Nghiên cứu điều tra về nhu cầu giao tiếp tiếng Anh của sinh viên Trường Đại học Lao động xã hội.

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

CAO SƠN HÙNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATIVE NEEDS IN
ENGLISH: THE CASE OF UNNIVERSITY OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL
AFFAIRS
(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐIỀU TRA VỀ NHU CẦU GIAO TIẾP TIẾNG ANH CỦA
SINH VIÊN TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC LAO ĐỘNG XÃ HỘI)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10

HÀ NỘI, 2012


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

CAO SƠN HÙNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATIVE NEEDS IN
ENGLISH: THE CASE OF UNNIVERSITY OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL
AFFAIRS
(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐIỀU TRA VỀ NHU CẦU GIAO TIẾP TIẾNG ANH CỦA
SINH VIÊN TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC LAO ĐỘNG XÃ HỘI)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor : M.A. Văn Thi Thanh
Bin
̣
̀ h

HÀ NỘI, 2012


TABLE OF CONTENT
Part A: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
1. Rationale ........................................................................................................................1
2. Scope of the study ..........................................................................................................4
3. Aims of the study ..........................................................................................................4
4. Subjects and Methodology of the study ..........................................................................4
5. Research question .........................................................................................................5
6. Design of the study ........................................................................................................6
Part B: DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................7
1.1. "COMMUNICATIVENESS" AND COMPETENCE ..................................................7
1.1.1. What is ―communicativeness‖? ................................................................................7
1.1.2. Communicative competence .....................................................................................7
1.1.3 Communicative performance .....................................................................................9
1.1.4. Needs ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.5. Needs analysis ........................................................................................................ 11
1.1.6. Changing the communicative needs ........................................................................ 12

1.1.7. The impact of integrated language skills in communication .................................... 19
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY............................................................................................. 21
2.1. Data and Methodology .............................................................................................. 21
2.2. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 23
2.2.1. Students‘ Needs and Actual Use ............................................................................. 23
2.2.2. Students' Wants ...................................................................................................... 28
2.2.3. Students‘ lacks ....................................................................................................... 30
PART C: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION ............................................................. 34
1. Conclusions and implications ....................................................................................... 34
2. Limitation and suggestion for further study .................................................................. 36
References ....................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………I

iv


LIST OF TABLE AND DIAGRAM
Page number

Tables
Table 1: Students‘ needs of listening by type of job

24

Table 2: Students‘ needs of speaking by type of job

25

Table 3: Students‘ needs of reading by type of job

26

Table 4: Students‘ needs of writing by type of job

27

Table 5: students‘ wants by type of work

29

Table 6. Response percentages: Language proficiency (self-

31

assessment) by type of work
Table 7. Response percentages: skills used in the workplace by
type of work

v

32


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
English is undoubtedly considered a golden key to open the door of such
fields as commerce, science and technology throughout the world. Therefore, it is
necessary to teach this language in educational establishments of all levels. One of
the most important purposes of learning English is to communicate with other

people especially native speakers while communication is mainly based on speaking
in which intonation is an important aspect. Therefore, how to speak English
smoothly and fluently with an accurate intonation is essential to any learners of
English including Vietnamese learners. However, during the course of the
research‘s study and teaching practice, it is found that little or even no attention is
paid to the teaching and learning of communicativeness. In addition, among many
aspects of the teaching and learning English, communicativeness is often neglected
at non-major language colleges. Students are taught about this issue when they are
in university or college; so many of them find it difficult to communicate because of
their pronunciation or because they can‘t pronounce an utterance with accurate
intonation. As a result, their English does not sound native-like. Similarly, students
always have troubles in listening and understanding native speakers. This leads to
the fact that a lot of them feel shy and lack of confidence in speaking English.
During the past 20 years, the explosion in business and communications
technology has revolutionized the field of English language teaching, and has
radically shifted the attention of course designers from teaching English for
Academic purposes to teaching English for more specialized purposes. In the last
few years, first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition research into language
teaching have led to an increased interest in investigating the most effective ways of
improving the ability of workers in using English for specific purposes in the
workplace (Li So-mui and Mead, 2000; Louhiala-Salminen 1996). Several recent
studies of ESP have provided evidence of the importance of teaching English for
specific purposes (Li So-mui and Mead, 2000; Edwards, 2000; Lohiala-Salinen,
1


