Language for Specific Purposes:

Overview
THOMAS A. UPTON AND ULLA CONNOR

Language for specific purposes (LSP) is an area of applied linguistics that focuses on the
analysis and teaching of language in order to meet specific language needs of non-native
speakers of the language. These specific language needs may be academic (e.g., Chinese
students preparing to study at a French university), vocational (e.g., Filipino immigrants
working in service jobs in Hong Kong hotels), or professional (e.g., Japanese business
people opening factories in the United States). LSP as a field of applied linguistics dates
to the early 1960s and, according to John Swales (2000), gained traction with the publica-
tion of the book The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching by Halliday, Strevens, and
McIntosh (1964).
As quoted by Swales (2000, p. 59), Halliday et al. wrote:

Only the merest fraction of investigation has yet been carried out into just what parts of
a conventional course in English are needed by, let us say, power station engineers in
India, or police inspectors in Nigeria; even less is known about precisely what extra
specialized material is required.
This is one of the tasks for which linguistics must be called in. Every one of these
specialized needs requires, before it can be met by appropriate teaching materials, detailed
studies of restricted languages and special registers carried out on the basis of large
samples of the language used by the particular persons concerned. (Halliday et al., 1964,
pp. 189–90)

It is this passage, Swales argues, that provided the foundation for the field of LSP. From
it, the following agenda for LSP analysis and instruction was established: (a) research into
language use should be descriptive; (b) focus should be on the real language used by
regular people (not famous or literary figures); (c) current, everyday language should be
of primary importance; (d) language as it is spoken or written in specific contexts should
be the focus of study (not “authorial motives for linguistic choices”); and (e) there should
be an analysis of functional grammar along with the contextual factors that influence lan-
guage use (Swales, 2000, pp. 59–60).
In this entry, we first provide some historical context—including the basis for the
dominance of English in the LSP literature, a discussion on how LSP has been defined,
and the traditional categories of LSP; we then overview the current key debates in the
field of LSP. We conclude by looking at the relationship between research and instruction
in LSP and highlight the need for new research approaches to capture better the real and
changing language needs of LSP learners in increasingly complex political contexts. Our
goal is to provide an overview to the field of LSP in general and introduce the themes for
this area that are represented in the encyclopedia.

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0891
2 language for specific purposes: overview

Language for Specific Purposes: English at the Forefront

The study of LSP can encompass any language used in the world; nevertheless, the vast
majority of the language analysis and instruction that has been done in LSP has focused
on English. Consequently, the terms English for specific purposes (ESP) and LSP are often
used interchangeably, and much of the research and publications in LSP focus on ESP.
This is reflected by the fact that the two leading journals in LSP are titled English for Specific
Purposes: An International Research Journal and Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Swales
(2000) acknowledges—and bemoans—this situation in his article reviewing the field of
LSP in a section titled “English English Everywhere”: “One of the ironies of the emergent
field of ESP is that its very success in catering to the needs of nonnative speakers has
contributed to the overpowering position of English in today’s worlds of sciences, scholar-
ship, and business” (p. 67). In an earlier article, Swales (1997) likened English in the realm
of academia to a Tyrannosaurus rex, “a powerful carnivore gobbling up the other denizens
of the academic linguistic grazing grounds” (p. 374).
This emphasis in LSP on the analysis and teaching of English can be seen in the entries
that follow in the encyclopedia, as many of the titles specifically narrow the focus to
English; the reason for this, however, is because in many cases English is by far the most
prominent language that non-native speakers are wanting or needing to learn in particular
contexts, for example, the entry titled maritime english. The shipping trade, by definition,
is global and even one shipment typically involves many countries, languages, and cultures.
The entry gives the example of one ship that “was built in Spain, had a Norwegian owner,
was registered in Cyprus, was managed from Glasgow, was chartered by a French com-
pany, had a Russian crew, was flying a Liberian flag, and carried American cargo.” In this
international context, English is the common language of the high seas.
While French, German (see german for specific purposes), and Russian are also inter-
national languages that have been important in the field of LSP, Arabic in the eastern
hemisphere and Spanish (see spanish for specific purposes) in the western hemisphere
are now growing in importance as languages that non-native speakers of English are
learning in order to communicate for specific purposes. And China, with its huge popula-
tion and growth as both an economic and military powerhouse, will no doubt soon propel
Chinese as a language of increasing focus of LSP scholarship and instruction, as noted in
the entry language for specific purposes in asia. The role of culture, as reflected in
language for specific purposes in eastern europe and the other area and language-
focused entries, is also an important consideration in the field of LSP as it is impossible
to separate language from culture.

