University of Tlemcen Dr.
Chamseddine LAMRI
Department of English Dr. Faiza HEDDAM
Module: ESP L3 (All Groups) Dr. Abdelkader BENSAFA
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESP AND EGP
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) state that there is no difference between the two
in theory; however, there is a great deal of difference in practice. ESP, like any other
language teaching activity, stands on facts about language nature, learning, and
teaching; it is, however, often contrasted with General English.
ESP teaching approach is known to be learner-centred where learners’ needs
and goals are of supreme value, whereas General English approach is language-
centred, and focuses on learning language from a broad perception covering all the
language skills and the cultural aspects of the English speaking community.
Robinson (1980: 6) explained that “the general with which we are contrasting
the specific is that of General education for life, culture and literature oriented
language course in which the language itself is the subject matter and the purpose of
the course”. However, In ESP after the identification and the analysis of specific
learning needs, students learn “English en route to the acquisition of some quite
different body of knowledge and set of skills”.
Further distinction between General English courses and ESP is that, learners of
the latter are mainly adult with a certain degree of awareness concerning their
language needs (Hutchinson & Waters 1987). Whereas, General English courses are
provided to pupils as compulsory module at schools, their unique purpose is to succeed
in the examinations.
Basturkmen (2006) maintains that General English Language teaching tends to
set out from a definite point to an indeterminate one, whereas ESP aims to speed
learners and direct them through to a known destination in order to reach specific
objectives. “The emphasis in ESP on going from A to B in the most time- and energy-
efficient manner can lead to the view that ESP is an essentially practical endeavour”
(Basturkmen, 2006: 9)
Widdowson (1983) establishes distinctive features of ESP and EGP.
The most important EGP features are:
1. the focus is often on education;
2. as the learners’ future needs are impossible to predict, the course content is
more difficult to select;
3. due to the above point it is important for the content in the syllabus to have a
high surrender value.
The most relevant ESP features are:
1. the focus is on training;
2. as English is intended to be used in specific vocational contexts, the selection
of the appropriate content is easier;
3. it is important for the content in the syllabus to have a high surrender value,
most relevant to the vocational context;
4. the aim may be to create a restricted English competence.
To conclude, what is the difference between the ESP and General English
approach? Hutchinson and Waters (1987:53) answer this quite simply, "in theory
nothing, in practice a great deal".
REFERENCES
Anthony, L. (1997). Preaching to Cannibals: A look at Academic Writing in
Engineering. In The Japan Conference on English for Specific Purposes
Proceedings. Junuary 31st , 1998.
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and Options in English for Specific
Purposes.London and New jersey: ESL and Applied Linguistic Professional
Series: Eli Hinkel, Edition.
Carter, D. (1983), “Some Propositions about ESP”, The ESP Journal, 2:131-
137.
Dudley-Evans,T.and St Johns,M.J (1998) Developments in ESP a Multi-
Disciplinary Approach Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes
Cambridge: CUP
Mackay, R. and Mountford, A. (1978) English for Specific Purposes: A case
Study Approach.London: Longman.
Richards, J.C (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching 2nd
Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P (1991) ESP today.UK: Prentice Hall International ltd.
Strevens, P. (1977) New Orientations in the Teaching of English.Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
_________(1988) “The Learner and the Teacher of ESP”. in ESP in the
classroom: Practice and evaluation. Chamberlain and Baumgardener. vol.
6; pp 39-44.