1996; Huchinson and Waters, 1987). For example, it has been observed that the
type of language used by each worker is influenced by the worker‘s working
instrument (see for example, Pogner, 2003; Zak and Dudley-Evans, 1986), by his
aims and professional constraints, as well as by his specialization and the type of

duties assigned to him, and by the texts the worker produces and deals with (e.g.,
Edwards, 2000; Macintosh, 1990). These educational studies have been developing
in tandem with a recognition that learning English for specific purposes play
important roles in workers‘ and administrators‘ success in their fields of work and
business environments.
Over the last few years, many researchers have offered a number of books
and articles bringing out new insights and approaches from different theoretical
perspectives. For instance, an important survey was conducted in Finland in 1998
by the National Board of Education on the language and communication skills in
the fields of industry and business. It studied language/ communication needs of
industry and business employees and was aimed at showing how language teaching
could best equip students with the skills required in professional life. The survey
has revealed that compared with engineers, employees in production jobs,
installation and repair workers do not need to use foreign languages as much as the
members of the other group. However it is clear that they have to read instructions,
socialize and travel. They rarely get involved with writing formal papers, giving
presentations or negotiating. The study thus has shown that the need for oral
communication overrides written skills (reading and writing) in the first group,
while the discrepancy in the second is smaller (Reported in Viel 2002:1).
Similar studies have been carried out in other European and Asian countries
(see Perrin, 2003; Ponger, 2003; Edwards, 2000; Le So-Mui and Mead, 2000). In
his study on writing and interacting in the discourse community of engineers,
Pogner (2003:865) has concluded that writing in the discourse community of
engineers cannot be isolated from its contexts, from the chains of communication of
2


which it is a part, or from the interaction between the writers (consultants) or
readers (Clients). On this issue, Pogner also adds:
Text production and revision by consultant engineers are not only

cognitive problem-solving and communication processes …..but also
means of negotiation professional standards and roles; defining
strategic functions of texts and genres; establishing, maintaining or
changing the text’s and interaction’s context by helping the
readers/users of the text carry out their own complex technological and
business tasks.
In like manner, in a study which took place in a specialized business context
involving senior German bankers, Edwards (2000) has observed that there is a
correlational relationship between the place of work and the effective needs of
workers in terms of language skills practiced, terminology used, and syllabus
design and materials preparation for the workers.
This work arose from a long-standing association between the on-going
process of research in the field of teaching/learning English for Specific purposes in
General, and the study plan towards a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Department
of English for Applied studies at the University of Labor and Social Affairs
(ULSA). More specifically, it developed from an attempt to revise the study plan
continuously based on the results of other studies on ESP along with an authentic
analysis of learners' perceptions of needs, wants and lacks in the workplace in the
future. The rationale behind choosing these two areas of students‘ future work
(accounting and insurance) for the purpose of investigation is because they are two
of the most important fields in which English is used extensively.
So, for a better understanding of the day-to-day activities and the ‗real
world‘ needs of these students, an empirical investigation was carried out so as to
see whether the type of material and skills being taught to our students suit their

3


needs or not. Another aim of this study is to see whether there is a need to modify
our objectives or to update our programs in light of the results of this investigation.

So this study will concern itself partially with studying language use, and the
workers‘ perceptions of ESP in light of their abilities and ‗real world‘ need.

2. Scope of the study
The research is based on data collected from thirty respondents in four
different classes at University of Labor and Social Affairs in Hanoi, Vietnam. The
participants in the survey were students in the major of accounting and insurance.
This paper is an exploratory study of the use of English by accounting and
insurance students. It attempts to examine the communication needs of the students
in the workplace by shedding light on their perceptions of needs, wants and lacks.

3. Aims of the study
This study was conducted for the purpose of achieving a better
understanding of the communication needs placed upon Vietnamese accounting and
insurance students. Moreover, this study was to identify the students‘ needs, wants,
lacks of English for the purpose of including in our curriculum what is needed by
our students and excluding what deemed to be less important to them.
This study also was carried out so as to see whether the type of material and
skills being taught to our students suit their needs or not. Another aim of this study
is to see whether there is a need to modify our objectives or to update our programs
in light of the results of this investigation.