Toward a Definition of Language for Specific Purposes

Much of the theoretical foundation for LSP grew out of work in ESP. Early in the 1960s,
linguists started coming to the realization that the language we use—both spoken and
written—varies considerably from one context or purpose to another (Hutchinson & Waters,
1987). As a result, language instruction began to shift from teaching the grammatical
structures and rules of English to teaching language as it is actually used in real life. As
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) noted, this led to the development, in ESP for example, of
courses for specific groups of learners, with courses focusing, for example, on the language
of business or the language of science. “The idea was simple: if language varies from one
situation of use to another, it should be possible to determine the [language] features of
specific situations and then make these features the basis of the learners’ course” (Hutchinson
& Waters, 1987, p. 7).
 language for specific purposes: overview 3

Also in the 1960s, educational psychologists began to realize that learners in general,
including language learners, have different needs and interests, and that these differences
influenced not only students’ motivation to learn, but also the effectiveness of their learn-
ing (Ormond, 2010). This paradigm shift in the understanding of how learners learn has
become a key feature of ESP; not only do we need to teach language as it is actually used
in specific contexts, but the focus of the instruction should take into account learners’ needs
and interests within those specific contexts. In Basturkmen’s (2006) words, it is essential
that we understand the “conditions needed in order for language learning to take place”
(p. 85).
Encompassing this new understanding of the variability of language as well as learners’
interests and needs, Hutchinson and Waters (1987)—in one of the first books to provide
a comprehensive overview of teaching, course design, syllabuses, materials, teaching
methods, and evaluation procedures in ESP instruction—defined ESP as “an approach to
language teaching which is directed by specific and apparent reasons for learning”
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 19). Much discussion ensued as to whether this definition
was sufficient. While others (see, for example, Strevens, 1988; Robinson, 1991) offered their
own definitions of ESP, it is Dudley-Evans and St. John’s (1998) definition that is now the
more widely quoted definition of ESP. Their definition, though, is not a simple one, as it
is comprised of a set of both “absolute” and “variable” characteristics:

1. Absolute characteristics:
• ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learner;
• 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 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 begin-
ners. (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, pp. 4–5)

At its core, the rationale for ESP, in the words of Belcher (2009), is the “motivation to help
those especially disadvantaged by their lack of language needed for the situations they
find themselves in, hope to enter, or eventually rise above” (p. 3).

Traditional Categories of LSP/ESP

The complexity of the definition offered by Dudley-Evans and St. John reflects the com-
plexity of LSP in practice. As Belcher (2009, p. 2) notes, “There are, and no doubt will be,
as many types of ESP as there are specific learner needs and target communities that
learners wish to thrive in.”
ESP has long been divided into two broad types: english for academic purposes and
english for occupational purposes (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Johns & Dudley-Evans,
1991; Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Belcher, 2009). English for academic purposes (EAP) is
language instruction that focuses on the specific language and learning needs of learners
4 language for specific purposes: overview

in instructional settings, usually at the postsecondary level but often at the secondary
level as well. The emphasis in EAP courses is on academic language; for example, most
EAP programs at the college level focus on the academic language skills needed for
writing papers and reading textbooks. English for occupational purposes (EOP), on the
other hand, focuses on the language needs of learners in occupational—professional or
vocational—contexts. These sorts of purposes are reflected in the following entries in the
encyclopedia: english for business, english for medical purposes, english for nurs-
ing, aviation english, and maritime english. Of course, there are many instances of
ESP instruction that combines the focuses of both EAP and EOP; English for academic
business purposes and English for academic legal purposes, which provide language
instruction to students studying courses in business and law, respectively, represent two
examples.
What all of these types of ESP/LSP courses have in common is the goal of giving
“learners access to the language they want and need to accomplish their own academic
or occupational goals” (Belcher, 2004, p. 166).

