Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
USE OF ENGLISH
IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE:
OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
CLAIRE CHAPLIER
Université Toulouse 3– Paul Sabatier, France
Abstract. English as a lingua anca (ELF) has emerged as away of referring to
communication in English between speakers with dierent rst languages.
at is thereason why ELF is thelanguage used in science. Yet language is not
limited to communication; it is also tied to thecreation of concepts. As English is
developed and transformed by its non-native users into aninternational scien ti-
c communication language, there is arisk of developing animpoverished form
of English. e use of English as alingua anca, devoid of culture, and used in
scientic discourse may aect the transmission and the production of scien-
ti c knowledge. We can wonder about the consequences of the development
of English in the scientic academic community and scientic teaching and
learning contexts as all French university curricula have integrated English.
us, this paper exam ines thedierent representations of science a nd theEnglish
language used in science. In conclusion, we propose thedevelopment of research
in English for science, teacher training, teaching English for science and science
in English (Content and Language Integrated Learning; henceforth CLIL) to
students in thelanguage teaching sector for non-linguists (LANSAD in French).
Key words: representations, science, language, English as a lingua anca,
knowledge, language teaching sector for non-linguists
INTRODUCTION
English has become thelanguage of science. It is used and regarded as alingua
anca because everybody shares the conviction that science is universal
(Lévy-Leblond, 2004: 104), so is its language. Despite being welcomed by some
and deplored by others, it cannot be denied that English functions as a global
lingua anca. In thelast ten years, theterm English as alingua anca (ELF) has
emerged as away of referring to communication in English among speakers of
dierent mother tongues and lingua-cultural backgrounds, including native
speakers of English, who may use ELF as their additional language for aims of
intercultural communication (Seidlhofer, 2005). What is distinctive about ELF
is that, in most cases, it is ‘a “contact language” between persons who share
neither acommon native tongue nor acommon (national) culture, and for whom
English is thechosen foreign language of communication’ (Firth, 1996: 240).
Most of the time, language is exclusively considered for communication.
It has been forgoen that knowledge owes its existence to language and thus
Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture Vol. 6, 2016:4–24
USE OF ENGLISH IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLES AND STAKES
Claire Chaplier
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.06.2016.01
Claire Chaplier 5
creates the scientic product. eproduct has to be designed in thescientist’s
mother tongue since it will be beer thought about and expressed. As English is
developed and transformed by its non-native users into aninternational scientic
communication language, there is arisk of developing aform of Globish which
is an impoverished form of English that serves as a basic tool in international
communication. Hence knowledge and science are in danger because language
conceives knowledge (Nicolas, 2012: 112).
We can say that there are two main positions:
• language is (only) ameans of communication;
• language is thematerial in which knowledge is developed and which is
thescientic product (Trabant, 2011: 20).
ese two positions are generally deemed as alternatives instead of being
comple men tary. Yet a major issue should be taken into consideration. ELF is
used in science not only to communicate but also to transmit and produce know-
ledge. Communicating is not sucient; understanding is also a key feature.
Unlike communication, which only deals with inputs and outputs between
transmiers and receivers, understanding is necessarily a reexive process and
means understanding each other but also to understand oneself (Supiot, 2013).
According to Lévy-Leblond (1996: 246), the production of knowledge not
English is theproblem.
is article examines a reective question on the development of English
in thescientic community with aspecic concern for French higher education
(teaching English in theFrench university science degrees– aneducational sector
of languages for non-linguists called Langues pour Spécialistes d’Autres Disciplines
in French – LANSAD). Here it is hypothesized that serious consequences are
expected for the production and transmission of scientic knowledge if ELF is
used in thescientic community. elink between theissue and our research
domain as a teacher of scientic English and researcher in English for science
at theuniversity level is specied. Once theconsequences of using ELF both in
thescientic community and in scientic higher education have been discussed it
is possible to start dening teaching English for science eciently at universities
to thwart the development of animpoverished form of English in thescientic
community. Finally, thedevelopment of research in English for science, teacher
training, teaching English for science and science in English to students is
proposed since all French university curricula have integrated English.