4. Subjects and Methodology of the study
The design of this investigation is based on the work of Hutchinson and
Waters (1987), and Dudley-Evans and Jo ST John (1998), in which they define
needs in terms of ―target needs (i.e. what the learner needs to do in the target
situation) and Learning needs (i.e. what the learner needs to do in order to learn).‖
The main concern of this investigation will be an analysis of the target needs of the
subjects in these two areas of workplaces. However, as all the subjects of this study
4

are university undergraduates, no attempt will be made here to investigate their
learning needs. To understand the undergraduates‘ preferred ways of learning, it is
highly recommended that such investigation to be conducted at the University of
Labor and Social Affairs in Hanoi, Vietnam, where several ESP courses are taught
to the university students.
According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), and Dudley-Evans and Jo ST
John (1998), the best methodology for studying the target needs of any particular
group of students is to use such methods as Questionnaires, follow-up interviews,
collection of authentic workplace texts, and visits to the workplace.
The corpus of this study was collected with the assistance of three ESP
students enrolled in the Department of English for Applied Studies at University of
Labor and Social Affairs (ULSA) by means of a questionnaire and interviews. Data
collection methods used in this study include calculating percentage of answers in
the questionnaire. Details of methodology applied in the study are discussed in part
B, chapter 2.
Some of the interviews were conducted by me. The present research is based on
data collected from thirty respondents in leading positions in four different classes:
accounting and insurance. The participants in the survey were students in the major
of accounting and insurance, all of whom are Vietnamese-English balanced
bilinguals capable of using English for different purposes. Fifteen of them study in
the field of accounting and the other fifteen in the field of insurance. The sample is
composed of twenty-two males and only eight females.

5. Research question
The main purpose of the study is to investigate the students‘ communicative needs
in the workplace by shedding light on their perceptions of needs, wants, lacks of
English and the use of English in the workplace. To achieve this objective, the
study seeks the answers to the following questions:

5


1. What are the students’ perceived English communicative needs?
2. How to they self-evaluate their ability to communicate in English?
3. What is the gap between their perceived communicative needs and their
self-evaluated communicative ability?

6. Design of the study
The research is divided into three parts as follows:

Part A is the INTRODUCTION to the research. This includes the rationale,
the objectives, the scope, the methodology and the design of the study.

Part B- the DEVELOPMENT, the most significant part of the study,
consists of two chapters:
Chapter 1 provides theoretical background knowledge of the studied issue touched
upon in the research. There are seven sub parts in this chapter. This part outlines
the evolving definitions of Communicativeness, and Communicative competence
and performance, Needs, Needs analysis, Changing the communicative.
Chapter 2 covers methodology applied in the study. The research question comes
first, followed by an introduction to the subjects of the research, the data
instruments and the procedures and methodology used for data collection. In this
chapter, the discussion and interpretation of the collected data is given to find out
errors made by the subjects of the research in producing the glide up based on an
analysis of their performance in the listening and pronunciation tests.

Part C is the CONCLUSION, the summary of major findings of the
research, followed by implications and suggestions for teachers and learners of

English. Limitation of the study and suggestions

6


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this chapter, some theoretical background of ―communicativeness‖ and
competence is included. This chapter consists of seven sub-parts: section 1.1 revises
definition

of

communicativeness,

section

1.2

introduces

communicative

competence, communicative performance is introduced in the section 1.3, followed
by need in section 1.4 and need analysis in the section 1.5 and section 1.6 discusses
about changing the communicative needs and finally, section 1.7 deals with the
impact of integrated language skills in communication.

1.1. "COMMUNICATIVENESS" AND COMPETENCE
1.1.1. What is “communicativeness”?

'Communicativeness' is a widely used word, often signifying rather vague
notions.Ellis (1982) states the term "has no clearly understood and received
meaning" (p.73).
Similarly, 'communicative competence' is a concept still evolving in
definition towards recognizing language use, following its solidly linguistic
background. To avoid the multifarious "myths" surrounding these terms, we must
"clarify

which

version

of

'communicative'

is

being

referred

to"

(Johnson,1996.p.173), and determine what constitutes competence.
Allwright's (1979) succinct enquiry "Are we teaching language (for
communication)? or Are we teaching communication (via language)?" (p.167)
centralizes this critical issue.
1.1.2. Communicative competence

Widdowson's(1978) assertion that acquisition of communicative competence
is "the ultimate aim in language learning‖(p.67), necessitates reconciling these
distinctions for practical classroom purposes. Widdowson usefully and pertinently
recognized that communicative competence is ―not a list of learnt items, but a set of