Current Issues in Language for Specific Purposes

The entry historical development of language for specific purposes provides

important context for understanding the issues that are central to LSP today. As with any
maturing field of inquiry, debates on key issues in LSP speak to the complexity as well as
the promise of this area of applied linguistics.
The entry notes that some of the critique of LSP is due to the perception that it has been
driven less by the goals of global communication and understanding and more by business
and national interests (see also Benesch, 2001). This critique notwithstanding, there are
three broad areas of debate regarding best practices in LSP. These focus on (a) the needs
assessment process, (b) how specific the materials and teaching methods should be,
and (c) what level of subject knowledge instructors must have to be effective (Belcher,
2006). The fact that these three areas of debate directly address core features of the most
widely accepted definition of ESP that was given above reflects the importance of these
discussions. Indeed, most of the entries in the LSP area of the encyclopedia touch on at
least one of these issues.

Needs Assessment
The first “absolute characteristic” of ESP given in the definition provided earlier is that
“ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learner” (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998,
p. 4). According to Johns (1991, p. 72),

ESP’s greatest contribution to language teaching has been its insistence upon careful and
extensive needs and task analyses for curriculum design . . . Instead of guessing at student
needs, ESP practitioners contend that we must constantly develop new techniques for
examining the tasks students have to perform in English, for understanding the target
situations in which they will operate, for analyzing the discourse of the target situations,
and for determining student learning strategies.

LSP entries in the encyclopedia focus on some of the more common “specific purposes”
for which language instruction has been targeted, including english for science and
technology, english for academic purposes, and language for tourism, among sev-
eral others highlighted elsewhere in this entry. Each of these entries includes a discussion
of some of the specific language needs that have been identified for learners in these
 language for specific purposes: overview 5

contexts. Reflecting this primary importance of needs assessment (or analysis) in LSP, an
entry titled needs analysis and syllabus design for language for specific purposes,
is included in the encyclopedia. The entry notes some of the sociopolitical, educational,
and methodological concerns that have been raised about the needs analysis process in
recent years; it is in these areas where there is debate.
The crux of the debate focuses on the issue of “power” (Pennycook, 1997; Benesch, 2001;
Belcher, 2006). Neither language nor pedagogy is neutral; they occur in and are influenced
by social, cultural, and political contexts. The many players in any LSP situation operate
in these contexts where power is unequal—between students and teachers, teachers and
administrators, students and the wider social and cultural context. Is it sufficient to simply
focus on the language structures and communicative competence required in particular
discourse contexts, or do teachers also need to help students recognize the conflicting
perspectives of “privileged members” (e.g., supervisors and teachers) and “novices” (e.g.,
employees and students)—as well as other race, class and gender relationships—and help
them navigate, influence and even challenge those power relationships? The entry critical
english for academic purposes explores more broadly these power relationships within
EAP; The entries culture and language for specific purposes and intercultural
rhetoric in language for specific purposes also explore the interpersonal and inter-
cultural relationships that impact language instruction and learning, and the role of power,
representation, and identity on LSP in general, including the identification of learner needs.
Benesch (2001) has previously argued that needs analysis should be re-visioned as
“rights” analysis, enabling

ESP practitioners and their students to see target communities of practice as not solely
defined by those in power, but as places where newcomers have rights too—to be included
and accommodated—hence as interactive social systems that can, and should, change as
new members join. (Belcher, 2009, p. 7)

This “critical” perspective on needs analysis is not yet the mainstream view, but its influence
on LSP is growing; for example, it is now well recognized that student perspectives and
even feelings need to be taken into account in the LSP classroom.