STATE OF THE ART
e question of languages in the dierent disciplines has been debated in
theEuropean community for along time particularly in thedialogue at theconfe-
rence Science and Languages in Europe held in Paris in 1994 and collected in
the book by Roger Chartier and Pietro Corsi (1996). e book focuses on
languages in science, from a diachronic perspective with the opposition of
6 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
vernacular languages and theuniversal language, then between natural languages
and the perfect language with the search for the ideal language of science and
nally, between vernacular languages and vehicular languages. is was thecase
with Latin as it is with English in the contemporary scientic community, for
example, in theproceedings of thesymposium held at theUniversity of Quebec
in Montreal in 1996 on French and the scientic language of the future with
a focus on French, and more recently in the Franco-German journal Trivium
in 2013 in the issue Science thinks in several languages in the case of cultural
studies. is is not aproblem that refers to linguistics only. eissue is much
more a fundamental question: how do scientists from dierent linguistic and
cultural areas communicate with each other, and most importantly, how do they
produce knowledge together? is question refers to the more general problem
of the relationship between language and knowledge, a question as old as that
of science itself. Another article wrien by two Germans, Ralph Mocikat and
Hermann Dieter in theFrench journal Les langues modernes in 2014 deals with
thefuture of theGerman language in science and theconsequences of English
used in science in theproduction of knowledge.
CURRENT REPRESENTATIONS OF SCIENCE AND THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN SCIENCE
Before dealing with science and the language used in science, we consider
the‘social representations’ (Jodelet, 1997: 53) of science and theEnglish language
in science.
ere are ideological arguments in favour of theEnglish used in this context.
In our era of globalization and internationalization we commonly hear that
English has become theinternational language in many domains. eargument
consists in saying that English is thelanguage of ...– for example, THE language of
science, nance, Europe, companies. But there is no reality to these obvious facts
that refer to politics in thebroadest sense (Truchot, 2008: 142). As aresult English
has become the international language of science and this is afact. Attheheart
of these discussions is therole of English in international contexts (Bruhns and
Nies, 2013).
English is not envisaged in its language dimension by scientists. Historians
of science have oen overlooked the impact and meaning of the language in
science and seen its role as secondary. Scientists such as Galileo and Descartes
helped shape an image of science which is fully independent of words (Berea,
1996: 105). As Lévy-Leblond (1996: 238) underlined, alanguage is not limited to
its lexicon and specialized vocabulary is only avery limited fraction of thespeech
which is mainly performed in common language. Crosland (2006) added
that language is a signicant part of science even though it is oen neglected.
Lévy-Leblond (1996: 228) asserted that ‘science goes through language’ and
that science cannot do without language. Atext about physics not only contains
Claire Chaplier 7
mathematical equations as students seem to think but also chunks of sentences.
In all sciences, scientic abstraction and rhetorical concepts exist because of
language in theform of anatural language, that is to say, alanguage of culture.
e formulation of hypotheses and the construction of theories are the most
important parts of the process of theproduction of knowledge. e process is
conducted thanks to language which is part of theargumentation and thus plays
a major role. While the experiments and measurements which participate in
theprocess are independent of language.
Before examining the reason for the universality of English in science,
theuniversality of science should be analyzed. Fourez and Larochelle (2004: 56)
investigated theorigin of science– in terms of place and time: ‘whose knowledge
is science? […] Are sciences the same in Moscow, Beijing and London?’ ey
nally wondered if science is universal, which means valid in all places and
at all times. In the introduction of Science of Science and Reexivity, Bourdieu
(2004:10) asked:
How is it possible that a historical activity, inscribed in history as
scientic activity, produces trans-historical truths, independent of
history, detached from all ties with the place and the moment, so
eternally and universally valid?
Fourez said that he was trained in a world that believed in the existence of
aneternal science (Fourez and Larochelle, 2004: 11). Lévy-Leblond (2004:112)
replied that we have to admit that science is ‘universalized’ because of globalization
which is thevictory of some types of Western science, at rst European and then
the USA. Yet this universality is spatial (place) and not temporal. For Lévy-
Leblond (2004: 111), there are diverse sciences but also and above all radically
dierent modes of production according to places and times. Fourez (1996: 124)
alternatively stated that science is universal in some aspects. It is partial, biased
and partisan. eobjective descriptions that we can have in Oslo or in Naples give
theeect of auniversal discourse.
As Fourez and Larochelle (2004: 62) said it, yes science is universal and so is
theEnglish language. ey justify theuniversality of English with economic and
political factors which are not due to thelanguage itself. English has been imposed
as an international auxiliary language (Eco, 1994; Levy-Leblond, 1996:236) for
science, auxiliary being referred to ‘natural languages that have been chosen to
aid communication within a special domain (e.g. theuse of English or French
at international conferences’ (Crystal, 1997: 254). An international auxiliary
language is considered as aninterlanguage which is dened as alanguage meant
for communication between people from dierent nations who do not share
a common native language. English incorporates the chronological series of
lingua ancas (Greek, Latin, French). is is both the universal language of
theeducated technocracy and language market. Science can be called universal in
thesame way English has become universal, that is to say in favour of economic,
political and military domination (Menahem, 1976).
