections can reveal different distributions or uses of the same items. In the CONCORDANCE PLOT tool, clicking on one of the horizontal lines brings up the FILE VIEW function so that the item can be seen in the context of the text as a whole. Figure 6. Concordance plot for 1980s
The final tool (CONCORDANCE) provides the now familiar KWIC presentation which is at the core of DDL, hence its position as the first tab within AntConc. This is typically used for lexicogrammar as we saw in the examples from the other software, but it can also be helpful in exploring discourse and content. A cursory glance on the immediate left of e.g. (Figure 7) shows that it is typically used in brackets – for a total of 485 out of 571 occurrences, approximately 85% of cases; in others, e.g. is still within brackets but preceded by see (lines 2 and 14). Students can easily spot that e.g. is rarely used within the syntax of the main sentence. Looking on the right, it is striking that it is often used to introduce references. This highlights typical citation practice in applied linguistics in English, with the author saying what s/he means and relegating the supporting reference to the end of the clause or sentence
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |129
– as opposed to beginning a sentence with X says that…, which novice researchers often tend to overuse in their scientific writing in English. Further searches specifically for this might include 19* or 20*, where the asterisk stands for any characters. Figure 7. Sample concordance lines for e.g. 1 newspaper, topic-oriented) and objectives ( e.g. structural, lexical, cultural) based on l 2 learning theorists and practitioners (see,. e.g., Kiraly 2000). The attention devoted to 3 ed, thus eliminating a number of variables ( e.g. Stevens 1991). The sources used are 4 -bsed materials have often been discussed ( e.g. Boulton 2010, forthcoming), but never 5 s dealing with highly specialized subjects ( e.g. Polyester media development for inkjet 6 ween adjacent points on the scale as equal ( e.g. very much and much vs. much and 7 sible variations in RAs across disciplines ( e.g., Anthony, 1999; Hyland, 2000; Nwogu, 8 y) while "T conveys some but less strength ( e.g., possibly, tend to). (Hyland, 1998; 9 divided into different semantic categories ( e.g. similar lexical meanings), users can 10 guage of students, at least one university ( e.g. University of South Australia, 2007), 11 specific and uninterrupted word sequences ( e.g. a verb and an associated preposition). 12 t; 2. music and pictures; 3. paralanguage: e.g. choice of typeface and letter sizes; 4. f 13 e empirical base for corpus-based learning ( e.g., Bowker, 1999, study of the effect of 14 esearch methods in corpus linguistics (see. e.g. Davies 2004; Kirk 2002; Mair 2002), 15 , locally authenticated corpus annotations ( e.g. Braun 2006). The IFAConc approach 16 onal print materials or instructional aids ( e.g., Sun, 1999). A concordancer one, type 17 although what follows can be personalized ( e.g., in this paper we present. . .) or impers 18 ndoblems during concordance-based tasks ( e.g. Turnbull and Burston 1998; Bernardini 19 k for second and foreign language learners ( e.g., Kramsch 1997; Rampton 1990; Train 20 cles, and missing verbs. 2. lexical errors,. e.g., wrong or inappropriate word
A final example (Figure 8) derives from apprentice writers’ tendency to want to prove their ideas; their teachers may find it useful to be able to provide some hard data in support of the injunction to beware of this. Figure 8. Concordance of prov* that 1 ggest that they do have something to offer, provided that they are evaluated in their 2 tremely motivating and challenging features provided that enough guidance and sup 3 modest: specifically, we do not set out to prove that DDL is better than other meth 4 of a very basic nature, it is impossible to prove that the students could not have p 5 favorable attitudes towards corpus use and proved that the introduction of corpora in 6 d English at primary school. The above data proved that it was a mixed ability class. 7 and independent learners. The lessons have proved that the teaching materials based 8 es of their connectors to the other groups. provided that they used them to check 9 ronunciation data in Table 3 contributes to proving that both the C and E groups ha 10 dents said that they probably would use it ( providing that it works), but as mentione 11 to write. Though the present study does not prove that this will lead to better writing, 12 t about this finding we ran a t-test, which proved that all tasks showed a significan 13 gical sense of authenticity for motivation, provided that students had a secure jump 14 s at any time in a self-access environment, provided that instructional sheets explaini 15 ts he went on to the next task, which again proves that too large a corpus would not b 16 easy nor straightforward. This pilot study proves that, when the translation is availab
Though the corpus is not lemmatised, it is easy to search for all occurrences of [prove] by using the asterisk as a wild card (prov*), and adding that to reduce the 130| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
noise, although some final manual editing will still be necessary to delete lines 10 to 15 (provided/providing that). Ten occurrences of [prove] that is not much in a corpus of 110 research articles, and can be reduced further, as lines 1 to 3 contain negatives (we do not set out to prove that; it is impossible to prove that; the present study does not prove that). Further examination in a wider context (FILE VIEW) can exclude a few more occurrences; users who know the corpus well might attribute others to a typical usage by novice researchers or non-native writers of English.
5. Empirical research findings The predictable question is whether learners take to the tools and use them successfully. Personal experience with a variety of French L1 learners of English suggests that many of them do. The BYU corpora were used to prepare printed materials for student engineers and architects in their first and second year of higher education respectively (Boulton 2009, 2010a). Students in both contexts managed to use them at least as well as dictionaries under experimental conditions to work out and apply rules of use, even without training. The architecture students were later found to prefer hands-on concordancing, successfully navigating detailed instructions for understanding problem language items over the course of a semester (Boulton 2012c). In distance degree programmes with students majoring in English, third-year undergraduates used the monolingual BYU corpora for translation into the L2 (Boulton 2012d); working on non-literary texts covering specialised themes, their own reported uses during online exams revealed surprising sophistication in their queries and thinking, and led to many appropriate translations. First-year distance master’s students following an option in corpus linguistics were required to build their own corpus on a topic related to their personal interests (Boulton 2011b); the vast majority completed satisfactory and sometimes exceptional reports on a wide variety of topics. The uptake is variable even among these English majors, since most are returning to higher education after several years; many are uncomfortable with technology, and others reach master’s level without ever having studied linguistics at all. The course requires considerable autonomy from them, exacerbated by the distance degree format. Nonetheless, despite reporting initial trepidation in appropriating the tools, many subsequently elect to use them in their other courses in literature or cultural studies. A recent anecdote may illustrate such spontaneous uses. Early in the semester, an assignment for an entirely separate research methodology course asked them to look at all occurrences of research in a specific research article and comment on what they found. On their own initiative, nearly a fifth of the students who submitted the assignment opened the paper in AntConc, which they had been introduced to only very shortly before. These students easily spotted patterns of use which remained invisible to the others, who largely continued to use it as a countable synonym for study. Such ad hoc and impromptu use shows not only that dedicated corpus tools are accessible to these students, but also that they promote noticing of patterns which otherwise go unrecognised. Charles (2014) is so far the only attempt to look at long-term uptake of corpus use, finding that 70% of her graduate students continued to use their corpus (38% regularly) to help with
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |131
academic writing. Much published research has been interested in learners’ receptivity to DDL, typically collected via questionnaires or interviews. The reactions in most cases are positive, often enthusiastically so. Interestingly, Varley (2009) found that enthusiasm was particularly high among students from non-linguistic disciplines who had specific motivations, and who had been less successful with traditional teaching. Nonetheless, it is important not to gloss over possible problems that have been reported. Among those frequently cited are technical issues, though increasingly user-friendly software and interfaces opens up DDL possibilities even among high-school students (Geist & Hahn 2012) and lower-level undergraduates (Boulton 2012c). Learners in a range of situations can use the tools successfully, though not always to maximum effect. Pérez-Paredes et al. (2012), for example, found the most fruitful results included Google searches alongside corpus queries; however, very little instruction was provided in that particular study. Kennedy and Miceli (2001) are among those to provide detailed analysis of the procedures learners actually use, finding difficulties in the four stages of: formulating the question; devising a search strategy; observing the examples found and selecting relevant ones; drawing conclusions. Sun (2003) identified four factors influencing successful corpus use: prior knowledge of the language point (learners used the corpus successfully to confirm intuitions, but had more difficulty in exploring new points); cognitive skills (comparing, grouping, differentiating, inferring); teacher intervention; and concordancer skills. Most such studies are short term, interested in what students do when they first encounter corpora, and thus provide little or no training; the usual suggestion is for more teacher guidance. This of course depends on how DDL is implemented: paper-based materials or carefully sequenced and scaffolded activities can make for a gentler introduction as learners proceed from “soft” to “hard” DDL where appropriate (e.g. Gabrielatos 2005). That said, software is now a part of learners’ everyday lives, and the concept of searching and making sense of computer-generated responses is no longer as novel or intimidating as it was when DDL first appeared. Some report difficulties coping with truncated concordance lines; sentence formats can be obtained from many concordancers, but generally learners quickly find that the KWIC format makes patterns more visible. Authentic language may be a problem, but using texts relevant to the learners (in their disciplines, chosen by them, or maybe even of their own productions) can make the texts and contents more accessible and enhance a sense of ownership (Charles 2012, 2014). The large numbers of occurrences can lead to a sense of drowning in data, with time-consuming and mechanical sorting sometimes seen as frustrating. Cobb (1999), on the other hand, considers this as an essential component of constructivist learning: while learners may not understand why the teacher does not simply give them the answer, it is the process of finding out for themselves that is essential for learning. In other words, an element of difficulty can be a good thing, as long as unnecessary cognitive load is reduced. In the end, however, it must be acknowledged that DDL may not be appropriate for all learners depending on their profiles, preferences, styles, aptitudes, cultures and learning histories. It certainly should not be used as a default resource where other, simpler 132| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
tools such as dictionaries may be more efficient and relevant (Frankenberg-Garcia 2014). Ultimately, the teacher should decide when and how to introduce corpora appropriately for their students, who will then be in a position to decide when and how to use them for their own purposes. In terms of research as a whole, Boulton (2012a) reviewed twenty studies that attempt empirical evaluation of some aspect of corpus use in ESP, finding that learners even with relatively limited levels of proficiency and linguistic sophistication can appreciate them and derive benefit from them in a variety of conditions – on paper or hands-on, as a learning aid or reference tool, etc. In a meta-analysis of 21 DDL studies (not just ESP), Cobb and Boulton (2015) found a mean gain (pre/post-test) of d=1.68, and a mean difference (control/experimental group) of d=1.04; these figures represent large effect sizes according to Plonsky and Oswald’s (2014) meticulous survey of previous meta-analyses in language teaching and learning as a whole. A more rigorous and inclusive meta-analysis by the same authors (Boulton & Cobb in preparation) identified over 200 empirical studies of DDL, the majority of which involved learners majoring in non-linguistic subjects and/or needing English for specific purposes, with only slightly lower effect sizes. The papers do cite a number of potential problems (the amount of training required for autonomous use, bewilderment faced with truncated concordance lines, etc.), and the approach may simply not appeal to all individual learners. For any particular group, the only way to find out is to try.
Conclusion In a paper such as this we cannot hope to do more than scratch the surface of the possibilities of corpus use; for further reading, excellent general works include Bennett (2010) and Reppen (2010); for ESP and EAP in particular, see Flowerdew (2015) and Gavioli (2005) respectively. Lee and Swales (2006) also report ideas on a corpus-based EAP course for post-graduate students. Our aim here has been to provide some genuine and concrete examples of some of the ways in which a corpus-linguistic mindset can help learners with differing levels of language proficiency and sophistication to approach ESP. DDL draws on solid theoretical foundations and has been found generally to be appealing and useful in terms of learning outcomes. It can be applied even with familiar, everyday tools; this may be enough for some, while others may go further and use existing corpora or even create their own, depending on the investment they are prepared to make, which will in turn depend on their specific or long-term needs and motivations. In targeting specific varieties of English, a corpus approach – for decision-makers, designers, teachers and learners – offers a significant complement to the quirks and failings of intuition alone (Sinclair 2003).