7


strategies or procedures 'for realizing the value of linguistic elements in contexts of
use” (1979a, p.248).
In answer to Allwright, it is probable that both are essential. Richards and
Rogers (1986) assert "communicativeness involves acknowledging the
interdependence of language and communication" (p.66). However, materials have
traditionally focused on the first concept, that linguistic knowledge is central to
communication. Chomsky (1956), Hymes (1971), Canale and Swain(1980) and
Canale (1983) all separated knowledge and actual use. Unlike Chomsky, who
posited that knowledge of grammar alone was sufficient, Hymes recognized a
sociolinguistic importance, stating "There are rules of use without which the rules
of grammar would be useless" (in Brumfit and Johnson,1979.p15).
Canale's assertion that a primarily knowledge-oriented focus is "an exercise
in futility and frustration [which fails] to help learners to master the necessary
skills in using knowledge" (1983,p.15) advanced a more interactive model, inclusive
of discoursal and strategic competencies. However, he excluded performance,
assuming preparation to communicate rather than communication, or "actual use"
(p.5), constituted competence, “the main goal is to prepare and encourage learners
to exploit in an optimal way their limited communicative competence in the second
language in order to participate in actual communication.”
(1983, p.17)
Conversely, Halliday (1973) highlighted the functional importance of

language, recognizing knowledge (or potential ability), and use (actualised
potential) as being interdependent. This accords with Krashen and Terrell's (1983)
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which recognized two separate processes, that of
learning, through conscious studying; and acquisition, through the subconscious
processes of comprehending language "that is a little beyond our current level of
(acquired) competence" (p.32). Here knowledge and learning, and use and
acquisition can be viewed as the separable components of communicative
8


competence as defined by Chomsky, Hymes and Canale. Widdowson's (1978)
assertion that acquisition of communicative competence is "the ultimate aim in
language learning" (p.67), necessitates reconciling these distinctions for practical
classroom purposes. Widdowson usefully and pertinently recognized that
communicative competence is ―not a list of learnt items, but a set of strategies or
procedures 'for realizing the value of linguistic elements in contexts of use' (1979a,
p.248)
1.1.3 Communicative performance

Communication has become fully accepted as an essential and major
component of the “product' of language teaching, but it has not yet been given more
than a token place, as an essential and major component of the 'process'. A logical
extension of the argument would suggest that if communication is THE aim, then it
should be THE major element in the process.
(Allright, 1979, p.167)
Allright's call for the centrality of performance is fundamental to teaching
language communicatively. Brown (1994) recognizes "students' eventual need to
apply classroom learning to heretofore unrehearsed contexts in the real world"
(p29). Materials need to provide the contexts in which knowledge and use, or
learning and acquisition can be tested, applied and evaluated, as Ellis recognized,

Communicative opportunity is both necessary and sufficient for acquisition to take
place; the contribution of language teaching materials must be to provide this.
(1982, p.75)
Performance identifies for learners how pronunciation and successful
communication are mutually dependent, through breakdowns in communication. These
create immediate, focused and relevant teaching opportunities to "bring students to the
point where they can utilize the outside world" (Krashen,1982.p.183). Similarly,
Widdowson urges learners do the things they will recognize as purposeful ... and have
some resemblance to what they use their own language to do (1990, p.160)

9


This combination of competence (knowledge) and performance is termed
"communicative performance" by Canale and Swain, or "the realization of
competencies and their interaction in the actual production and comprehension of
utterances" (1980,p.6). They succinctly encapsulate the essence of
communicativeness,
The primary objective of a communication-oriented second language
programme must be to provide learners with the information, practice, and much of
the experience needed to meet their communicative needs in the second language.
(ibid, p.28)
Performance also necessitates intelligible pronunciation, also essential to
communicative competence (Morley,1987). This provides clear interactive goals
and requires actual use. Pennington (1996) states "no communication can take place
without a certain level of mutual intelligibility" (p.220). Celce-Murcia et al. (1996)
cite evidence indicating a threshold level of phonological competence, below which
intelligibility and communication will suffer regardless of grammatical and lexical
proficiency.

1.1.4. Needs

The first, essential, point to make is that needs do not have themselves an
objective reality (Brindley, 57.p.65) ―What is finally established as a ―need‖ is a
matter for agreement and judgement not discovery‖ (Lawson, 75.p.37) quoted in
Brindley (57. p. 65). The needs that are established for a particular group of
students will be an outcome of a needs analysis project and will be influenced by
the ideological preconceptions of analysts. A different group of analysts working
with the same group of students, but with different views on teaching and learning
would be highly likely to produce a different set of needs.
A number of people, for example Berwick (55), Brindley (57), Mountford
81),Widdowson (326) have discussed the different meanings or types of needs.
10