8 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
In science, thelanguage dimension is viewed as non-essential whereas this
is not the case in humanities, which are situated in a historical and cultural
background. In hard science, using one sole language does not pose any problems.
is opinion relies on anobjectivist point of view which believes in theexistence
of a unique, objective truth which is independent of languages and history
(Mocikat and Dieter, 2014: 36).
BACK TO LATIN AS THE LINGUA FNCA USED
IN SCIENCE
e use of English in science as the only language of communication and
even as the general language of production and teaching of science is oen
justied with reference to Latin which was the language of European science
for centuries. e history of Latin in Europe from the Renaissance allows us
to beer understand the current role of English as theinternational language.
It reminds us that an auxiliary language is indispensable for the circulation
of ideas, especially scientic ideas. It can be obvious, but it is oen forgoen.
Yet the choice of a lingua anca is essentially determined by the economic
or military power of the dominant country. In the case of Latin, the spiritual
power of theCatholic Church was decisive. It turns out that English now holds
that position, because of the economic and cultural domination of the United
States (Frath, 2001). Latin that was the language of scientic communication
experienced its decline from the 17th century. Its domination in the Middle-
Ages and early modern times caused real scientic sclerosis. At that time, theage
of Scholastics, novelty was hardly part of people’s interest; it was much more
a question of compiling established knowledge and arming the permanence
of indubitable truths that is to say, given as objectively true. Maybe this was
possible with asingle language. However, when repeating canonical knowledge
was not at stake but for understanding nature, that is to say formulating new
knowledge and new theoretical methods, theuniversal language was no longer
enough and vernacular languages were thesolutions. An unprecedented rise of
empirical science took place precisely when Latin was abandoned and thedesire
for knowledge freed from theshackles of Latin. In fact, thedecline of Latin and
therise of national and vernacular languages to thestatus of scientic languages
have played afundamental role in thedevelopment of science in Europe.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE OF ELF FOR SCIENCE
e problem is not the excessive use of English but bad English, which might
damage real scientic communication and thinking. As Lévy-Leblond (1996:
246) said, language pulls science (‘la langue tire la science’). And it can pull it
forward or backward according to theperiods of time. Aden and Peyrot (2009)
asserted that non-national languages cannot be regarded as utility languages.
Claire Chaplier 9
‘is would be without counting thecomplexity of thelanguages that are (also)
theexpression of social forms of thought’ (Aden and Peyrot, 2009: 18–19).
Using alingua anca for science in professional usage can raise thequestion
of limited language prociency such as impoverished forms of language and
anabsence of cultural references. ere is also the risk of developing uncertain
norms (Narcy-Combes, 2005: 32) which will lead to less comprehensible input
both in oral and wrien communication. euse of ELF, devoid of culture, and
used in scientic discourse may aect the transmission and the production of
scientic knowledge. Lévy-Leblond (1996: 23) recommended granting as much
importance to understanding scientic knowledge as to its production, to its past
as to its present. ‘We cannot know what we have until we know what others had
before us. We cannot seriously and honestly appreciate theadvantages of our time
as we do not know those of previous eras’ (Lévy-Leblond, 1996: 23).
We will examine theconsequences of thedevelopment of English in the scien-
ti c academic community and scientic teaching and learning contexts.
1 TNSMISSION AND PRODUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
In our era of globalization, international scientic communication has to be
performed in English. Currently, non-native speakers are more numerous than
natives and they usually communicate in ELF. Two fundamental issues at least
can emerge from the situation: abroad public should understand the idea, but
also theproducer of theidea itself should understand it (Krämer, 2013).
When scientists use ELF in their professional activities ‘how can we imagine
that a conscious and determined language practice may become more critical
and inventive at once, without deep roots expressed in the culture behind
thelanguage?’ (Levy-Leblond, 1996: 245). Carter-omas (2005) pointed out
that the essential content can be communicated with a minimum of words
(700–1000 words) and in doing so the language may be depleted, which
eventually can be dangerous for thought. As Louis de Broglie wrote in anarticle
on theFrench language as anexpression of scientic thought (1956), there is still
the need to add language in physics, despite physics possessing the algebraic
language since Descartes (1960: 391–401).