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |133
Bibliographical references ACKERMANN, Kirsten & Yu-Hua CHEN. 2013. “Developing the academic collocation list (ACL): A corpus-driven and expert-judged approach”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12, 235–247. ASTON, Guy. 1997. “Small and large corpora in language learning”. In LEWANDOWSKA- TOMASZCZYK, B. & J. MELIA (Eds.), Practical Applications in Language Corpora. Lodz: Lodz University Press, 51–62. ASTON, Guy. 2001. “Learning with corpora: An overview”. In ASTON, G. (Ed.), Learning with Corpora. Houston: Athelstan, 7–45. BARRETT, Louise, Robin DUNBAR & John LYCETT. 2002. Human Evolutionary Psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave. BECKNER, Clay, Richard BLYTHE, Joan BYBEE, Morten H. CHRISTIANSEN, William CROFT, Nick C. ELLIS, John HOLLAND, Jinyun KE, Diane LARSEN-FREEMAN & Tom SCHOENEMANN (The ‘Five Graces Group’). 2009. “Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper”. Language Learning 59 (supplement), 1–26. BENNETT, Gena R. 2010. Using Corpora in the Language Learning Classroom: Corpus Linguistics for Teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. BOULTON, Alex. 2009. “Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training”. ReCALL 21/1, 37–51. BOULTON, Alex. 2010a. “Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation”. Language Learning 60/3, 534–572. BOULTON, Alex. 2010b. “Language awareness and medium-term benefits of corpus consultation”. In GIMENO Sanz, A. (Ed.), New Trends in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Working Together. Madrid: Macmillan ELT, 39–46. BOULTON, Alex. 2011a. “Data-driven learning: The perpetual enigma”. In GOŹDŹ-ROSZKOWSKI, S. (Ed.), Explorations across Languages and Corpora. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 563–580. BOULTON, Alex. 2011b. “Bringing corpora to the masses: Free and easy tools for interdisciplinary language studies”. In KÜBLER, N. (Ed.), Corpora, Language, Teaching, and Resources: From Theory to Practice. Bern: Peter Lang, 69–96. BOULTON, Alex. 2012a. “Corpus consultation for ESP: A review of empirical research”. In BOULTON, A., S. CARTER-THOMAS & E. ROWLEY-JOLIVET (Eds.). Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 263–293. BOULTON, Alex. 2012b. “Computer corpora in language learning: DST approaches to research”. Mélanges Crapel 33, 79–91. BOULTON, Alex. 2012c. “Hands-on/hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning”. In THOMAS, J. & A. BOULTON (Eds.), Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 152–168. BOULTON, Alex. 2012d. “Beyond concordancing: Multiple affordances of corpora in university language degrees”. Languages, Cultures and Virtual Communities. Elsevier Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 34, 33–38. BOULTON, Alex. 2015. “Applying data-driven learning to the web”. In LEŃKO-SZYMAŃSKA, A. & A. BOULTON (Eds.), Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 267–295. BOULTON, Alex, Shirley CARTER-THOMAS & Elizabeth ROWLEY-JOLIVET (Eds.). 2012. Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. BOULTON, Alex & Thomas COBB. In preparation. “Corpus use in language learning: A meta- 134| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
analysis”. BOULTON, Alex & Sylvie DE COCK. Forthcoming. “Dictionaries as aids for language learning”. In HANKs, P. & G.-M. DE SCHRYVER (Eds.), International Handbook of Lexis and Lexicography. New York: Springer. BOULTON, Alex & Henry TYNE. 2014. Des documents authentiques aux corpus: démarches pour l’apprentissage des langues. Paris: Didier. BYRD, Pat & Averil COXHEAD. 2010. “On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic writing and in the teaching of EAP”. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 5, 31–64. CHARLES, Maggie. 2012. “‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do- it-yourself corpus-building”. English for Specific Purposes 31, 93–102. CHARLES, Maggie. 2014. “Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal corpora”. English for Specific Purposes 35, 30–40. COBB, Tom. 1999. “Applying constructivism: A test for the learner as scientist”. Educational Technology Research & Development 47/3, 15–31. COBB, Thomas & Alex BOULTON. 2015. “Classroom applications of corpus analysis”. In BIBER, D. & R. REPPEN (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 478–497. CONROY, Mark A. 2010. “Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26/6, 861–882. COXHEAD, Averil. 2000. “A new academic word list”. TESOL Quarterly 34/2, 213–238. DUDENEY, Gavin. 2000. The Internet and the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FLOWERDEW, Lynne. 2015. “Corpus-based research and pedagogy in EAP: From lexis to genre”. Language Teaching 48/1, 99–116. FRANKENBERG-GARCIA, Ana. 2014. “How language learners can benefit from corpora, or not”. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures 11/1, 93–110. GABRIELATOS, Costas. 2005. “Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells?” Teaching English as a Second Language – Electronic Journal 8/4, 1–35. GARDNER, Dee & Mark DAVIES. 2014. “A new academic vocabulary list”. Applied Linguistics 35/3, 305–327. GASKELL, Delian & Thomas COBB. 2004. “Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?”. System 32/3, 301–319. GAVIOLI, Laura. 2005. Exploring Corpora for ESP Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GEIST, Monika & Angela HAHN. 2012. “Using a corpus for written production: A classroom study”. In THOMAS, J. & A. BOULTON (Eds.), Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 124–136. GELUSO, Joe. 2013. “Phraseology and frequency of occurrence on the web: Native speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed second language writing”. Computer Assisted Language Learning 26/2, 144–157. GILQUIN, Gaëtanelle & Stephan Th. GRIES. 2009. “Corpora and experimental methods: A state- of-the-art review”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5/1, 1–26. GLEDHILL, Chris. 2000. “The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions”. English for Specific Purposes 19/1, 115–135. HANKS, Patrick. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. HASSELGREN, Angela. 1994. “Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4/2, 237–258.
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |135
HOEY, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. JOHNS, Tim. 1988. “Whence and whither classroom concordancing?”. In BONGAERTS, P., P. DE HAAN, S. LOBBE & H. WEKKER (Eds.), Computer Applications in Language Learning. Dordrecht: Foris, 9–27. JOHNS, Tim. 1990. “From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning”. CALL Austria 10, 14–34. JOHNS, Tim. 1991. “Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials”. In JOHNS, T. & P. KING (Eds.), Classroom Concordancing. English Language Research Journal 4, 1– 16. KENNEDY, Claire & Tiziana MICELI. 2001. “An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation”. Language Learning & Technology 5/3, 77–90. KIRSCHNER, Paul A., John SWELLEr & Richard E. CLARK. 2006. “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem- based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching”. Educational Psychologist 41/2, 75–86. LARSEN-FREEMAN, Diane & Lynne CAMERON. 2008. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LEE, David & John SWALES. 2006. “A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora”. English for Specific Purposes 25, 56–75. LEŃKO-SZYMAŃSKA, Agnieszka & Alex BOULTON (Eds.). 2015. Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MANIEZ, François. 2012. “A corpus-based study of adjectival vs nominal modification in medical English”. In BOULTON, A., S. CARTER-THOMAS & E. ROWLEY-JOLIVET (Eds.), Corpus-informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–103. MCCARTHY, Michael. 2004. Touchstone: From Corpus to Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MCCARTHY, Michael. 2008. “Accessing and interpreting corpus information in the teacher education context”. Language Teaching 41/4, 563–574. MILLAR, Neil. 2011. “The processing of malformed formulaic language”. Applied Linguistics 32/2, 129–148. NESI, Hilary. 2000. The Use and Abuse of EFL Dictionaries. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. NESI, Hilary. 2015. “ESP corpus construction: a plea for a needs-driven approach”. ASp 68, 7– 23. PARK, Kwanghyun & Celeste KINGINGER. 2010. “Writing/thinking in real time: Digital video and corpus query analysis”. Language Learning & Technology 14/3, 31–50. PÉREZ-PAREDES, Pascual, María SÁNCHEZ-TORNEL & Jose M. ALCARAZ CALERO. 2012. “Learners’ search patterns during corpus-based focus-on-form activities: A study on hands-on concordancing”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17/4, 483–515. PLONSKY, Luke & Frederick L. OSWALD. 2014. “How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research”. Language Learning 64/4, 878–912. REPPEN, Randi. 2010. Using Corpora in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHMIDT, Richard W. 1990. “The role of consciousness in second language learning”. Applied Linguistics 11/2, 129–158. SCHMITT, Norbert, Tom COBB, Marlise HORST & Diane SCHMITT. 2016. “How much vocabulary is needed to use English? Replication of van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012), Nation (2006) and Cobb (2007)”. Language Teaching. doi:10.1017/S0261444815000075. 136| A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137
SCOTT, Mike & Christopher TRIBBLE. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. SIMPSON-VLACH, Rita & Nick C. ELLIS. 2010. “An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research”. Applied Linguistics 31/4, 487–512. SINCLAIR, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SINCLAIR, John. 2003. Reading Concordances: An Introduction. Harlow: Longman. SMITH, Simon. 2011. “Learner construction of corpora for general English in Taiwan”. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24/4, 291–316. SUN, Yu-Chih. 2003. “Learning process, strategies and web-based concordancers: A case- study”. British Journal of Educational Technology 34/5, 601–613. SUN, Yu-Chih. 2007. “Learner perceptions of a concordancing tool for academic writing”. Computer Assisted Language Learning 20/4, 323–343. SWAIN, Merrill. 2006. “Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency”. In BYRNES, H. (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, 95–108. TAYLOR, John R. 2012. The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. THOMPSON, Paul. 2006. “Assessing the contribution of corpora to EAP practice”. In KANTARIDOU, Z., I. PAPADOPOULOU & I. MAHILI (Eds.), Motivation in Learning Language for Specific and Academic Purposes. Macedonia: University of Macedonia (n.p.). TOMASELLO, Michael. 2005. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press. VARLEY, Steve. 2009. “‘I’ll just look that up in the concordancer’: Integrating corpus consultation into the language learning environment”. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22/2, 133–152. WORLOCK POPE, Caty (Ed.). 2010. The Bootcamp Discourse and Beyond. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15. ZAHAR, Rick, Tom COBB & Nina SPADA. 2001. “Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness”. Canadian Modern Language Review 57/3, 541–572. Online corpora and tools AntConc
A. Boulton / ASp 69 (March 2016) 113–137 |137
Alex Boulton is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Lorraine. His main research interests broadly relate to English and applied linguistics, and especially corpus linguistics and potential uses for ordinary teachers and learners (data-driven learning). He has published and edited books and papers in these fields over the years, and is on various boards and committees: AFLA (vice-president), GERAS, EuroCALL and TaLC; as well as journals such as ReCALL (co-editor), Alsic, ASp, Eurocall Review, IJCALLT, JALT-CALL Journal, Al- Lisaniyyat, and Mélanges Crapel. He is currently head of the Atilf research group Didactique des langues et sociolinguistique (Crapel), and assistant director of the first UFR Lansad in France (faculty/department of languages for specialists of other disciplines). [email protected]
ASp 69 |139
Research in ESP teaching and learning in French higher education: developing the construct of ESP didactics La recherche sur l’enseignement-apprentissage de l’anglais de spécialité (ASP) en France : pour une didactique de l’ASP
Cédric Sarré & Shona Whyte Université Paris Sorbonne, CELISO Université Nice Sophia-Antipolis, BCL
KEY WORDS MOTS CLÉS Didactics, English for specific purposes, Acquisition des langues, anglais de epistemology, ESP, language education, spécialité, didactique, enseignement- second language acquisition. apprentissage des langues, épistémologie. ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ This paper tackles the question of research on Cet article aborde la question de la recherche the teaching and learning of English for sur l’enseignement-apprentissage de l’anglais Specific Purposes (ESP) in France and presents de spécialité (ASP) en France et présente les the initial stages of work on the development premières étapes d’un travail sur le of a theoretical framework which is specific to développement d’un cadrage théorique this field of research. It examines arguments spécifique à ce champ de recherche. Nous nous for the development of a concept of ESP interrogeons ainsi sur la pertinence du didactics and the framework underpinning développement du concept de didactique de research in the teaching and learning of ESP. It l’ASP, cadre théorique spécifique à la recherche considers links between this concept and the sur l’enseignement-apprentissage de l’ASP, et didactics of languages and of English, on the sur ses liens avec la didactique des langues et one hand, and ESP research on the other. To de l’anglais, d’une part, et avec la recherche en this end, the paper begins with an analysis of ASP, d’autre part. Nous proposons une analyse different interpretations of key concepts in des différentes acceptions des concepts clés language teaching and learning, then provides relatifs à l’enseignement-apprentissage des an overview of language education in French langues, avant de dresser un panorama de higher education, with particular attention to l’enseignement-apprentissage des langues ESP teaching and learning. Research in ESP dans l’enseignement supérieur français, et de teaching is then examined with reference to l’ASP en particulier. La recherche est ensuite the new GERAS special interest group DidASP, abordée à travers l’analyse des travaux in order to both highlight the range of contexts présentés au sein du Groupe de travail and approaches investigated, and identify Didactique et ASP du GERAS, analyse qui nous common themes and issues. permet de souligner la variété des contextes et des approches, et d’identifier un certain nombre de thématiques et de préoccupations communes. 140| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
1. Introduction As the influential applied linguist and language assessment specialist Dan Douglas has pointed out, “the issue of defining and refining the concept of specific purpose language teaching is an ongoing and current task for practitioners” (2010: 11). This question also has repercussions for research in languages for specific purposes (LSPs) which this paper addresses via the following interrelated questions: 1. What are the key concepts and constructs necessary to the discussion of research in this area and what light is shed on this question by French perspectives on English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in higher education? 2. Is there a need for a theoretical research framework which is specific to the field of teaching and learning ESP? 3. How might research into a provisional framework for ESP didactics inform both practical pedagogical decision-making as well as contribute to more theoretical research in ESP teaching and learning in French higher education (and elsewhere)? The paper begins by examining essential concepts and constructs, then provides background on research in ESP teaching and learning, followed by an overview of recent work in French higher education to identify common themes. The final section discusses a construct called ESP didactics and offers perspectives for future work in this area.