Specificity
The level of specificity called for in ESP instruction has been a controversial question that
has simmered for a long time. Johns and Dudley-Evans (1991) identified the question of
how “specific” the focus of ESP courses should be as an area of controversy 20 years ago,
noting this question was first raised more than 10 years before then in the 1970s. Hyland
(2002) defines the issue this way:

Put most simply, this resolves into a single question: are there skills and features of
language that are transferable across different disciplines and occupations, or should we
focus on the texts, skills and language forms needed by particular learners? This question
lies at the heart of what our profession is and what we do in our classrooms. (p. 385)

The two sides to this issue are often framed as “narrow-angle” and “wide-angle.” Those
favoring the wide-angle perspective—most typically those in language for academic
purposes—note that there is a core of language and language learning strategies that is
common across broad subject areas, and that students are best served by having exposure
to language and language strategies that address wider, though closely related, contexts
such as university classes (e.g., see Spack, 1988). Those favoring the narrow-angle perspec-
tive see this issue of specificity as the distinguishing trait between LSP, which addresses
6 language for specific purposes: overview

clearly articulated language needs in specific contexts, on the one hand, and general language
courses, which often focus more on general language structures and vocabulary, on the
other hand (Hyland, 2002).
Johns and Dudley-Evans (1991) and more recently Belcher (2006) strike a middle ground
on this debate, recognizing the value and realities of both perspectives. Belcher goes so
far as to say that for many “the wide versus narrow approach debate is a nonissue” (p. 139),
as the teaching approach should really be dictated based on what the learners need. This
more flexible perspective on specificity as driven by the instructional context is reflected
in several entries in the encyclopedia. The wide-angle perspective can be seen in reading
and language for specific purposes, which argues that there are broad reading skills
and strategies that should be addressed when teaching in LSP contexts, while a more
narrow-angle perspective can be seen in english for nursing, which focuses on nursing-
specific language needs of nurses, both those in training and practicing. Nevertheless, as
Master (2005) notes, ESP is all about specificity—“detailed explications of the nature of
the language used or required to communicate in specific academic and occupational set-
tings, usually accompanied by specific pedagogical applications for non-native speakers
of English” (p. 102); otherwise, it is not language for specific purposes.
The question, however, is how “specific” do the course focus, materials and targeted
language instruction need to be for a course to be classified as an LSP course. Is it inappro-
priate to ever focus on general language concepts or use materials that do not immediately
or directly address specific language contexts? It is not universally agreed where the divid-
ing line is—on the continuum that stretches from general language instruction on the one
end to the most focused and targeted instruction on the other—that differentiates a course
as either “language for general purposes” or “language for specific purposes.”

The “Subject Knowledge Dilemma”

One of the biggest challenges in LSP contexts is that teachers often find themselves having
to deal with specialized areas of knowledge in which they have not been trained. Hutchinson
and Waters (1987) early on observed that “ESP teachers are all too often reluctant dwellers
in a strange and uncharted land,” frequently having to “teach with texts whose content
they know little or nothing about” (pp. 158, 160). Simply put, does one have to be an
engineer to teach the language of engineering? Wu and Badger (2009) call this the ESP
teachers’ “subject knowledge dilemma”; they go on to note that “there is surprisingly
little written about what subject-matter knowledge an ESP teacher might be expected to
have” (pp. 20–1).
Master (2005) notes that this question of how much subject-matter expertise the LSP
teacher must have has been an area of controversy from the early days of LSP. While most
in the field of LSP hold to a more middle ground, he describes the tension as being between
those who on the one side see it as sufficient for teachers to simply be able to use content
from the specific area as a tool to teach language—even if they have no training in the
subject area—versus those who see LSP as “an entirely content-based curriculum in which
linguistic knowledge is subordinated to subject content instruction” (Master, 2005, p. 107).
Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) make the distinction between carrier content and real
content. The example they give is the use of a text related to the life cycle of a plant (the
carrier content) to teach the expressions of time sequence used in the description of
processes and cycles (the real content); they note: “It is not the aim of the exercise to teach
students about the life cycle . . . It is an authentic topic which can be used as a vehicle for
the real content of the unit, the language of process” (p. 11). The point they are making is
that what the ESP teacher is responsible for is teaching the language that scientists use to
describe processes and cycles, not the processes and cycles themselves.
 language for specific purposes: overview 7