First, needs can refer to students‘ study or job requirements that is what they have to
be able to do at the end of their language course. This is a goal-oriented definition
of needs (Widdowson, 326, p.2). needs in this sense are perhaps more appropriately
described as ―objectives‖(Berwick, 55. P. 57). Second, needs can mean ―what the
user-institution or society at large regards as necessary or desirable to be learnt from
a program of language instruction‖ (Mountford, 81. P. 27). Third, we can consider
what the learner needs to do to actually require the language. This is a processoriented definition of needs and relate to transitional behavior (Widdowson, 326. p.
2). Fourth, we can consider what the students themselves would like to gain from
the language course. This view of needs implies that students may have personal
aims in addition to (or even in opposition to) the requirements of their language
course (Berwick, 55. p. 57) is that such personal needs may be another devalued by
being viewed as wants or desires. Finally, we may interpret needs is what the
students do not know or cannot do in English.

1.1.5. Needs analysis

―From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs‖
(Karl Marx)
We have defined ESP as an approach to course design which starts with the
question ―Why do these learners need to learn English?‖, but it could be argued that
this should be the starting question to any course: General or ESP. all courses are
based on a perceived need of some sort. Otherwise, why would English find its way
on to a school or college timetable: someone at some time must have decided there
was a need for it. What then, in the terms of our definition, is the difference
between ESP and General English?
The answer to this very reasonable question is in theory nothing, in practice a
great deal, it is often argued that the needs of the General English learner, for
example the schoolchild, are not specifiable. This is an assumption that owes more
to instructional inertia and the weight of tradition than to any reality, but it is a
11


powerful force nevertheless. In fact, this is the weakest of all arguments, because it
is always possible to specify needs, even if it is only the needs to pass the exam at
the end of the school year. There is always an identifiable need of some sort.
What distinguishes ESP from General English is not the existence of a need
as such but rather an awareness of the need. If learners, sponsors and teachers know
why the learners need English, that awareness will have an influence on what will
be acceptable as reasonable content in the language course and on the positive side,
what potential can be exploited. Thus, although it might appear on the surface that
the ESP course is characterized by its content ( Science, Medicine, Commerce,
Tourism, banking, etc.), this is, in fact, only a secondary consequence of the
primary matter of being able to readily specify why the learners need English. Put
briefly, it is not so much the nature of the need which distinguishes the ESP from
the General course but rather the awareness of a need.

This being said we would still maintain that any course should be based on
and can have an useful effect on General English and indicates once more the need
for a common approach. The answer to the analysis will probably be different, but
the questions that need to be asked are the same. Nevertheless, for the time being,
the tradition persists in General English that learner needs can‘t be specified and as
a result no attempt is usually made to discover learners‘ true needs. Thus, if we had
to state in practical terms the irreducible minimum of an ESP approach to course
design, it would be needs analysis, since it is the awareness of an target situation- a
definable need to communicate in English-that distinguishes the ESP learner from
the learner of General English.

1.1.6. Changing the communicative needs

Discusses on testing of English as an international language have been
shaped by the discourse on colonization and postcolonial orientations to English.
We have to consider the changes in the communicative order to examine whether
these discourses are still relevant.
12


Colonization was influenced by what Stuart Hall (1997) called modernist
globalization. In this form of geopolitical relationship, communities related to each
other in a hierarchical and unilateral fashion. The dominant communities assumed
the superiority of their cultural and social systems, even that of their language, and
attempted to spread their influence at the cost of local traditions. However, the new
social and technological forces unleashed by this form of globalization have
generated a new relationship between communities.
Some have labeled this position the International English perspective
(Davies, Hamp-Lyons, & Kemp, 2003). But this is a misnomer. Making a case for
standard British or American English as the norm for testing cannot be treated as

being international in any meaningful sense of the term. Besides, the school of
lingua franca English (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004) holds a position at variance
with the International English perspective. It is therefore important to distinguish
these two perspectives.pora groups; the Internet; transnational production and
economic relationships; and the compression of time and space through travel,
media, and communication account for what Hall called postmodern globalization.
This social context is marked by traits that are different from those of previous
social formations: The first is the interaction between communities is multilateral—
that is, international involvement at diverse levels is needed in today‘s economic
and production enterprises. The second is

national boundaries have become

porous—people, goods, and ideas flow easily between borders. The third is
languages, communities, and cultures have become hybrid, shaped by this fluid
flow of social and economic relationships. English enables, and is in turn shaped by,
these trans-cultural flows. To understand the radical implications for English, we
need to re-examine the assumptions of the World English model which was
introduced by Kachru in 1986. This model raises disturbing questions for
assessment practices: It brought into crisis our previous assumptions on the nature
of English language; and with all the other communities increasingly using English
as a foreign language, primarily for international purposes, labeled the expanding
13


circle and positioned further in the periphery. More important, the model
established the legitimacy of the new varieties of English in the outer circle,
affirming their norms and usage. The model thus pluralized the English language.
We are now unable to treat English as a homogeneous language characterized by a
uniform norm or grammatical system.