2. Theory and practice in (language) teaching and learning The risk of terminological confusion in LSP teaching is high, since it includes a number of different fields of research, including (applied) linguistics, modern language studies, foreign language teaching and learning, and (language) education, and also involves researchers in different countries. As Bailly (2014: 15) notes: As in other specializations, as didacticians we should not limit ourselves to our own school of thought or the classifications and categories we have become familiar with through our training and the institutional environment we operate in. We should instead widen our perspective through close and balanced analysis of the solutions offered by our colleagues from outside France.1 With this in mind, the paper begins with an overview of key terms. Indeed, such are the differences between the scope and meaning of the French and English pairs didactique/didactics, pédagogie/pedagogy and even linguistique appliquée/applied linguistics, that it is worth looking further afield and into the past in order to define and delimit current understanding of key concepts and constructs in the field of
1 Il nous est en effet nécessaire, en didactique comme dans d’autres champs de spécialisation, de ne pas nous en tenir à nos habitudes de pensée, aux classifications et catégories qui nous sont familières de par notre formation et notre cadre institutionnel de fonctionnement, et de nous décentrer en examinant de près et loyalement les solutions proposées par nos collègues d’ailleurs.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |141
research in second/foreign language teaching and learning. 2.1. Didactics and pedagogy LSP research in France stands at the intersection of European and Anglo- American research traditions. The terms didactics and pedagogy are widely used in many mainland European countries (France, Finland, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland), while in the English-speaking world, only pedagogy is commonly used in education research and the terms language learning and teaching, second language acquisition and learning, second/foreign/modern language education and second/foreign language methodology are often preferred (Kramsch 2000). This section compares the use of didactics and pedagogy in the long- established and influential German and Finnish traditions, in French approaches, and in Anglo-American research. Harjanne and Tella claim that understanding teaching, the main object of didactics, has recently been complicated by terminological differences, creating what they call a “dilemma of didactics” (2007: 198). From an early definition which dates back to 1965, didactics in continental Europe has been loosely defined as “the science and study of teaching and learning” (ibid.: 203), with a strong theoretical orientation in keeping with the German tradition (Kansanen 2004). Pedagogy, on the other hand, is often defined in more practical, pragmatic terms: the “science of teaching embodying both curriculum and methodology” (Simon 1981, cited in Hamilton 1999: 138). However, Hamilton (1999) charts terminological slippage in the use of the terms pedagogy, syllabus, curriculum didactics, and method over centuries of educational thought and research in Europe. Since recent years have seen renewed interest in these key concepts, the time seems ripe to revisit current usage. The Finnish concept of didactics is defined as (1) a science whose target is teaching, studying (i.e., what students do), and learning, and (2) a practice-based doctrine aimed at meeting prescribed learning objectives via teaching and studying (Tella 2002, cited in Harjanne & Tella 2007). Finnish didactics has both a descriptive dimension, deriving from research on teaching, and a more prescriptive or normative dimension, concerning teaching instructions and curricula (Harjanne & Tella 2007: 201). In other words, "the descriptive side of didactics is characteristic of a research approach and the normative side represents the practical viewpoint, with its arguments and justifications behind the educational decisions” (Kansanen & Meri 1999: 107), suggesting an overlap between normative didactics and pedagogy. This is also the case for language didactics in France, which is defined in opposition to more immediate, concrete and practical pedagogical concerns in Bailly’s seminal definition (1997: 10): The modern, relatively recent interpretation of the term didactics refers a minima to an effort at distanciation, or in a fuller sense to the actual activity of theorising. Schematically in all cases, the observer or researcher abstracts him or herself from the immediate pedagogical context to analyse all the components of the object of teaching, the goals pursued in the pedagogical act, the strategies used by the teacher, the transformations of competences and behaviours which this teaching induces in the pupil and therefore the 142| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
strategies used by the pupil to appropriate this object during learning activities.2 Language didactics is clearly considered as a distancing and theorising process during which the researcher takes a step back from the immediate teaching context. Language didactics is praxeology, that is to say an attempt to theorise pedagogical practices (Tardieu 2014: 85) or “an instrument to describe, analyse and reflect on the various dimensions of pedagogical reality, which helps us to better understand teaching practices” (Harjanne & Tella 2007: 204). Like the Finnish term, the French construct is two-dimensional (Bailly 1997): a more descriptive dimension, termed didactique des chercheurs, corresponds to the theorising process previously mentioned, and a more normative dimension, called didactique institutionnelle, is formalised in national curricula and instructions and thus overlaps to a certain extent with the term “pedagogy.” If we now turn to the continental European notion of pedagogy, similar terminological problems arise (Harjanne & Tella 2007: 199). Karsanen (1999) argues that while didactics and pedagogy can be considered as “parallel concepts”, pedagogy generally concerns curricula, involves decision-making about teaching, and thus content, context, actors and objectives. Its main focus is teaching and education, as in the German tradition. Similarly, the French construct of pedagogy refers to an applied component of didactics, where the emphasis is clearly on teaching practices (Bailly 1997: 19). Put simply, didactics is knowledge-oriented, a science which aims to understand how teaching leads to learning, whereas pedagogy is practice-oriented, concerned more with applied aspects of language teaching. However, the problematic nature of the concepts lies not in the European understanding of the terms, but rather in Anglo-American usage. 2.2. Didactics, pedagogy and second language acquisition In the English-speaking world, didactics is a concept with some pejorative overtones, often associated with lower-order, technical issues related to curriculum and teaching methods (Harjanne & Tella 2007), and less connected to research (Kansanen 2009: 29). It is thus very uncommon for researchers publishing in English to use the term. Pedagogy, on the other hand (or sometimes even pedagogics), has been more widely accepted since the 1970s, though without a single, unambiguous meaning. Hamilton notes that “recent Anglo-American usage of ‘pedagogy’ mirrors the mainland European use of ‘didactic’” (1999: 135). If this is the case, we are merely confronted with a terminological difference: the Anglo-American concept of pedagogy corresponds to the continental European concept of didactics. It turns out, however, that Hamilton’s claim seems to be particularly relevant to the 1970s and 1980s, a time when didactics in the German tradition “resurfaced in the English-
2 Le terme "Didactique", dans son acception moderne – relativement récente – renvoie, au moins, à une démarche de distanciation et, au plus, à une pleine activité de théorisation : schématiquement, il s’agit dans tous les cas, pour un observateur ou un expérimentateur, de s’abstraire de l’immédiateté pédagogique et d’analyser à travers toutes ses composantes l’objet d’enseignement, les buts poursuivis dans l’acte pédagogique, les stratégies utilisées par l’enseignement, les transformations de compétences et de conduites que cet enseignement induit chez l’élève et par conséquent les stratégies d’appropriation de l’objet déployées par cet élève lors de son activité d’apprentissage.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |143
speaking world as pedagogic analysis” (Hamilton 1999: 146). More recent use of the term in the English-speaking world of applied linguistics is quite different. In the field of second or foreign language education,3 the term pedagogy is consistently used in relation to applications of language acquisition research and practical issues faced by practitioners (Gass 1995; Ellis 1997). With the maturation of the theoretical discipline of second language acquisition (SLA) in the late 1980s, researchers wanted to distinguish theoretical concerns from practical issues of teaching and learning languages. Gass shows how a “need for an emerging discipline (SLA) to show its strength, vitality and value” meant that Anglo-American researchers set out to sever links between research and teaching, a connection viewed by some as “unhealthy” (1995: 5). From this period, Hamilton’s (1999) neat overlap between the Anglo-American term pedagogy and continental European didactics lost much of its relevance to language learning and teaching research because acquisitional approaches to our field took precedence over general educational models. From the early 1990s, SLA dominated theoretical approaches to language teaching in the English-speaking world, leaving the term pedagogy to cover more practical concerns. Today the relevance of SLA research to language teaching is a matter of widespread agreement, consonant with its roots in a desire to improve instruction (Ellis 1997: 69). Some researchers refer to “applying SLA” in teaching (idem), which seems very close to the French view of pedagogy as “applied didactics.” So, how do didactics and SLA compare? Within the field of applied linguistics, defined as “the theory and practice of language acquisition and use” (Kramsch 2000: 317), SLA originally referred to language acquisition in immersive contexts with native speakers of a language (Tardieu 2014: 87). Today SLA comprises a number of different strands, including instructed SLA, which focuses on cognitive, linguistic, affective and social factors affecting the learning of a second/foreign language in an instructional environment or classroom, in opposition to naturalistic SLA (Spada 2014: 41). SLA has also been loosely defined as “the general field of learning a non- primary language” (Gass 1995: 3) and has gradually replaced educational psychology as the theoretical base for language teaching in the US (Kramsch 2000: 313). SLA draws from several fields of research – linguistics, psychology, sociology and educational sciences – just as French didactics draws on various related fields (ibid.). In contrast, researchers in foreign language education focus on the schooling process and therefore address questions such as standardisation of teaching and testing practices, syllabus and curriculum design, programme administration and models of teacher preparation (Kramsch 2000: 315). Anglo-American foreign language education therefore seems very similar to the French concept of didactique institutionnelle as previously defined. Finally, foreign language
3 The terms ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ language are also used somewhat inconsistently in the literature: for some, second language is a superordinate term including all languages learned after the first language regardless of context. Others reserve the term for a language learned in a context where the target language is an ambient language, in opposition to a foreign language, learned in isolation from native speakers, as is the case for most instructed ESP in Europe. 144| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
methodology is considered “an important field of knowledge for practitioners” (Kramsch 2000: 316) since foreign language methodologists aim to develop the most effective ways of teaching foreign languages. This strand of knowledge can be explicitly or implicitly informed by theory, although foreign language methodology shows a clear orientation towards practice at the expense of theory. In this respect, it seems similar to some components of mainland European pedagogy and therefore could be part of pedagogy. The different definitions of the concepts discussed in this section are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Different interpretations of didactics and pedagogy (adapted from Harjanne & Tella 2007: 201)
German Finnish French Anglo-American
Didactics Didaktik 1. opetusoppi: 1.Didactique Generally, not used. Related to study of institutionnelle Near-equivalent theory teaching (normative) concepts include (normative) 2. Didactique du 1. foreign 2. opetustied: chercheur language science of (descriptive); education teaching Distancing and 2. Instructed SLA; (descriptive); theorising emphasis on emphasis on process; the theories of teaching, emphasis on acquisition seen in addition to analysis of as the education teaching interaction objectives and between strategies with learners and the reference to educational and contributive societal context sciences; study of how teaching leads to learning
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |145
German Finnish French Anglo-American
Pedagogy Pädagogik kasvatustiede pédagogie No established Education (educational An applied meaning; and sciences), component of since the 1970s, Teaching system(at)ic didactics; more study of Emphasis on generally accepted, education teaching sometimes as and/or teaching; practices “pedagogics”; emphasis on in the 1970s and education, 1980s, close to the in addition to European teaching concept of didactics; from the 1990s onwards, an applied component of SLA
After this discussion of different interpretations of theoretical and practical aspects of the teaching and learning of second/foreign languages in general, we now turn to LSP, taking the example of the French context.