While focusing on language notions (like process and cycle description) used in specific
contexts is a proven approach when working with low-level language learners and those
who are novices in the content area, it is much more challenging when working with more
proficient speakers who have expertise in their field, like medical students. Indeed, as
Belcher (2009) observes,

It is not usually a comforting thought, to say the least, for any teachers, novice or experi-
enced, to realize that their students may know more about a crucial subject area (or the
“carrier content”) of a language course than they, the teachers, do. (p. 11)

Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) argue that subject-specific language instruction is most
effective when subject-area specialists are involved, and this involvement can take place
at three different levels: cooperation, collaboration, and team teaching. Cooperation is
simply the teacher using subject-area specialists as informants to determine the sorts of
language and language use students have to master in specific contexts. Collaboration goes
a step further with the subject-area specialist more directly involved in lesson planning
and material selection/development. Team teaching is “the actual working together in the
classroom of the subject and language specialists” (p. 45). Which level of interaction between
the language and subject-area specialist is used is best determined by the needs of the
students in the particular context, although team teaching in reality seldom occurs due to
cost and logistical challenges.
Several entries address directly or indirectly the role of the instructor’s subject knowledge
in teaching LSP. Entries such as methods for language for specific purposes, materials
for language for specific purposes, and content-based instruction in english for
specific purposes tackle this issue most directly. All of the entries that overview LSP
instruction in specific contexts—such as english for medical purposes and language
for tourism—also touch on the necessity of instructors to understand and use knowledge
of the subject area in their instruction.
Along with the three issues highlighted above, assessment is an important concern in
LSP instruction, and two entries—assessment of academic language for specific pur-
poses and assessment of business and professional language for specific purposes—
highlight important considerations. In addition, two entries overview the impact that
technology is having on the teaching of LSP; technology and teaching language for
specific purposes gives a broad overview and corpora in the teaching of language
for specific purposes highlights a common application of technology in instruction. The
entry teacher education for language for specific purposes reflects on the challenges
of and the best practices for preparing LSP teachers in the myriad of areas reflected in this
overview.

Research in LSP

As an area of applied linguistics, LSP has from the beginning been grounded in scholar-
ship and research, and like other areas of LSP, ESP has led the way. In keeping with Johns’s
(1991) challenge to constantly develop new techniques for examining language tasks,
contexts, structures and learning strategies, the analysis of the structures and uses of lan-
guage in the specific contexts that learners want and need to interact in continues to grow
as a significant part of what LSP practitioners do. Indeed, Belcher (2006) notes that because
LSP is driven by understanding student needs, the dividing lines “between researchers
and teachers . . . are frequently blurred” (p. 135). Research—ranging from informal needs
analyses to qualitative case studies and ethnographies to statistically analyzed empirical
studies—is as important to the field of LSP as teaching, with each informing the other.
8 language for specific purposes: overview

The current state of LSP research is well documented in the entries that follow and,
as noted by Master (2005), this research focuses primarily on “specificity, that is, detailed
explications of the nature of the language used or required to communicate in specific
academic and occupational settings” (p. 102). The entry language for specific purposes
research methods provides the context for a set of entries that describe a variety of
perspectives (including intercultural rhetoric and critical EAP pedagogy) and methodolo-
gies (e.g., corpora in language for specific purposes research—including language
for specific purposes learner corpora, and genre and discourse analysis in language
for specific purposes) that are commonly used in LSP research, as well as highlights
closely studied areas of discourse (research articles in english for specific purposes,
and theses and dissertations in english for specific purposes). Entries on reading
and language for specific purposes, writing and language for specific purposes,
and vocabulary and language for specific purposes, as well as those looking at specific
purposes (e.g., english for science and technology) also show how research on specific
uses of language in specific contexts are applied in the classroom.
Looking to the future as LSP instruction becomes more diverse as well as specialized,
the field of LSP must continue developing research perspectives and methods that provide
not only a broader but also a more detailed understanding of learner needs within a
changing world context. In particular, there needs to be more concern with issues of power
and accommodation between native and non-native speakers in contexts where languages
are used as a lingua franca—for example, in the case of English as the lingua franca in
many professional contexts (e.g., international scholarly publication) and areas of commerce
(e.g., aviation and maritime communication). Instead of relying on the analysis of language
and texts out of context, researchers need tools to study the complex contextual, social,
and ideological aspects of language interactions. These interactions are often multimodal,
including text and talk as well as other forms of content and message delivery. Research
methods relying only on the study of words and discourses are no longer sufficient.
Methods such as observations and ethnographic approaches are also needed, along with
detailed analyses of interactions, not only to better understand the complexities of language
use but also the pragmatic strategies that are necessary for effective communication in
specific contexts and for specific purposes.