However, the conditions featuring

postmodern globalization call into question some of the assumptions behind the
Kachruvian model (Kachru, 1986): firstly the model legitimizes each variety in the
outer circle in terms of its national identity. Thus, Indian English is valid for India,
Nigerian English for Nigeria, and Singaporean English for Singapore, and so on.
However, these varieties of English have started to leak outside their national
borders in postmodern globalization. Indian English is relevant not just for Indians
anymore. Personnel from the outsourced companies in Madras or Bangalore use
their variety of English when they conduct business with people from other
countries. More important, British or American nationals cannot be satisfied with
their prestigious varieties anymore. Americans now have to transact many
important types of domestic and personal business with companies outside their
border. Indian English is now necessary for Americans. They should at least have
receptive skills in World English to transact business with outsourced companies.
On the other hand, speakers in the expanding circle do not use English solely for
extra-community relations. For countries such as China, Vietnam, Philippines, and
Brazil, English performs many important functions within borders. What about the
importance of international news, popular culture, and advanced education in these
countries? There have been reports in scholarly literature on how hip-hop music in
English is appropriated and re-created in a range of communities-Belgium, Japan,
Holland-for local consumption. These considerations call into question the
ESL/EFL (English as a second language–English as a foreign language) distinction
and demand that we take account of the increasing currency of English in
expanding-circle countries. More important, we are learning that expanding-circle
communities are developing new norms as they use English for lingua franca
14

communication. We cannot treat them strictly as norm dependent, as Kachru
labeled them. Multilingual speakers do not seem to defer to inner-circle norms
when they communicate with each other in English. Lastly if there is still a
grudging acceptance in the Kachruvian model that the inner-circle countries enjoy
ownership over English—that is, although Kachru labeled the other two circles
norm developing and norm dependent, he called the inner circle norm providing—
the spread of English questions this assumption. The oft-cited statistics by Graddol
(1999) and Crystal (1997) have shown that speakers outside the inner circle have
grown in number. In terms of the currency and usage of the language, there is
clearer evidence that English is used more in multinational contexts by multilingual
speakers than it is in homogeneous contexts of monolingual speakers. These
considerations raise questions about the periphery status of the outer and expanding
circles in the Kachruvian model. The latter communities are quite central to the
character and currency of English today.
These developments demand a re-conceptualization of the relationship
between the diverse varieties of English. It is not necessary to announce the death of
the native speaker and usher in the dominance of the periphery in theorizations of
English language. We have to at least move closer to the position that English is a
heterogeneous language with multiple norms and diverse grammars. We have to
start working with Crystal‘s notion of English (2004) as ―a family of languages‖ (p.
49) or McArthur‘s egalitarian model (1987) where the different varieties relate to
each other on a single level (and not on three hierarchies, as in Kachru‘s model.
In a context where we have to constantly shuttle between different varieties
and communities, proficiency becomes complex. To be really proficient in English
today, one has to be multidialectal. This does not mean that one needs production
skills in all the varieties of English. One needs the capacity to negotiate diverse
varieties to facilitate communication. The passive competence to understand new
varieties is part of this multidialectal competence. Therefore, we have to move from
the ―either–or‖ orientation in the testing debate to a ―both and more‖ perspective.
15

Let me spell out what proficiency in English entails in the postmodern context of
communication: first, although I am in sympathy with the need to assess outercircle speakers according to endogenous norms, this is not enough. They must be
ready to engage with inner-circle and expanding-circle communities in order to
accomplish important communicative and socioeconomic functions. Second,
proficiency in communicating with inner-circle communities is not enough for
outer-circle

and

expanding-circle

communities,

because

much

of

the

communication in English happens among multilingual speakers in nonnative
interactions. Researchers on English as a lingua franca point out that when speakers
in the outer and expanding circles speak to each other, they are able to negotiate
their differences in their own terms and accomplish their communicative e needs
effectively without deferring to inner-circle norms (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer,
2004). Standard American or British English does not have any relevance to many
communicative activities of millions of multilingual speakers outside the inner