3. Language teaching and research in French Higher Education French higher education traditionally separates language specialists – students of a modern language taking language-specific courses in linguistics, literary and cultural studies – from non-specialists – students in disciplines other than languages who are offered ESP classes, often as course requirements. These courses are part of what is commonly known as LANSAD (LANgues pour Spécialistes d’Autres Disciplines). Specialist language courses are largely taught by instructors with academic training in the target language and culture, many of whom are also literary scholars, and a major professional goal for students is secondary school English teaching (as EFL, or Modern Foreign Language, MFL). The same is not true of LSP courses. In this section we offer an overview of English studies and LSP teaching in France, before comparing Anglo-American and French ESP. 3.1. Teaching English studies The French study of anglistics (l’anglistique) is historically divided into three strands, now four with the more recent inclusion of ESP (Whyte 2014: 21): Tardieu (2008) identifies “three traditional fields in English studies: linguistics, literature, culture” to which list she adds, following Perrin, English for Specific Purposes.4 Tardieu (2008: 2) situates English language didactics as a separate, transversal subdiscipline, a position which she considers as both an asset and a challenge:
4 Pour Tardieu (2008) subsistent « trois champs traditionnels de l’anglistique: linguistique, littérature, civilisation » auxquels il convient d’ajouter selon l’auteur et suivant Perrin, l’anglais de spécialité. 146| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
Didactics shares with translation the difficulty of not belonging to a single territory, and not being situated exclusively within only one of these fields. Didactic research thus sometimes loses readability or is seen as a nomadic discipline. However, shouldn’t this characteristic also be viewed as an asset in the sense that didactics can belong to all of these fields, and even that of translation?5 In this view, language didactics is seen as an overarching dimension with interrelations with all the other main aspects of English studies. It is legitimate to take an interest in the teaching and learning of the literature of English-speaking countries, of their culture, and of linguistic aspects of the many forms English takes; teaching and learning to translate into and out of English are also worthy of attention. Tardieu argues that these fields need not be treated exclusively in terms of curricular content and teaching methods (i.e., what is denoted by pedagogy in the European tradition, described in section 2), but can also constitute research objects in their own right, as part of a broader didactics of English studies. Tardieu goes on to suggest ways in which the field of didactics can carve out a research space within English studies, with the caveat that “it is necessary in this case to decide on an epistemological stance” (cited in Whyte 2014: 15). Reflection on the epistemological status of a didactics of English studies in France led to the creation in 2011 of a new learned society in this area, ARDAA (Association pour la Recherche en Didactique de l'Anglais et en Acquisition). ARDAA brings together researchers in both specialist and LANSAD sectors of French higher education and therefore includes teacher educators, for whom language teacher education research is a teaching concern as well as a research interest. ARDAA is affiliated with the academic association the SAES (Société des Anglicistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur), which represents English studies in French higher education. The SAES has over twenty affiliate learned societies covering the four major fields of English studies as well as related subfields, including one for ESP. It is clear that didactics has therefore taken on increasing importance in French higher education in recent years. 3.2. Teaching ESP Turning now to ESP teaching, courses are generally intended to prepare students for non-teaching uses of the target language. As shown in several recent studies (Whyte 2011; Braud et al. 2015), the majority of ESP teachers in French higher education do not have disciplinary training and are not involved in research activities. However, the need for a research foundation for ESP teaching has been addressed at institutional level through the activities of academic and professional LSP organisations such as the vocational language teachers’ association APLIUT (Association des Professeurs de Langues en IUT) and the higher education ESP research group GERAS (Groupe d’Étude et de Recherche en Anglais de Spécialité); both seek to bridge the gap between research and teaching in LSP (Trouillon 2010: 15).
5 [L]a didactique partage avec la traduction cette difficulté à n’habiter qu’un territoire, à ne pouvoir se situer à l’intérieur d’un seul de ces champs de manière exclusive, d’où, parfois, son absence de lisibilité ou le nomadisme de ses travaux. Mais cette caractéristique n’est-elle pas aussi un atout au sens où la didactique peut se situer à l’intérieur de tous ces champs et même de celui de la traduction ?
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |147
Although ESP research and teaching are often qualified as “innovative” (Mémet & Petit 2001: 8; Hyland 2006: 35) with a more “international” scope than other areas of language education (Master 2005; Paltridge & Starfield 2011), outsiders sometimes view them as “the less glamorous, low rent neighbourhoods of the academy” (Hyland 2006: 34). APLIUT and GERAS teachers and researchers find common ground in the study of Anglais de spécialité (ASP). There are obvious similarities between ESP and ASP which can be explained by the fact that ASP originates in ESP (Mémet 2001). However, the French approach to the field diverges from ESP traditions in the English-speaking world, specifically as regards its learning/teaching dimension. An early definition of ESP is offered in a seminal volume by Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 19) and runs as follows: ESP must be seen as an approach not as a product. ESP is not a particular type 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? Here priority is given to learner needs, and ESP is thus firmly grounded in language learning. A decade later, in another landmark publication by key authors in the field, Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 4-5) offered a similar, more detailed characterisation of ESP: 1. Absolute characteristics: ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learners; ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities of the disciplines it serves; ESP is centred on the language (grammar, lexis, register), skills, discourse and genres appropriate to these activities. 2. Variable characteristics: ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines; ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that of general English; ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level institution or in a professional work situation. It could, however, be used for learners at secondary school level; ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students. Most ESP courses assume basic knowledge of the language system, but it can be used with beginners. Here all three absolute characteristics and three of the four variable characteristics are directly linked to teaching and learning. They read more like curricular guidelines than the theoretical definition of a construct. Therefore, there seems to be a shift in the definition of ESP from Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) focus on language learning to Dudley-Evans and St John’s (1998) orientation towards language teaching. This change can be viewed as a shift from theoretical (SLA) to more practical concerns (language teaching methodologies), which were 148| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
previously excluded by Hutchinson and Waters (1987). Potential outlets for ESP research in the English-speaking world encompass both definitions. The aims and scope of the flagship journal of ESP, English for Specific Purposes, are quite explicit, including all aspects of ESP teaching and learning, from both theoretical and more practical viewpoints. While discourse and linguistic aspects of ESP are mentioned as potential areas of interest to journal readers, their relevance is judged only in relation to the teaching and learning of ESP rather than as topics of research in their own right. In the French context, the territory of ASP is mapped somewhat differently. Following in the footsteps of pioneers such as Costa and Perrin who helped ASP achieve recognition in French academia in the 1970s and early 1980s (Baïssus 2008), Petit (2002: 2) offered the first definition of ASP to gain wide acceptance in France: The branch of English language studies which concerns the language, discourse and culture of English-language professional communities and specialised social groups, as well as the teaching of this object.6 French ESP is considered as a subdiscipline of English studies (just as geometry is a subdiscipline of mathematics), that is, both a strand of knowledge and a subject to be taught. Petit’s definition also lays emphasis on four elements: (1) English studies in general; (2) language viewed in its linguistic, discourse and cultural dimensions; (3) specialization, one example of which is professional specialization; and (4) teaching. Interestingly, there is no mention of learning here and no reference to the necessary interrelations between research in ESP and research in language didactics. However, others have since argued that ESP ought to take into account “our current knowledge of language learning and English language teaching in particular” (Bertin 2008: 5). ASp, the major French journal in this area, adopts a much wider didactic perspective (or “didactic dimension”) in its editorial policy than Petit (2002), referring not only to the teaching of ESP, but also to various theoretical frameworks that can be used, including, for example, those related to language learning theory, to the teaching of ESP in particular higher education courses, to ergonomics or even technology integration in ESP learning and teaching. This view of ESP is therefore all-encompassing, unlike Petit’s definition whose didactic dimension was completely unspecified. This analysis of different definitions of ESP is summarized in Table 2.
6 [L]a branche de l’anglistique qui traite de la langue, du discours et de la culture des communautés professionnelles et groupes sociaux spécialisés anglophones et de l’enseignement de cet objet.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |149
Table 2. A summary of ESP definitions
Hutchinson & Waters Dudley-Evans & St John Petit (1987) (1998) (2002) ESP as an approach to ESP in terms of core ESP as a subdiscipline of language learning characteristics and English studies optional features of language teaching Emphasis on learner Emphasis on Emphasis on needs ● learner needs ● the varied ● methodological dimensions of choices in specialised relation to language: professional linguistic, contexts discursive, cultural ● linguistic aspects ● the teaching of this of specialised subdiscipline language It is worth noting that the French equivalent to the term LSP didactics has been widely used in the French literature, suggesting the existence of a well-established construct referred to by three different expressions in French. “La didactique des langues de spécialité” (LSP didactics) seems to be the most common (Spillner 1992; Bertin 1994; Sturge-Moore 1997; Celotti & Musacchio 2004; Dechamps 2004; Isani 2006, 2010; Rossi 2007), followed by “la didactique des langues spécialisées” (Mourlhon-Dallies 2006; Messaoudi 2013); French employs both “langue de spécialité” and “langue spécialisée” to refer to the single concept of “specific purposes” in English. A third expression, “la didactique des langues et cultures spécialisées” (Isani 2011), places greater emphasis on the cultural dimension. Similarly, the term ESP didactics (la didactique de l’anglais de spécialité) has also been used extensively in French doctoral theses and research papers (Brouat 1994, 1997; Claisse 1995; Thily 1996; Rézeau 2001; Zumbihl 2004; Isani 2006, 2014; Coquilhat 2008). Does this mean that LSP didactics and, more specifically, ESP didactics are obvious or well-established concepts? Given that some of these authors seem to only refer to pedagogical considerations (Brouat 1994; Celotti & Musacchio 2004; Dechamps 2004) and that these concepts are never defined by the researchers who use them, one can only infer that they are considered self-explanatory. Following Bachelard (1938), however, concepts which are not well defined but instead considered obvious may in fact be preconceived misconceptions. In this view, they should be regarded as epistemological obstacles which need to be overcome in any attempt to contribute to scientific knowledge. An epistemological break is therefore necessary in order to define the construct of ESP didactics by making preconceptions explicit and clarifying notions and concepts. 3.3. The didactic strand of ESP research These key terminological distinctions lead us to define the following position on research in ESP learning and teaching in France. This strand of ESP research is 150| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
didactic by nature and clearly falls within the scope of didactique des chercheurs in so far as it (1) is a distancing and theorising process which seeks to analyse the way ESP teaching leads to learning, (2) draws on several contributive sciences, (3) takes a broader perspective than SLA, covering elements of both SLA and foreign language education. This strand of ESP research is not restricted to pedagogy as defined in this section; Petit’s (2002) definition of ASP must therefore be revised to align with current research as the branch of English language studies which concerns the language, discourse and culture of English-language professional communities and specialised social groups, as well as the learning and teaching of this object from a didactic perspective.1 This revision forms the focus of section 4 below. Does this mean that the didactic strand of ESP research should be considered as a subdiscipline of language didactics? Just as Petit (2002) considers ESP to be a subdiscipline of English, and Douglas (2010) views ESP testing as a special case of language testing, should didactic research in ESP in turn constitute a subdiscipline of general English didactics? If so, what we could then call ESP didactics could be defined in relation to general didactics, language didactics and English didactics on “a continuum of specificity” (Douglas 2010: 9). The construct of language didactics is already widely recognized as a subject-didactic component of general didactics (Harjanne & Tella 2007), and English didactics (didactique de l’anglais), a special case of language didactics, is also an accepted research field in French universities and elsewhere. Now the question arises as to whether ESP learning and teaching situations are specific enough to justify a separate scientific construct. Is ESP learning and teaching sufficiently distinct from general English language learning and teaching? What purpose might be served by a specific construct for ESP didactics? A need for further clarification in this area has been at the origin of the creation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) within the higher education ESP research organisation GERAS with the explicit objective of exploring the specificity of research in ESP teaching and learning. Elements of this reflection are presented in section 4.