In thecreative phase of thehypothesis formulation for example, it is necessary
to use one’s native language (when theuser is not procient in English), because
it promotes the development of new ideas, and thus free access to knowledge
(Mocikat and Dieter, 2014: 38). emessage is rst thought in thenative language
before being spoken so when alingua anca is used in this case it loses its roots
in thecommon cultural ground and is then deprived of avital source. ‘Science is
done as it is spoken’ (Levy-Leblond, 1996: 259–260).
When one uses alanguage, it means that they use asystem of standards that
shape thought and its relationship to theuniverse. Each language has asystemic
10 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
set of forms and categories which not only allow someone to communicate but
also shape her/his analysis of reality, inuence her/his reasoning (Leduc, 1996).
Using French, English or any other language refers to asystem of thought and
culture that is specic to each linguistic group. eresearcher’s intuition opens
with all its nuances and network of images at theheart of her/his mother tongue
(Mocikat and Dieter, 2014: 38). A mother tongue is an engine for creativity of
thought (Krämer, 2013); therefore, a lingua anca cannot generate thought.
us it is no coincidence that theexplosion of scientic discoveries at theend of
theRenaissance coincided with thedecline of Latin as thelanguage of reection
in European nations. Galileo thought in Italian, and Kepler or Leibniz in German
and Newton in English. Only the results of their reections were published in
Latin. ‘Most people can think creatively in their native language, and if it excludes
swathes of life and knowledge, then it is not possible to think out of theworld
in the mother tongue’ (Krämer, 2013). In the words of Humboldt, researchers
depend on their own language, which allows them to deploy all their intellectual
abilities. What they have to say can only be expressed in their own language
which is not universal.
Finally, Lévy-Leblond (1996: 246) concluded that English (no more than
any other language) has a short-term chance of being suciently mastered by
aninternational scientic community to become truly commonplace for commu-
ni cation and reection.
2 TNSMISSION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENTIFIC
ACADEMIC TEACHING AND LEARNING CONTEXTS
e problem of transmission of scientic knowledge can be analyzed at two
levels:
• in science courses taught in English by non-native science professors
(based on acase study in aFrench scientic university (Chaplier, 2013)),
• in courses of scientic English by English teachers teaching in French
scientic degrees (present situation and asking open questions).
2.1 SCIENCE COURSES IN ENGLISH TAUGHT BY NON-NATIVE
SCIENCE PROFESSORS
Science professors teach courses of science in English more and more in French
universities. In the case of Université Paul Sabatier (Chaplier, 2013), it is not
theprofessor’s concern to master language. Language gives way to thecontents
that are familiar to students and which are transmied by the professors in
aform of English they are not sure whether it is correct. Science professors have
no teaching experience in a specialized scientic domain in English and no
certication in English. ey say they are not very comfortable linguistically
even if they claim that language is not abarrier as they use it regularly. For them,
theonly subject of interest is thecontent.
Claire Chaplier 11
Oral transmission of knowledge and oral interaction in class are issues of
teaching science in English. Language skills mainly refer to thecommunicative
competence or ease factor (Kurtàn, 2003: 147–150). e science professors
speak of diculties concerning uency, clarity of expression, vocabulary and
varied turns of phrases in order to reformulate what they have said. In general,
they slow down thespeed, avoid complex words and rely more on visual support
(slides) than in native language (L1) (Flowerdew and Miller, 1996: 129–134).
e phenomenon of reduced personality syndrome (the fact of not being able to
speak in second language (L2) as well as in (L1)) can be evoked. ey are not
comfortable enough in English and sometimes maintain linguistic insecurity
that will block their activity in theend. Long (1983) and Pica (1994) argued that
comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982) is necessary for language learning. In this
case, thevery specic and new knowledge that teachers transmit to thestudents
in English (the input) may not be really understandable as broad understanding is
not theobjective of master program’s specialized courses.
e inverted situation may occur in the case of science courses in French.
Non-native science professors may nd it dicult to transmit their knowledge
into their native language to their non-native students in class as they have read
too many scientic articles in English. As they do not have thelinguistic material
to understand what they read in their native language, they may not be able to
have thecorrect input to transmit in French. einput they have read in English
may not be equal to the output they have expressed in French. e output in
French will become theinput to transmit.
Teaching means speaking about new topics whose understanding is arduous
in our case (master’s level). ere are two dimensions, in language are both
present: thesemantic and pragmatic dimensions (Trabant, 2013). esemantic
relation, that is to say therelationship to reality, is dicult to handle and above
all in aforeign language. As teaching involves arelational dimension, thestudents
can ask questions to clarify points on dicult subjects or ask for more details.