circle. Third, proficiency means, then, the ability to shuttle between different
varieties of English and different speech communities. In this sense, the argument
becomes irrelevant whether local standards or inner-circle standards matter. We
need both and more—that is, the ability to negotiate the varieties in other outer- and
expanding-circle communities as well. Last, this orientation to globalization does
not mean that speakers of English today have to be proficient in all the varieties
under the sun. What we find from research on English as a lingua franca is the
importance of negotiation skills—such as speech accommodation—for shuttling
between English varieties and speech communities. Such realizations suggest the
need for an important shift in assessment practices. From focusing overly on
proficiency in grammar or in abstract linguistic features, we have to focus more on
proficiency in pragmatics. Sociolinguistic skills of dialect differentiation, code
switching, style shifting, interpersonal communication, conversation management,
and discourse strategies are important for shuttling between English varieties
(McKay, 2005). We have to be open to the fact that although interlocutors may use
16


convergence strategies to facilitate communication, they can adopt divergence
strategies to distance themselves from each other (Jenkins, 2006). In such cases, we
cannot treat the breakdown in interaction as miscommunication but as a creative
rhetorical act.
In effect, in our attitude to proficiency, we have to shift our emphases from
language as a system to language as social practice, from grammar to pragmatics,
from competence to performance. Of course, these constructs are not exclusive.
However, the bias in language teaching and testing circles is still very much on the
first construct in each pair. Defining language use as performative involves placing
an emphasis on the second construct in each pair and considering how language
diversity is actively negotiated in acts of communication under changing contextual
conditions. In other words, it is not what we know as much as it is the versatility

with which we do things with English that defines proficiency. What implications
does the aforementioned communicative scenario hold for norms? We realize that
norms are relative, variable, heterogeneous, and changing. Posing the options as
either ―native English norms‖ or ―new English norms‖ is misleading. A proficient
speaker of English in the postmodern world needs an awareness of both. He or she
should be able to shuttle between different norms, recognizing the systematic and
legitimate status of different varieties of English in this diverse family of languages.
More interesting, research on English as a lingua franca has shown that there are
new norms developing when multilingual people communicate with each other. The
search is on for the lingua franca core (Seidlhofer, 2004). As multilingual speakers
focus more on intelligibility rather than on grammatical correctness, they are
developing new norms of English that are different from both the local and the
metropolitan varieties.
All this leads to the view of English as a heterogeneous language with
multiple norms, with each norm coming into play at different levels of social
interaction. Proficiency in the world of postmodern globalization requires the ability
to negotiate this variability. We might have to address the fact that there are
17


different norms that come into play at different levels of social interaction.
Although lingua franca core comes into play in multilingual contexts, the local
norm may have to be used in clearly demarcated contexts of inner-circle or outercircle usage. In extremely formal institutional contexts where inner-circle norms are
conventional (such as in academic communication), one has to adopt the established
norms. This multi-layering of norms does not have to be confusing as it sounds.
Although pedagogy and assessment still largely focus on unitary norms, research on
the everyday communication of multilingual students and adults has shown that
they draw from intuitive resources and skills to negotiate diversity effectively.
Students adapt to the varieties of neighboring communities for symbolic and
affective reasons outside the classroom. This might be considered a convergence

strategy of adopting the language variety of another group to express solidarity and
facilitate intelligibility. Harris, Leung, and Rampton (2000) showed how a Bengali
student picked up Rastafarian English from the Jamaican communities in his
neighborhood to communicate with them. Bengalis in London have probably found
that Rastafarian English facilitates friendship and other social transactions with the
Jamaican community. Ibrahim (1999) found that Somali students in Toronto
adopted hip-hop English for certain contexts. They found Afro-Canadian identity
and cultural features important in order to develop an urbane identity. Lam (2000)
found that a Chinese American student who was defined as limited English
proficient in the classroom negotiated diverse varieties with his Internet buddies
from other countries as they successfully discussed topics in pop and teen culture.
Such untutored strategies of negotiation develop in social practice as multilingual
people engage with speakers of other languages in their linguistically diverse
environments. According to the South Asian perspective on identity and community
articulated by Khubchandani (1997), such strategies are native to periphery
communities because of their multilingual history.