4. The DidASP SIG: teaching contexts and research interests Recent years have seen intensive discussion among ESP researchers in French higher education, particularly within GERAS, on the importance of reinforcing the didactic dimension of research within the French school of ESP (Taillefer 2013; Whyte 2013). As noted in section 3, and unlike general English studies, didactics was from the early days one of four key dimensions of ESP – along with linguistics, culture and technology. Since then, however, it has somewhat fallen from favour. Petit’s (2002) definition laid the foundations of the French school of ESP research
1 La branche de l’anglistique qui traite de la langue, du discours et de la culture des communautés professionnelles et groupes sociaux spécialisés anglophones et de l’enseignement-apprentissage de cet objet selon une entrée didactique.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |151
and, as we have seen, clearly gave priority to the language of specific purposes rather than the teaching or learning of this language. Focus on linguistic and cultural aspects of ESP no doubt reflected efforts to gain scholarly respectability on a par with literary and cultural research in mainstream English studies; French ESP researchers sought to break away from the applied dimension of didactic research (i.e., its links to teaching) in a quest for academic recognition. This concern for the scholarly status of ESP research thus reflects both external factors, in relation to more traditional strands of research in English studies, and internal pressures, from competing strands of ESP research itself. Against this background, the creation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) devoted to the study of the epistemological status of a didactic strand of ESP research in France seemed an effective way of promoting a research-based approach to the study of ESP teaching and learning in France. Traditionally, GERAS SIGs have focused on particular varieties of ESP (English for law, medicine, or economics), and provided opportunities for their members to share course materials, advise on language policy in specific contexts, and engage in collaborative projects such as dictionaries and corpora. The ESP didactics SIG (DidASP for Didactique et anglais de spécialité) is somewhat different, focusing on cross-disciplinary concerns and questioning teaching and learning practices to identify characteristics specific to these learning and teaching situations and which can inform the epistemological foundations of language didactics. Our aim is therefore to examine the transversal nature of ESP learning and teaching situations and isolate both absolute and variable characteristics of these situations (cf. Dudley-Evans & St John 1998). 4.1. Overview of teaching and research contexts Table 3 provides a summary of recent research in teaching and learning ESP in French higher education, including information on methodological frameworks and references. 152| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
Table 3. Overview of DiDASP SIG contributions
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |153
Table 3 thus shows 16 talks by 15 presenters in 12 different French higher education institutions in contexts varying widely in terms of fields of study, teaching and learning goals, and research interests.2 Concerning the different fields of ESP involved, half of our presentations (8/16) involved science and engineering, either quite specific subjects such as medicine (Carnet 2014, 2015), veterinary science (Conan 2015) and aeronautical engineering (Lancereau-Forster 2014), or more general science degrees (Bloor 2015; Colin 2015; d’Alifé-Martinez 2014). Five others concerned arts or humanities, including psychology (Zumbihl 2013) and applied languages with business (Langues Etrangères Appliquées – Belan 2015), while three talks involved the whole ESP sector (Bertin 2012; Bertin & Sarré 2015; Terrier 2013). As noted, current GERAS Special Interest Groups include English for science, medicine, law and business/economics; only the first two are represented in our corpus. Most presentations concerned university ESP courses, mainly mainstream rather than elite institutions (grandes écoles), with one technical university (IUT). This orientation reflects the French institutional structure whereby instructors whose positions involve teaching and research are appointed to universities, while teaching-only positions are common in other higher education settings. With respect to ESP teaching and learning objectives, the group’s presentations covered a range of different goals and contexts. While some talks clearly favoured occupational ESP goals (Lancereau-Forster 2014), others identified tensions between these and more academic ESP requirements (Carnet 2015; Conan 2015). For many, perhaps especially in arts and humanities, actual learner needs and objectives were often ill-defined (Belan 2015; Brantley 2015; Whyte 2012). In terms of approaches to teaching, several presenters referred to task-based language teaching (TBLT) and to blended courses combining face-to-face sessions, often in self-access centres, with online activities (Belan 2015; Whyte 2012; Yassine-Diab & Raby 2014; Zumbihl 2013). The role of content-specialist instructors and coordination with language instructors also arose (Bloor 2015; Yassine-Diab & Raby 2014). Talks spanned a continuum from formal to informal learning, including questions of standards and assessment at one end of the scale (Carnet 2014; Colin 2015; Conan 2015), and affective variables such as motivation and anxiety at the other (d’Alifé-Martinez 2014). Finally, issues of authenticity and intercultural communication arose, with tensions between the need to evaluate ESP knowledge and competence on one hand, and the goal of preparing students for study abroad or future professional contexts on the other (Brantley 2015; Carnet 2015; Conan 2015). Regarding the orientations to research shown by different group members, studies drew on a wide range of theoretical frameworks, from Anglo-American interactional-cognitive approaches (Belan 2015; Whyte 2015) and narrower ESP perspectives (Carnet 2015; Colin 2015; Whyte 2012) through French didactic traditions (Bertin 2012; Bloor 2015; Yassine-Diab & Raby 2014; Zumbihl 2013) to broader questions of learner affect (d’Alifé-Martinez 2014) and intercultural
2 See list of sixteen talks in the appendix. 154| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
concerns (Conan 2015; Zumbihl 2013). Some questioned the interface between general and LANSAD language education (Terrier 2013; Whyte 2012) while Bertin & Sarré (2015) reported on an ambitious meta-study of (ESP) language didactic research in France as part of ongoing efforts to map the field. In the next section, a number of common themes emerging from discussion of these presentations are listed. 4.2. Common themes and directions The varied teaching and research contexts for ESP in French higher education described in 4.1 can be summarized in five key dimensions which constitute a basis for collaborative enterprise and reflection: 1. Learner needs analysis: what is it that students need to learn? What knowledge and skills do they already possess? What particular strengths and weaknesses need to be accommodated? Concerning learner autonomy and informal language learning, to what extent is it possible or desirable for learners to develop language competence outside institutional structures? 2. Domain or content area for ESP: how is the specific purpose defined and delimited? What descriptions are available (corpora, reference works)? What kind of cultural and intercultural awareness is relevant and what intersections with English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) seem to be appropriate? 3. Professional context: what are the habits and conventions of the profession associated with the domain? What are the key activities, competences and expertise of central members of communities of practice (CoP) associated with a given domain? How are they developed, and how can teachers best support this process? 4. Language acquisition: what kind of language competences are expected? Are linguistic, communicative, strategic, and discourse competences equally important? What are the expectations of stakeholders, including learners, teachers, educators, professional colleagues and employers? How are language competences generally assessed and evaluated? 5. Language teaching: what institutional constraints operate on opportunities for language learning and teaching? Who are the teachers available, what kind of background and training do they have? What teaching resources have been developed, what authentic materials are available? Is there a need to develop pedagogical resources? Are particular approaches better suited to ESP teaching than others (e.g., task or project-based teaching and learning)? Are bridges to other educational sectors (e.g., secondary, vocational) relevant? We now ask how these key questions fit with the previous discussion of French ESP as compared to ESP in the English-speaking world, and what other concepts are necessary to the development of French ESP didactics.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |155
5. Towards a didactics of ESP The original questions posed at the outset of this paper concerned (1) the relevance of French perspectives on key concepts in research in ESP teaching and learning, (2) the need for a theoretical ESP didactic framework, and (3) the potential value of such a framework. 5.1. French perspectives on key concepts in research in ESP teaching and learning Regarding the first question, it appears that there is some justification to this call for clarification in the area of research in ESP teaching and learning, at least in the current French higher education context. While this may appear unsurprising to readers given the usual conventions of academic writing, since authors generally orient their research questions towards an intended outcome, the claim warrants examination for the second author of this paper at least. Indeed, Whyte (2013: 24- 25) argued in answer to the question of “a need for a new approach to language learning and teaching that is tailored to English for Specific Purposes” that we already have theories of language acquisition and use, as well as language teaching, which can inform effective ESP teaching and learning. English is one language among many, and all are learned via universal processes; similarly, the specific purposes of our courses are all amenable to task-based approaches. Two arguments from the foregoing sections of the paper do, however, serve to justify this new research framework. The first is terminological. We have seen that the terms pedagogy and didactics are used in overlapping, contrasting and frequently poorly defined ways by researchers in different disciplines, contexts, and geographical areas. We have identified differences in the use of the same terms in general education over time and space (Hamilton 1999; Kansanen 2009), in French approaches to English studies (Bailly 1997; Tardieu 2008) and in French as opposed to Anglo-American approaches to each (Gass 1995; Bailly 1997, Kramsch 2000). Even within ESP, French-English differences are apparent which date from the earliest formalisations of the domain in French higher education (Petit 2002). The second argument concerns the current renewal of interest in research in language teaching and learning in French higher education from an institutional point of view, as exemplified by both the new learned society ARDAA, focusing on theoretical aspects of the teaching and learning of English in French secondary and tertiary education, as well as by the debate leading to the new GERAS SIG on ESP didactics. Scholars are seeking fresh, research-oriented approaches to the foreign language classroom, particularly as regards ESP. In some ways, different researchers are bound to define and map their own research territory according to their own contexts, interests and needs. Figure 1 offers one perspective on the overlapping research interests of the second author of this paper which places ESP didactics at the intersection of SLA, ESP and ELT research. Linking SLA and ESP is a particular theory of SLA concerning the role of specialised knowledge in second language development (Douglas 2004). An overlap between ESP and ELT is a shared interest in task-based language teaching 156| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
and the connection between SLA and ELT involves methodological principles based on research (Doughty & Long 2003). Figure 1. Intersections of SLA, ESP and ELT (Whyte 2014: 19)
It is easy to understand how approaches to the same construct from different directions might involve different areas of research to create different intersections. Within the field of English studies, for example, ARDAA researchers will define English didactics with reference to other areas of English studies, of which ESP is only one. Similarly with respect to ESP testing, Douglas (2010) sets ESP testing against other forms of language testing rather than other aspects of English linguistics or literature. In each case, however, researchers are prompted by specific real-world problems, looking for appropriate theoretical frameworks to account for different dimensions of complex objects and thus inform both practical decisions about pedagogy and teacher education, and ongoing language teaching and learning research, that is, didactics. We believe this epistemological endeavour to be worthwhile, and given the importance of ESP – the “English as a lingua franca of the learning and working world” (Master 2005: 112) – that ESP didactics also has a practical function. To take the first key area identified in section 4, for example, the issue of learner needs is quite specific to ESP. For one thing, in many institutional contexts such as compulsory secondary education, for example, teachers are simply expected to meet predetermined curricular objectives and thus never address specific learner needs. Second, certain ESP contexts do not require general language competence but only restricted skills (e.g., reading comprehension in the case of a technician required to consult manuals [Trouillon 2010]), meaning that ESP learners also differ from general EFL learners along this dimension.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |157
5.2. Need for a research framework specific to ESP teaching and learning Regarding the second question about the need for a research framework specific to the teaching and learning of ESP, our main hypothesis was that if there were a sufficient number of features specific to ESP learning and teaching, then research on these learning and teaching situations would warrant a specific framework which could be formalised in a unified construct, that of ESP didactics. This construct needs to be related to the specific contexts outlined in section 3, as well as anchored in theory as shown in sections 2 and 3 of the paper. As we have seen, the main objective of the DidASP SIG has been to identify what makes ESP learning and teaching specific in the French context. From the themes and questions discussed in section 4.2, a list of specific features of ESP learning and teaching can be classified as absolute or variable characteristics of French ESP didactics: Absolute characteristics: - Interaction between language and content knowledge: content and/or methodologies are derived from specific disciplines or occupations, the specialist domain (Douglas 2010); - Goal-directedness: the objectives of ESP learning and teaching are specific and directed towards particular skills and knowledge (language and culture) of a given discipline or occupation, learner ability to complete tasks as “real-world activities”; - Needs analysis: the objectives of ESP learning and teaching are determined through careful needs analysis; - Institutional constraints: § Student background and level: highly heterogeneous groups at university (slightly less so for more selective pathways – e.g. engineering schools) § ESP as a course requirement, which impacts student motivation § Group size § Contact time (very restricted) Variable characteristics: - Primacy of task completion (over language accuracy): performance vs. accuracy, ESP as an example of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF); - Primacy of specific language skills development; - Use of authentic materials; - Use of specific methods: tasks (TBLT), project-based learning, CLIL; - Use of language certification, specific ESP testing, development of ESP certification exams; - Basic teacher training in ESP (often limited or absent) for non-research professionals. As these specific features of ESP learning and teaching are part of a whole ESP 158| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