Final Thoughts

Both research and practice in language for specific purposes have benefited from the
work of variety of leading thinkers from around the world. The following distinguished
scholars were chosen to be featured in biographical entries from a much larger set of
distinguished members of the profession: Charles bazerman, Diane belcher, Vijay bhatia,
Dan douglas, Tony dudley-evans, Liz hamp-lyons, Ken hyland, Ann johns, Brian
paltridge, Larry selinker, John M. swales, and Louis trimble. Their biographies map
out the development of LSP as an important area of inquiry in applied linguistics over the
past fifty years. New ideas and issues in LSP are often first addressed in the three leading
journals in the field: English for Specific Purposes: An International Research Journal, Ibérica
(journal of AELFA, the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes), and
Journal of English for Academic Purposes.
The study of LSP is an extremely important area of applied linguistics because of its
promise for improving opportunities and promoting expertise in a wide variety of academic
and occupational areas around the world. In our globally interconnected world, fewer and
fewer areas can be found where no need exists for specific language instruction to facilitate
the learning and work of non-native speakers of the target language. From university
 language for specific purposes: overview 9

campuses to community literacy and citizenship programs, from skilled occupations like
aviation to prison education programs, from doctor–patient interactions in inner-city hos-
pitals to health programs in the poorest parts of the world—all of these areas and more
require “language to accomplish purposes and engage with others as members of social
groups” (Hyland, 2002, p. 391). It is the mission of LSP to understand what these language
needs are—including the distinctive features of the language—for the specific contexts in
which the language will be used, and then choose or develop the materials and methods
that will best facilitate learning. The LSP entries in the encyclopedia not only describe in
more detail the field of LSP, but also showcase the innovative and groundbreaking work
that is being done by some of the best teachers and scholars in applied linguistics.

SEE ALSO: Corpus Analysis of Spoken English for Academic Purposes; Corpus Analysis
of Written English for Academic Purposes; Grammar Teaching and the Workplace; Needs
Analysis; Teaching Business English; Teaching English for Medical and Health Professions;
Teaching Language for Academic Purposes

References

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belcher, D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 165–86.
Belcher, D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined
futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133–56.
Belcher, D. (2009). What ESP is and can be: An introduction. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for
specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 1–20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-
disciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M., Strevens, P., & McIntosh, A. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching.
London, England: Longman.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes,
21(4), 385–95.
Johns, A. (1991). English for specific purposes (ESP): Its history and contributions. In M. Celce-
Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 67–77). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Johns, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope,
specific in purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 297–314.
Master, P. (2005). English for specific purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (pp. 99–115). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ormond, J. E. (2010). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific
Purposes, 16(4), 253–69.
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. Hemel Hempstead, England: Prentice Hall.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should
we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 29–52.
Strevens, P. (1988). ESP after twenty years: A re-appraisal. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), ESP: State of the
art. Singapore: SEAMEO.
Swales, J. (1997). English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16, 373–82.
Swales, J. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 59–76.
10 language for specific purposes: overview

Wu, H., & Badger, R. (2009). In a strange and uncharted land: ESP teachers’ strategies for deal-
ing with unpredicted problems in subject knowledge during class. English for Specific Purposes,
28(1), 19–32.

Suggested Readings

Belcher, D. (Ed.). (2009). English for specific purposes in theory and practice. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Harding, K. (2007). English for specific purposes. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London, England:
Routledge.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Master, P., & Brinton, D. (1998). New ways in English for specific purposes. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Orr, T. (Ed.). (2002). English for specific purposes. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.