18


1.1.7. The impact of integrated language skills in communication

The proposed model ESP syllabus is basically skills based syllabus
integrated with the types of personal group and mass communication and
interrelating with the types of speaking and writing activities. The students should
be engaged in interactional communication activities to improve speaking skills.
Engaging the students in interpersonal communication activities like providing
self-introduction, small talk, extempore, conversation, chatting, interview and role
play; group communication activities like conducting business meetings, group
discussions, panel discussions, brain storming and problem solving; and mass

communication activities like delivering lectures, public speaking,

seminars,

symposiums, conferences will make the students to participate and perform in the
interactive tasks. The students will be able to execute oral tasks with sheer
confidence and attempt to display fluency in both language and communication.
Working in pairs, groups and acting as an audience to witness the activities will
help the students to realize themselves about their level of participation and
performance. The comments and the feedback provided by both the colleagues and
faculties will make them to understand to perform better in subsequent oral tasks.
Teachers should train the students in the speaking activities like greeting and
wishing one another, introducing and briefing oneself, presenting about oneself,
revealing personal profile, presenting a short lecture, public speaking, presenting on
any topic of interest, engaging in informal chatting with short dialogues,
participating in mock interviews, performing a role play, presenting a business or
technical paper, participating in meetings with an agenda of scrutinizing business
developments, thinking logically and critically on any business or technical issues,
providing a solution to the problem will make the students to literally develop their
professional and technical communication. The students should be specifically
given tasks to improve speech on discourse and rhetoric (Widdowson, 1983). They
should be able to engage in narrative, descriptive, explanative and interrogative
mode of language tasks. Narrating an ordeal or experience, describing a process or
19


any graphical representations like graphs, diagrams, pictures and maps, providing
an explanation on a given situation and analyzing a case through oral questionnaire
will make the students to improve their communicative ability to engage in
rhetorical discourse.

Speech on rhetoric and discourse should be trained through practicing to
question variedly and to prepare questionnaires on any inquiries on any desirable
subject, will improve interrogative skills to process arguments and to precede
judgment on any issues.They should be able to frame questions like to put tag
questions in conversations, yes/no type and wh‘ type for extracting inquiries in
discussions.
Writing skills should be adequately improved by providing tasks in writing
composition, letters and reports. They need to be given practice to write error-free
sentences. They should be able to think and organize their ideas in a logical
sequence and should use discourse markers for ascertaining coherence in their
thought and writing. They should be able to write with good spelling and
punctuation. They should also be given practice to identify and distinguish the
international use of English language styles like MLA, APA and LSA.
Students should be able to practice both formal and informal letter writing to
correspond on any official and administrative letters, business mails and report
writing.

They should be able to write official letters, memoranda, inter-office

memo, circular, agenda, minutes and notices. They should be acquainted with the
vivid practice of writing business letters and e-mails. They should be able to
understand the distinctive use of formalized informal mails, informal formalized
mails, formal and informal mails. They should be given an adequate training on
calling quotations, placing orders, complaining on any issues, appreciating on any
services, asking for clarification and explanation on any new products, giving
suggestions, instructions, directions,
letters

seeking recommendations and reference

on any context. Letters of application with CV, writing personal and

professional profile should be encouraged to practice.
20


Writing a proposal on any project, writing the layout of the project, writing
project reports, industrial reports, and business reports should be often practiced to
improve their project and research writing. Students should be assigned to engage in
individual, pair or a group to undertake some mini projects and to do some field
survey to improve their research skills and subsequently to put the report in writing.
Research skills are highly scholastic and eventually it leads to impart high degree of
speaking and writing ability to enhance professional and technical communication.

Chapter 2: the study
This chapter will be devoted to present some aspects of methodology of the
research. The methodology will be discussed under two sub-headings. Section 2.1
introduces a description of the subjects of the research, data instruments with the
methodology, the data collection procedure. Section 2.2 provides the results from
the collected data and the discussion of those results at the same time about
students‘ needs and actual use, students‘ wants, students‘ workers‘ lacks as well as
language attitude.

2.1. Data and Methodology
The design of this investigation is based on the work of Hutchinson and
Waters (1987), and Dudley-Evans and Jo ST John (1998), in which they define
needs in terms of ―target needs (i.e. what the learner needs to do in the target
situation) and Learning needs (i.e. what the learner needs to do in order to learn).‖
The main concern of this investigation will be an analysis of the target needs of the
subjects in these two areas of workplaces. However, as all the subjects of this study

are university undergraduates, no attempt will be made here to investigate their
learning needs. To understand the undergraduates‘ preferred ways of learning, it is
highly recommended that such investigation to be conducted at the University of
Labor and Social Affairs in Hanoi, Vietnam, where several ESP courses are taught
to the university students. The target needs, the focus of this work, are further
21