learning and teaching situation, they may be represented as a dynamic system in Figure 2, adapted from Bertin’s didactic ergonomics model (Bertin & Gravé 2010; Bertin 2012; Bertin & Sarré 2015). Figure 2. The ESP teaching and learning situation
Figure 2 shows that the specialist domain, although not a pole in the actual system, directly or indirectly affects all five poles of the ESP learning and teaching situation (context, language and culture, learner, teacher and learning-teaching cycle). For example, we can describe the direct influences at work (represented as dotted lines with arrowheads) at three levels. First, the specialist domain influences the language and culture to be taught/learnt, as different domains call for the study and knowledge of different terminologies, genres, discourses and cultures. Then, the specialist domain and the various methodologies derived from it are claimed to impact learning, as factors such as learner motivation, for example, greatly differ in ESP courses (Mémet 2003). Finally, the specialist domain also influences the knowledge required of teachers, and, as a result, the type of training they should receive. In addition, the specialist domain also indirectly influences some of the poles in the system: for instance, the teacher performs a needs analysis relevant to the specialist domain and then designs programmes and course descriptions which, in turn, become part of the context as new curricula. ESP learning and teaching thus appears to be much more specific than general English learning and teaching. In a similar manner, reflection on ESP learning and
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |159
teaching processes will be strongly affected by the specialist domain, which should also influence research in ESP learning and teaching. 5.3. Contribution of the ESP didactics construct Finally, regarding an ESP didactics framework to inform further research, we hope this paper can contribute to reflection and debate in this area. At the pedagogical level, our work in the DidASP SIG to date has perhaps inevitably highlighted a number of practical concerns regarding teacher education for ESP contexts. Braud et al. (2015) call for the inclusion of an ESP option in pre-service teacher preparation (as an option in secondary teacher entrance exams, for example); vocational teacher preparation is another obvious area for attention. Regarding didactics, on the other hand, our overview in section 3 highlights a number of intersections in DidASP members’ interests. It thus provides impetus to future research initiatives, perhaps in the form of research collaborations replicating ESP studies conducted elsewhere, and involving the building of our own learner corpora. There is still a pressing need for “empirical research demonstrating the efficacy of ESP” as opposed to the “war stories and romances” often exchanged (Master 2005: 111). To conclude, there appears to be a real need among French faculty involved in ESP teaching/learning research for common theoretical ground. Although we are not yet ready to offer a fully-fledged definition of the ESP didactics construct, we are now in a position to say that ESP teaching and learning is specific enough to justify the development of a research framework in its own right. The definition of the ESP didactics construct, which we have begun to delimit in this paper, seems a worthwhile and attainable objective. Indeed, if we go back to Bachelard (1938) and the different steps in the construction of scientific knowledge, we have effected an epistemological break (step 1) and, although we have clarified the meaning of some key concepts in this paper, we are still in the process of constructing ESP didactics (step 2). It seems quite possible to propose clear, consensual definitions of both didactics and ESP which take into account differences due to language and research traditions, and much of this paper has been taken up with this preliminary work. We have shown how French ESP takes a slightly wider didactic perspective than mainstream Anglo-American ESP research. We have outlined a definition of didactics which is accepted in France and much of continental Europe; with respect to the corresponding research area in the English-speaking tradition, we have also suggested that didactics covers a wider area than SLA, covering elements of both SLA and foreign language education. We therefore believe this epistemological endeavour to be an important undertaking, and that there are good reasons why ESP didactics should establish itself as a discipline in its own right in the French context and beyond. 160| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
Bibliographical references BACHELARD, Gaston. 1938. La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin. BAILLY, Danièle. 1997. Didactique de l’anglais, vol. 1 & 2. Paris: Nathan Pédagogie. BAILLY, Danièle. 2014. “Préface”. In TARDIEU, C., Notions-clés pour la didactique de l’anglais. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle. BAÏSSUS, Jean-Marie. 2008. “Le préGERAS”. ASp, numéro spécial – Les trente ans du GERAS, 7. BERTIN, Jean-Claude. 1994. “L'enseignant, le professionnel et l'apprenant : confrontation des cultures et choix des matériaux pédagogiques”. ASp 5-6, 69–78. BERTIN, Jean-Claude. 2008. “Le mot du Président”. ASp, numéro spécial – Les trente ans du GERAS, 2–6. BERTIN, Jean-Claude & Patrick GRAVÉ. 2010. “In favor of a model of didactic ergonomics”. In BERTIN J.-C., P. GRAVÉ & J.-P. NARCY-COMBES, Second-language Distance Learning and Teaching: Theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics. Hershey: IGI Global, 1–36. BRAUD, Valérie, Philippe MILLOT, Cédric SARRÉ & Séverine WOZNIAK. 2015. “Pour une formation de tous les anglicistes à la langue de spécialité”. Les Langues Modernes 3/2015, 67–76. BROUAT, Thérèse. 1994. “Qu’y a-t-il de commun entre Napoléon et un ordinateur portable ? La culture comme vaste réservoir à analogies”. ASp 5-6, 79–88. BROUAT, Thérèse. 1997. “Le dire et l'induire : l'argumentaire dans les publicités informatiques anglo-saxonnes ; contribution à la didactique de l'anglais des spécialités scientifiques et techniques”. Unpublished doctoral thesis, université de Chambéry. CELOTTI Nadine & Maria Teresa MUSACCHIO. 2004. “Un regard diachronique en didactique des langues de spécialité”. Ela. Études de linguistique appliquée 3/2004 (no135), 263–270
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |161
GASS, Susan. 1995. “Learning and teaching: The necessary intersection”. In ECKMAN, F. et al. (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 3–20. Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 7(1), 135-152. HARJANNE, Pirjo & Seppo TELLA. 2007. “Foreign language didactics, foreign language teaching and transdisciplinary affordances”. Foreign languages and multicultural perspectives in the European context, 197–225. HUTCHINSON, Tom & Alan WATERS. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HYLAND, Ken. 2006. “The ‘other’ English: Thoughts on EAP and academic writing”. The European English Messenger 15/2, 34–38. ISANI, Shaeda. 2006. “Langue, lecture et littérature populaire : FASP et didactique des langues de spécialité”. Cahiers de l’APLIUT XXV/3, 92–106. ISANI, Shaeda. 2010. “Dynamique spéculaire de la fiction à substrat professionnel et didactique des langues de spécialité”. ASp 58, 105–123. ISANI, Shaeda. 2011. “Developing professional cultural competence through the multi- layered cultural substrata of FASP: English for Legal Purposes and M. R. Hall’s The Coroner”. Cahiers de l’APLIUT XXX/2, 29–45. ISANI, Shaeda. 2014. “Ethnography as a research-support discipline in ESP teaching, learning and research in the French academic context”. ASp 66, 27–39. KANSANEN, Pertti. 2004. “The role of general education in teacher education“. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 7/2, 207–218. KANSANEN, Pertti. 2009. “Subjectmatter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge?". Pedagogy, culture & society 17/1, 29– 39. KANSANEN, Pertti & Matti MERI. 1999. “The didactic relation in the teaching-studying-learning process“. Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science (-s) of the Teaching profession 2/1, 107–116. KRAMSCH, Claire. 2000. “Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages”. Modern Language Journal 84/3, 311–326. MASTER, Peter. 2005. “Research in English for specific purposes”. In HINKEL, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. London/New York: Routledge, 99– 116. MÉMET, Monique. 2001. “Bref historique de l'enseignement et de la recherche en anglais de spécialité en France : de l'anglais pour non-spécialistes à l'anglistique du secteur LANSAD”. In MÉMET M. & M. PETIT (Eds.) L'anglais de spécialité en France : Mélanges en l'honneur de Michel Perrin. Bordeaux: GERAS Éditeur, 309–319. MÉMET, Monique. 2003. “L’enseignement à contenu intégré augmente la motivation pour l’apprentissage de la langue : vrai ou faux ?” Étude portant sur des cours d’anglais de spécialité en médiation culturelle. ASp 39-40, 131–142. MÉMET, Monique. 2013. “Historique de l’ASP”. ASp.
(Ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Volume 2. London/New York: Routledge, 196–121. PETIT, Michel. 2002. “Éditorial”. ASp 35/36, 1–3. RÉZEAU, Joseph. 2001. “Médiatisation et médiation pédagogique dans un environnement multimédia. Le cas de l’apprentissage de l’anglais de l’histoire de l’art à l’université”. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Université Bordeaux 2. ROSSI, Micaela. 2007. “Didactique des langues de spécialité au niveau universitaire : l’apport de la terminologie. Description de deux expériences didactiques”. Synergies Italie, 3, 46–56. SPADA, Nina. 2014. “Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research and Its Relevance for L2 Teacher Education”. Education Matters 2/1, 41–54. SPILLNER, Bernd. 1992. “Textes médicaux français et allemands : Contribution à une comparaison interlinguale et interculturelle”. Langages 105, 42–65. STURGE-MOORE, Olivier. 1997. “La mondialisation de l’économie : de nouveaux enjeux, de nouveaux contextes culturels”. ASp 15-18, 325–338. TAILLEFER, Gail. 2013. “CLIL in higher education: the (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection”. ASp 63, 31–53. TARDIEU, Claire. 2008. “Place de la didactique dans l’anglistique”. Journée d’étude SAES Caractéristiques et fonctions de la didactique de l’anglais, IUFM de Paris.
C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164 |163
Appendix DidASp SIG contributions: list of talks BELAN, Sophie. 2015. “Approches de l’anglais de spécialité dans la filière LEA”. DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, October. BERTIN, Jean-Claude. 2012. “Didactique et anglais de spécialité”. DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, October. BERTIN, Jean-Claude & Cédric SARRÉ. 2015. “Didactique des langues et LSP : entre adaptation à un objet spécifique et émergence du concept original de didactique des LSP”. Journée d’étude DidASP, CeLiSo et ESPE Paris. Paris, 10 April. BLOOR, Tracy. 2015. “La théorie de l’action conjointe en didactique comme outil descriptif de la perspective actionnelle”. Journée d’étude DidASP, CeLiSo et ESPE Paris. Paris, 10 April. BRANTLEY, Kate. 2015. “An approach to LSP classes based on functional linguistics”. DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, October. CARNET, Anaïs. 2014. “Utilisation de la série HOUSE, MD en anglais médical”. DidASP SIG meeting, Marseille, March. CARNET, Anaïs. 2015. “Vers une didactique de l’anglais médical à visée professionnelle”. Journée d’étude DidASP, CeLiSo et ESPE Paris. Paris, 10 April. COLIN, Catherine. 2015. “Les certifications en anglais de spécialité : révélatrices de dynamiques didactiques”. DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, October. CONAN, Muriel. 2015. “Enseigner l’anglais vétérinaire à Alfort : LSP, perspective actionnelle et certification”. Journée d’étude DidASP, CeLiSo et ESPE Paris. Paris, 10 April. D’ALIFÉ-MARTINEZ, Laurence. 2014. “Réduire les inhibitions par le biais d’un atelier-théâtre en LANSAD”. DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, 10 October. LANCEREAU-FORSTER, Nicole. 2014. “Vers une didactique de l’anglais de spécialité à visée professionnelle”. DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, October. TERRIER, Linda. 2013. “De la linguistique à la didactique, de l'anglais général à l'anglais de spécialité - quelques réflexions sur la notion de didactique de l'anglais de spécialité à travers le cas de la compréhension de l'anglais oral”. DidASP SIG meeting, October. WHYTE, Shona. 2012. “Quelle didactique pour l’anglais de spécialité?” DidASP SIG meeting, Paris, October. WHYTE, Shona. 2015. “Quand tout le monde sera spécialiste : la place des langues dans l’enseignement secondaire”. Journée d’étude DidASP, CeLiSo et ESPE Paris. Paris, 10 April. YASSINE-DIAB, Nadia & Françoise RABY. 2014. “SMILE, une déclinaison d’un dispositif EMILE”. DidASP SIG Meeting, Marseille, March. ZUMBIHL, Hélène. 2013. “Anglais de spécialité et autonomisation de l’apprenant”. DidASP SIG meeting, October. 164| C. Sarré & S. Whyte / ASp 69 (March 2016) 139–164
Cédric Sarré is a senior lecturer at Université Paris- Sorbonne, School of Education (ESPE), where he teaches English as a Foreign Language and English Language Learning and Teaching. He is a member of the CeLiSo (Centre de Linguistique en Sorbonne) research unit. His research focuses on language learning technologies (Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Computer-Mediated Communication). His research interests include ESP didactics, ESP course development in online settings, the integration of technology in language learning and teaching, language proficiency testing and teacher education. He co-chairs the DidASP special interest group on ESP didactics within GERAS. [email protected] Shona Whyte is associate professor at Université Nice Sophia Antipolis where she teaches English as a foreign language, translation and second language acquisition and teaching. A member of the research unit Bases, Corpus, Language, she is responsible for the Masters in Teaching English at the ESPE Nice, and codirects special interest groups on language teacher education research within GERAS (GT DidASP) and EuroCALL (Teacher Education SIG). Recent EU projects are iTILT, on interactive whiteboards in language education, and iTILT 2, on interactive language teaching with a variety of technologies. Her research interests include computer-assisted language learning, particularly classroom interaction and teacher integration of technologies. Recent publications include Implementing and Researching Technological Innovation in Language Teaching (Palgrave Macmillan 2015) and the co-edited volume Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use (Bloomsbury 2014). [email protected]
C. Taylor / ASp 69 (March 2016) 165–168 |165
Recension Simon Taylor Université Paris Diderot Deman, Myriam & Magali Julian. 2015. Guide de l’anglais des contrats d’affaires. Lecture, traduction, rédaction. Paris : LexisNexis. 588 pages. ISBN 978-2-7110-2290- 8.
