Syllabus design

 
The Meaning of the Word ‘Special ’ in ESP 
One simple clarification requires to be made here about the two entirely 
different notions of special language and specialized aim. It has been noted 
that confusion arises over these two notions. Mackay and Mountford (1978) 
explain the idea of a special language in the following manner:
The only practical way in which we can understand the notion of 
special language is as a restricted repertoire of words and 
expressions selected from the whole language because that 
restricted repertoire covers every requirement within a well-defined 
context, task, or vocation (ibid. 4). 
In order to rule out the unintended interpretation of the term „special‟ to 
mean „unique‟, many researchers prefer to replace it with the term „specific‟ or 
„specifiable‟. The implication is that the terms „special‟, „specific‟, or „specifiable‟ 
are not intended to qualify the language, but to highlight the purpose of 
studying it. It specifies the focus on certain features of the language that are 
immediately associated with the restricted use of the target language which is 
required by the learner in order to achieve a particular purpose (Munby, 1978: 
2).
As mentioned above, a specialized aim refers to the purpose for 
which learners learn a language, not the nature of the language they 
learn. Consequently, the focus of the word special in ESP ought to be 
on the purpose for which learners learn and not on the specific jargon 
or registers they learn. 
The notion of a language with singular characteristics began to take root 
in the sixties and the early seventies, being associated with the pioneering 
research of Halliday, MacIntosh and Strevens (1964). Then, many distinguished 
linguists subscribed to the approach above, among them Widdowson (1983: 
10) who states that “ESP is simply a matter of describing a particular area of 
language and then using this description as a course specification to impart to 
learners the necessary restricted competence with this particular area”. 
Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 19) second this by insisting that ESP must be 
seen as an approach, not a product. 

---

100