Cet ouvrage est un guide pratique d’anglais des contrats d’affaires destiné principalement aux étudiants et aux praticiens. Myriam Deman est maître de conférences à la faculté de droit de l’Université de Montpellier. Magali Julian est professeur agrégé, docteur en études anglophones et co-directrice du Département de langues juridiques de l’Université de Montpellier. Les deux auteurs bénéficient d’une solide expérience dans l’enseignement de l’anglais juridique. L’ouvrage est préfacé par Rémy Cabrillac, professeur de droit privé dans la même université. L’ouvrage est divisé en trois parties. La première, intitulée « Lire et rédiger un contrat en anglais » présente les principales difficultés lexicales et syntaxiques de l’anglais des contrats sous forme de fiches. On trouve ainsi des fiches portant sur des obstacles que l’on peut rencontrer dans la lecture d’un contrat anglo- américain : les archaïsmes lexicaux et syntaxiques, l’utilisation des majuscules, les locutions latines, les tautologies, les répétitions, les énumérations, les faux amis et les confusions fréquentes. Chaque fiche est constituée d’un court paragraphe explicatif, suivi d’une liste d’exemples de chaque type de difficulté, avec une traduction en français de chaque exemple. Comme le constatent les auteurs, un des obstacles majeurs à la compréhension d’un contrat anglo-américain réside dans la longueur des phrases qui dépasse fréquemment les cent mots. De plus, la syntaxe de ces phrases est souvent d’une complexité extrême. Les auteurs présentent alors dans un deuxième temps une méthode de décodage de clauses juridiques complexes divisée en cinq étapes. D’abord, le lecteur est invité à repérer la ponctuation de la clause complexe pour visualiser où commencent et où finissent les phrases. La deuxième étape est l’identification des mots de liaison entre les phrases ou les propositions de phrase. Une fois les liaisons identifiées, les auteurs montrent comment travailler sur le sens des phrases. Ils proposent de modifier la structure du texte et de l’organiser en alinéas de façon à souligner la construction logique du discours. Alternativement, ils suggèrent de transformer la clause juridique en arborescence pour mettre son sens en avant. La dernière étape consiste à chercher la signification lexicale de certains termes ou expressions techniques afin de bien cerner leur sens juridique, en s’appuyant sur un dictionnaire ou un lexique de spécialité. La méthodologie proposée est ensuite mise en œuvre à partir de quatre exemples de clauses 166| C. Taylor / ASp 69 (March 2016) 165–168
complexes extraites de divers contrats. La deuxième partie de l’ouvrage fournit des exemples de modèles de clauses juridiques types classés par type de contrat. Chaque clause est également traduite en français. Les auteurs expliquent qu’ils ont tenu à présenter une large variété de styles de clauses, de la plus simple à la plus compliquée. Douze types de contrats d’affaires sont ainsi proposés : du contrat de vente au contrat de travail, en passant par le contrat d’assurance, de franchise et de distribution. Les auteurs ont également inclus un modèle de statuts d’entreprise américaine. La troisième partie de l’ouvrage est consacrée à un lexique de termes utiles dans le domaine des contrats d’affaires. Reflétant l’interdisciplinarité du droit des affaires, ces termes ne relèvent pas exclusivement du champ juridique. On trouve ainsi également des termes appartenant à la finance et à la comptabilité. Comme le remarquent les auteurs dans leur avant-propos, avec la mondialisation, l’enseignement de l’anglais juridique est devenu une nécessité pour les étudiants en droit et également pour les juristes pratiquant en cabinet ou en entreprise. Or, pour le juriste français, les obstacles à la compréhension des contrats anglais et américains sont nombreux, accentués par les différences de tradition juridique des pays de common law comparés aux systèmes appartenant, comme le droit français, à la tradition romano-germanique. Non seulement il existe de nombreuses notions de droit anglais et américain qui n’ont pas de réelle équivalence en droit français, mais, comme le démontrent avec force les auteurs dans cet ouvrage, la complexité syntaxique des contrats représente un obstacle significatif pour les juristes anglais et, à plus forte raison, pour leurs homologues français. Cet ouvrage constitue donc un outil pour aider les juristes et futurs juristes à mieux cerner le contrat de common law en proposant un décryptage assez efficace de l’anglais des contrats à travers une approche résolument pratique centrée sur un décodage d’une gamme relativement large de clauses types. Il représentera également une source utile pour les enseignants et les étudiants en langue de spécialité et en traduction spécialisée. Même si le plain language movement a sans doute une certaine influence sur les juristes anglais et américains et encourage certains à simplifier la syntaxe et le lexique des contrats, on continue à trouver dans les contrats anglais et américains de nombreux exemples d’archaïsmes lexicaux et syntaxiques, de locutions latines et de tautologies. Les fiches de cet ouvrage, regroupant des listes d’exemples pertinents, de difficultés et de pièges pour le lecteur, sont donc bienvenues. Une des principales forces de l’ouvrage est la section intitulée « Lire un contrat » qui propose une méthode pour la compréhension des clauses complexes. Le lecteur d’un contrat anglais ou américain risque effectivement de vite se décourager face à la complexité syntaxique et à la longueur des phrases, et la méthode de décodage suggérée par les auteurs, qui est expliquée de manière concise, limpide et assortie d’exemples, aidera à surmonter les obstacles. Les douze modèles de clauses types de contrats qui figurent dans la deuxième partie de l’ouvrage présentent un éventail intéressant des principaux types de
C. Taylor / ASp 69 (March 2016) 165–168 |167
contrats d’affaires et constituent un complément utile aux modèles proposés par d’Auzon (2007). La présentation de ces contrats modèles, accompagnés de leur traduction française, sera d’une grande utilité pour le courageux juriste français souhaitant rédiger un contrat en anglais ou cherchant simplement à mieux comprendre la structure et le contenu des contrats. L’addition d’un modèle de statuts de société est également très utile, au vu des différences de structures juridiques des entreprises françaises et américaines. Le lexique proposé dans la dernière partie de l’ouvrage est également bien présenté, clair et facile à utiliser. Le choix de ne pas restreindre le lexique aux termes purement juridiques, mais de l’étendre aux termes relevant de la finance et de la comptabilité est opportun, compte tenu, comme l’observent les auteurs, de l’interdisciplinarité du droit des affaires. L’ouvrage n’échappe pas toutefois à un certain nombre de critiques. Il est dommage, par exemple, que les auteurs n’aient pas mis davantage en évidence l’origine des clauses types sélectionnées dans la deuxième partie de l’ouvrage. En présentant le lexique juridique dans la troisième partie, les auteurs expliquent qu’ils ont choisi de travailler sur un corpus de contrats principalement américains. Compte tenu des différences lexicales et d’orthographe qui peuvent exister entre la langue juridique américaine et celle des autres pays de la tradition de common law, il est regrettable que l’origine des clauses ne soit pas davantage explicitée dans l’ouvrage. Si la traduction en français des clauses est en général bien faite, on peut regretter toutefois quelques petites coquilles ou approximations. Par exemple, dans la section « lire un contrat » le texte source stipule « no shares of capital stock of the Company may be transferred », mais cette phrase est traduite par « aucune cession de ces actions de la Société ne pourra être transférée ». Il s’agit d’un non-sens : ce n’est pas la cession qui est transférée, mais les actions. Dans un modèle de contrat de vente, le terme « non-conforming product » est à une occasion traduit par « produit défectueux », alors qu’un produit non conforme au contrat n’est pas nécessairement un produit défectueux (dans le sens de « vicié »). Alors que les fiches de difficultés lexicales et syntaxiques sont en général bien construites, il y a quelques absences à noter. On regrettera ainsi certaines omissions de la fiche « faux amis et confusions fréquentes » : des références spécifiques au terme « performance », qui se traduit en français par « exécution », et à celui de « non-performance », l’équivalent du terme français « inexécution », auraient été souhaitables. Autre exemple : un « Bill » peut effectivement se traduire par « projet de loi » en français, mais il aurait été utile d’ajouter que le terme peut également signifier « proposition de loi » (la distinction en Angleterre entre government bill, correspondant au projet de loi et private member’s bill, correspondant à une proposition de loi). On peut ajouter que « discovery » signifie effectivement « communication des pièces du dossier » dans la procédure américaine, mais le terme « discovery » est désormais remplacé en procédure civile anglaise par le terme « disclosure » : les auteurs auraient pu mentionner cette différence lexicale entre les deux pays de common law. Enfin, les étudiants et les autres lecteurs non juristes de l’ouvrage auraient peut- 168| C. Taylor / ASp 69 (March 2016) 165–168
être pu bénéficier d’une courte explication de la signification et du contexte juridique des clauses types choisies. On peut sans doute comprendre la réticence des auteurs à s’aventurer sur ce terrain, et l’ouvrage n’a certainement pas la prétention d’être un manuel de droit, mais il est dommage que la bibliographie au moins, pourtant très bien fournie en références sur la langue juridique, ne propose que très peu d’ouvrages portant sur les domaines de droit abordés dans les modèles de clauses. Un juriste français qui veut être sûr de bien comprendre les clauses et les termes qui y figurent gagnerait pourtant à consulter des ouvrages introductifs au domaine du droit concerné. Quoi qu’il en soit, la structure et le contenu de l’ouvrage sont bien pensés et pertinents. L’ouvrage sera d’une grande utilité pour les étudiants en droit et les praticiens. Le linguiste travaillant en langue de spécialité et en traduction juridique trouvera également des indications précieuses. Le chercheur en langue de spécialité en quête de développements théoriques sur la langue du droit ne trouvera pas son bonheur dans cet ouvrage, mais l’objectif des auteurs n’était clairement pas de répondre à ce besoin, mais plutôt d’« aider le lecteur à y voir clair au milieu des archaïsmes, latinismes, mauvaise ponctuation, longueur excessive de phrases, multiplication des quasi-synonymes ».
Référence bibliographique D’AUZON, Olivier. 2007. Modèles de contrats commerciaux. 2e éd. Paris : Eyrolles.
F. Maniez / ASp 69 (March 2016) 169–172 |169
Recension François Maniez Université Lyon 2, EA 4162 Carnet, Didier & Jean-Pierre Charpy. 2015. L’anglais des spécialités médicales. Paris : Ellipses. 288 pages. ISBN 978-2-3400-0798-7.
L’anglais des spécialités médicales arrive sur le marché doté de solides références, à commencer par la connaissance intime de l’anglais médical qu’ont ses auteurs, Didier Carnet et Jean-Pierre Charpy, qui publient tous deux dans ce domaine depuis de longues années. Il s’agit en effet de leur sixième opus commun aux éditions Ellipses en quinze ans, même si l’ouvrage est leur première publication en duo. Il faut également mentionner le gage de qualité que constitue la collaboration d’experts dans chacune des spécialités médicales traitées dans l’ouvrage, experts qui ont eux-mêmes pour la plupart validé des diplômes universitaires d’anglais et collaborent régulièrement avec les auteurs dans le cadre d’un dispositif pédagogique probablement unique sur notre territoire. Ce dispositif, qui permet aux étudiants de la Faculté de Médecine de bénéficier de cours d’anglais associant médecins et enseignants de langue, a été mis en place par les auteurs à l’Université de Bourgogne. Le but de l’ouvrage est de couvrir l’immense champ des spécialités médicales afin de permettre aux externes, aux internes et aux professionnels de santé en général de se familiariser avec les subtilités de la langue médicale spécialisée. Il a été conçu afin de leur faciliter l’acquisition des « compétences nécessaires dans une situation spécialisée pour répondre à des besoins lexicaux et communicationnels immédiats ». Une caractéristique qui le distingue des précédents manuels publiés par ses auteurs est sa division en chapitres traitant de chacune des vingt-cinq spécialités choisies : anatomopathologie, cardiologie, chirurgie et anesthésie, dermatologie, endocrinologie, gastroentérologie, gériatrie, gynécologie et obstétrique, hématologie, imagerie médicale, maladies infectieuses, médecine générale, médecine interne et immunologie, médecine d’urgence, neurologie, oncologie, ophtalmologie, otorhinolaryngologie, pédiatrie, pneumologie, psychiatrie, rééducation, rhumatologie, santé publique, urologie et néphrologie. Chaque chapitre consacré à une spécialité comporte cinq rubriques, dans lesquelles les termes ou expressions de l’anglais sont systématiquement accompagnés de leur traduction française : - un lexique de l’anatomie propre à la spécialité médicale abordée, présenté sous forme de glossaire ; - un court lexique spécialisé de la physiologie permettant de cerner les termes 170| F. Maniez / ASp 69 (March 2016) 169–172
utiles à la spécialité ; - les mots-clés de la spécialité, généralement classés en plusieurs sous- rubriques (généralités, signes et symptômes, maladies, tests et examens, traitements…) ; - les principaux sigles et acronymes ; - les expressions les plus fréquemment utilisées lors de la consultation propre à chaque spécialité médicale (interrogatoire du patient et examen clinique). Dans ces cinq rubriques, les auteurs signalent en cas de besoin les principales variantes orthographiques entre l’anglais britannique et l’anglais américain. Dans de très nombreux cas, ils attirent également l’attention du lecteur sur la distinction entre le terme médical spécialisé qui est le plus souvent d’origine gréco-latine et le terme de vulgarisation utilisé par les médecins avec leurs patients, généralement formé à partir de racines germaniques (il s’agit par exemple de l’opposition entre trachea et windpipe). L’atout principal de l’ouvrage est sans doute son exhaustivité, qui résulte à la fois de la longue expérience de ses auteurs de l’enseignement de l’anglais médical et de la révision attentive de chaque chapitre par un médecin expert de la spécialité concernée. La quantité d’information fournie est particulièrement impressionnante dans la rubrique consacrée aux sigles et aux acronymes, bon nombre d’entre eux étant absent des bases de données terminologiques consultables en ligne comme Termium ou le Grand Dictionnaire Terminologique. Dans un domaine où l’homonymie est notoire, la division en spécialités s’avère particulièrement utile dans la mesure où elle permet de dissocier des sigles identiques en fonction de la spécialité concernée ; par exemple, EC peut renvoyer à emergency contraception (dans le chapitre consacré à la gynécologie) ou à endothelial cell (dans le chapitre consacré à l’immunologie). Le problème épineux de la traduction de ces sigles (ou de l’utilisation du sigle anglais en français, phénomène relativement fréquent) est également traité de façon très complète. L’autre point fort de l’ouvrage est la dernière rubrique de chaque chapitre, qui contient les expressions les plus fréquemment utilisées lors de la consultation propre à chaque spécialité médicale (interrogatoire du patient et examen clinique). Cette rubrique devrait s’avérer particulièrement utile aux médecins pratiquant en milieu anglophone, d’autant plus que le vocabulaire de la langue générale (qui est le plus susceptible d’être moins connu du médecin spécialiste) est abondamment représenté : la rubrique Physical examination du chapitre General medicine dresse par exemple la liste des vêtements susceptibles d’être portés par les patients et que le praticien peut être amené à lui demander d’ôter. Dans le même chapitre, la rubrique History taking comprend une sous-rubrique intitulée Pain qui dresse un inventaire très complet de toutes les manières dont les patients peuvent décrire la douleur ressentie (burning/boring/gnawing/nagging/stabbing/splitting/darting/ searing/stinging/tingling/gripping/squeezing/throbbing). Les appellations des différentes pathologies sont souvent décrites de manière très détaillée, donnant des informations terminologiques d’un tel degré de spécialisation qu’elles peuvent là aussi être absentes des bases de données de référence consultables en ligne (par exemple pour des termes tels que heart failure with [reduced/preserved] ejection
F. Maniez / ASp 69 (March 2016) 169–172 |171
fraction). Ce qui fait la force de l’ouvrage de Didier Carnet et Jean-Pierre Charpy est donc clairement la quantité d’information de nature lexicale fournie dans les chapitres correspondant à chacune des vingt-cinq spécialités abordées, qu’il s’agisse des mots ou des expressions du vocabulaire de la langue générale ou de la langue spécialisée. Ce foisonnement d’informations lexicales est néanmoins susceptible de créer quelques difficultés qu’il est nécessaire de mentionner pour un utilisateur non spécialiste de la médecine, et qui justifieraient peut-être certains ajouts lors d’une édition ultérieure afin de satisfaire un public encore plus large. Le format même de l’ouvrage implique fatalement une certaine duplication de l’information lexicale, notamment dans le domaine de l’anatomie et de la physiologie. Dans celui de l’anatomie notamment, il est bien difficile de distinguer ce qui relèverait spécifiquement de l’une des spécialités plutôt que d’une autre, les divers organes pouvant être le siège de manifestations propres à des maladies relevant de nombreuses spécialités. L’inclusion en début d’ouvrage d’un lexique consacré à l’anatomie générale aurait permis d’éviter la duplication du vocabulaire d’un moindre degré de spécialisation (par exemple les sous-rubriques The body, The skeleton et The internal organs, reproduites presque à l’identique dans onze des vingt-cinq chapitres) ainsi que certaines variations relatives au classement des vocables concernés : ainsi, les mots knee et ankle sont cités dans l’un des chapitres à l’intérieur de la sous-rubrique The body, dans un autre dans la sous-rubrique The skeleton, et dans un troisième dans la sous-rubrique The joints. Par ailleurs, des termes tels que cerebellum, salivary glands et tonsils, cités dans la sous-rubrique The internal organs de la rubrique Anatomy du chapitre General medicine sont absents de la même sous-rubrique dans le chapitre Geriatrics. L’information portant sur un même sujet peut également être disséminée dans diverses sous-rubriques portant le même nom : ainsi les qualificatifs blinding/shooting/excruciating/intractable cités dans la sous-rubrique Pain de la rubrique Keywords du chapitre General medicine (p. 68) viennent compléter la liste déjà très fournie (cf. infra) des différentes manières de décrire la douleur qui sont consignées dans la rubrique History taking du même chapitre. Un autre problème concerne l’accès à la véritable mine d’informations lexicales que constitue chacun des chapitres de cet imposant manuel. La préface signale qu’il ne s’agit « pas seulement d’un dictionnaire ou d’un glossaire, mais d’un outil de référence pour la communication professionnelle en anglais médical ». Cependant, la forme est plus proche de celle d’un thésaurus du fait du regroupement des informations sous la forme de chapitres correspondant aux diverses spécialités, et de l’absence du recours systématique à l’ordre alphabétique (en dehors des rubriques consacrées aux sigles et aux acronymes). De fait, la présence d’un bref index notionnel dans lequel auraient pu figurer certaines des sous-rubriques des mots-clés (headaches, pregnancy) ou de la consultation (the medical imaging session) aurait grandement facilité l’accès à l’information lexicale pour le non-spécialiste. À défaut d’un index, une table des matières plus détaillée mentionnant les rubriques et les sous-rubriques de chaque chapitre aurait également permis un accès plus rapide au contenu lexical extrêmement riche de l’ouvrage. 172| F. Maniez / ASp 69 (March 2016) 169–172
En résumé, ce manuel d’un format novateur a le mérite de présenter un matériau lexical très dense de façon structurée et très équilibrée. En effet, son organisation en fonction des diverses spécialités de la médecine et la similitude structurelle de ses chapitres font qu’il supporte tout à fait d’être lu de façon linéaire, ce qui distingue clairement son utilisation de celle d’un dictionnaire ou d’un simple lexique. S’il n’échappe pas à un certain degré de répétition de l’information lexicale, il est en revanche très complet et l’abondance des sigles et des acronymes justifie à elle seule son utilité en tant qu’ouvrage de référence. Sous sa forme actuelle, il convient bien au public visé, celui des professionnels de la médecine. Une réédition prenant davantage en compte les problématiques d’encodage et de décodage de l’angliciste cherchant à s’approprier le vocabulaire de la médecine en ferait certainement une référence incontournable dans le domaine de l’anglais médical.
ASp 69 |173
Instructions for Authors
Submission of Papers Authors wishing to publish in ASp are kindly requested to submit an electronic copy of their contribution via email to
Style Sheet Title page Full title and sub-title (if any), list of key words (5-8 maximum) and a 150- to 180- word abstract in each of the two languages of the journal, French and English. Main text The following rules should be adopted for the presentation of the text: - software: Word, .doc or .RTF; - font: Times New Roman or Times, size 12; - single-spaced text; - align text on the right – including footnotes; - do not use over four levels of headings or sub-headings; - insert a line break between paragraphs (no indent); - use lists and indents sparingly; - no underlining (except for examples in linguistics); - use bold type only for headings or sub-headings and the first use of a key word; - use italics for book or journal titles and for foreign words; exceptionally to highlight an expression or a paragraph; - the first time an abbreviation is introduced, write it out in full and insert the abbreviation in brackets after the full name without periods, e.g., (English for Specific Purposes (ESP). 174| ASp 69
- appendices – notes and documents – are inserted after the bibliographical references; - disable Word hyperlinks; web site addresses should not be underlined or typed in blue, but presented as follows:
ASp 69 |175
References In-text references To cite a reference in the text, write the author’s surname, the year of publication and the page number in brackets after the reference material (Resche 2013: 36); or only year and page if the author’s surname is mentioned in the sentence (2013: 366). References for one or two authors: insert the surname of each author and use an ampersand (Master & Brinton 1998: 42). From three authors onwards: insert the surname of the first author and et al. (Campagna et al. 2012). Successive references to: - the same author in contiguous notes: insert idem the first time, then id.; - the same work: insert ibidem the first time, then ibid.; - a work already mentioned: insert surname, op. cit. – replaces the year – and page number(s). Reference list Every in-text citation must have a corresponding entry in the reference list. - Arrange the bibliography in alphabetical order by author's surname (or organisation name). - In the case of multiple authors, the authors are listed thus: “Surname 1, N[ame] 1, N[ame] 2 Surname 2 & N[ame] Surname 3. - e.g., Perrin, Michel, Michel Petit & Michel Van der Yeught. - For two or more works published in different years by the same author, list them in chronological order by date, oldest to newest. - Use (Ed.) or (Eds.) after the name of the editor(s) of the book. - The names of the publishing locations are translated into English, e.g., Brussels. For US locations, add the abbreviation of the State after the name of the town. Examples: - Book: Surname of author, Name. Year of publication. Title of Book. Place of publication: Publisher. - Chapter or part of book: Surname of author, Name. Year of publication. “Title of article“. In Surname of editor, Initial of name, Title of Book. Place of publication: Publisher, x-xx (page numbers). - Journal article: Surname of author, Name. Year of publication. “Title of article”. Journal title vol/number x-xx (page numbers). - Webpage with an author: Surname of author, Name. Year of publication. “Title of article”. Journal title vol/number or Book title, retrieved from
month year. - Radio broadcast: Surname of producer, name. Year of broadcast. “Title of broadcast“. Series title. Broadcasting station. Day and month of broadcast. e.g., Prochasson, Christophe. 2008. Interview with Emmanuel Laurentin. La fabrique de l'histoire. France Culture, Paris. 25 January. - Film: Title. Year of release [format]. Director. Production company. If details needed, add the name of actors. e.g., Boiler Room. 1999 [DVD]. Ben Younger. Metropolitan Film, New Line Productions. Actors: Giovanni Ribisi, Vin Diesel, Nia Long, Nicky Katt, Scott Caan, Ben Affleck.
ASp 69 |177
ASp’s ethical statement
ASp seeks to publish original, rigorous research reports. Any original research material submitted to our journal will undergo independent review by experts who are not part of our editorial staff. ASp’s editorial board endeavors to implement highly ethical submission and publication processes, in accordance with acknowledged best practices and international scientific publishing standards. Although supported by GERAS (Groupe d’étude et de recherche en anglais de spécialité, France’s leading learned society for the study of English for specific purposes), ASp conducts its publication activities in an independent fashion, under the authority of its editorial board, supervised by the journal’s Editor. Our ethical guidelines apply to all the steps of our publication process, which are available for review in our “Instructions for authors”. We adhere to the following principles: 1. Criteria used for evaluating submissions are available from the journal’s website. 2. The editorial board endeavors to guarantee a fair and balanced evaluation of submissions. Evaluation forms with comments from reviewers are sent to authors in a timely fashion. 3. The decision to accept or reject an individual article is solely based on the submission’s originality, clarity, scientific relevance and validity. 4. All submissions are independently reviewed by two experts who are not part of our editorial staff. Should their respective opinions strongly differ, a third reviewer will be asked to provide his/her opinion. 5. Authors may not suggest potential reviewers for their articles. 6. Authors’ identities are not known to reviewers. Prior to sending submissions to reviewers, ASp takes all necessary steps to ensure that the identities of authors are masked. 7. Reviewers’ identities are not known to authors. 8. Reviewers are requested to consult the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. 9. The decision to accept or reject an individual article is made independently by the editorial board, after reviewing the recommendations provided by the reviewers. Decisions are final and may not be appealed. 10. Authors are required to state any potential conflicts of interest, especially if the article deals with products or services that can be marketed, or if it describes organizations; disclosures shall appear at the end of the article. 11. If the findings described by authors in their articles result from research programs that have benefited from financial support or funding, relevant disclosures shall be made by authors. 178| ASp 69
12. The journal reserves the right to publish, without prior authorization from authors, statements of errors or additional information about authors’ disclosures. 13. The journal takes all necessary steps to prevent the publication of submissions where scientific misconduct (notably plagiarism and falsification of data) has been identified. When scientific misconduct is suspected, ASp reserves the right to require additional information from authors, and to retract an article from its website when their response is not satisfactory. 14. The journal shall take all necessary measures when violation of intellectual property has been confirmed in a submission or an article that has already been published by ASp.