Consequently theteacher has to know thenuances of thelanguage to reply and
to understand the underlying meaning of the student’s question. e use of
thelingua anca is problematic in this case.
e relevance of English for ascience class taught in lingua anca can be raised
when one knows that this language is devoid of any ethnic culture. Further more,
there is another point to mention which concerns thecurriculum taught in lingua
anca when teachers and students are not English-speakers (Truchot, 2008:125).
ese curricula are based on anerroneous estimate (ibid.) and therefore aberrant
knowledge on language. eusefulness of obtaining such adegree, knowing that
student mobility is increasingly widespread can also be questioned. Consequently,
thevalidity of theEnglish language has become anissue.
Beacco and Byram (2007) wondered what theconsequences of thedevelop-
ment of English as an international language in universities in most countries
(Northern Europe) were. ey recalled that the Action Plan 2004–2006
12 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
explicitly warned against ‘unintended eects of this oer of English on thevitality
of thenational language’, referring to
e research that shows that if alanguage is no more than anexpression
of living science and modernity, its other societal functions can suer
from this loss of legitimacy: such dynamics may tend to create asitua-
tion of diglossia. (Truchot, 2008: 95)
For example, during an exchange among non-native scientists, a speech in
genuine situations with a threshold of consistency will be performed. It will
be done in an interlanguage. An interlanguage is an intermediary language
which eases thecommunication among thepersons who do not have acommon
language. eexchange of specialized content will cause aqualitative decline in
form and backward linguistic development. ere is arisk to ‘build statements
that juxtapose disciplinary concepts, such as labels, regardless of theL2 forms’
(Narcy-Combes, 2005: 56). If thespeaker is not aspecialist in theeld, he/she
cannot ‘build cohesion based on domain knowledge’ (ibid.) and theinteraction
will prove to be dicult or impossible for the listener. In this case, it is even
dicult to speak of language.
2.2 TEACHING SCIENTIFIC ENGLISH
e expression scientic English is used in thecase of English teaching in French
university science degrees. e questions of contents to be taught and of
thecompetences of theEnglish teachers in terms of specialized contents are raised.
Trouillon (2010: 100) asked a relevant question: ‘Is scientic English
anEnglish apart?’ Scientic English is atype of English as there are Englishes
which are ‘ hybrids reecting the complex process of loan word, combination
and style with other language varieties (or discourses)’ (Ricento, 2006: 4).
Scientic English is therefore ‘a particular variety of English in that it is very
representative of adiscourse community that does not need English as mother
tongue […]’ (Trouillon, 2010: 100). It should be useful to distinguish between
theEnglish used by scientists (daily) from scientic English taught in class.
English teachers who teach scientic English in scientic degree programs
think that they know their area of expertise: teaching and learning scientic
English in anacademic context for science students who are non-specialists of
English. Yet they cannot integrate knowledge and expertise in scientic English
in aprofessional context. However, it seems that thestudents must be placed in
acontext of action. ey cannot either understand the scientic issues of their
actions because they are not familiar with didactics of languages or of disciplines.
In fact, teaching scientic English is based on teacher’s personal knowledge.
Currently there is no research object English for science which has been produced
by researchers and therefore the knowledge taught at the university in our
context is not based on any epistemological foundation except teacher’s practical
epistemology (Sensevy, 2007). Practical epistemology is a theory of knowledge
that comes from practice and is constrained by theinstitution.
Claire Chaplier 13
ere is therefore a lack of teacher training in scientic English at
universities. As a result, practical knowledge in English is taught without
scientic knowledge, which could especially be damaging at the master’s level.
Without theknowledge of science, knowledge of practice remains less formalized
therefore non-transferable (Dugal and Léziart, 2004: 37).
Although English teachers manage to create hybrid disciplinary knowledge,
the question is to determine their degree of competence in specialized
knowledge, being aware of thefact that learners position themselves as experts
as they advance in their studies. As Dudley Evans and St John (1998: 188) noted,
theteacher does not have to ‘become aspecialist discipline’ or to replace her/his
specialist colleagues (Dudley-Evans, 1993: 2).
PROPOSALS TO RE-LEGITIMIZE AND RE-GIVE
CREDIBILITY TO ENGLISH USED IN SCIENCE
In France, theuniversity training of teachers who will have to teach specialized
English and in particular English for science remains very general. However,
a specialized language cannot be seized without a real preliminary training,
given its complexity. equestion of thecontent of teaching and here specialized
language is essential both in terms of credibility when facing the students, of
legitimacy concerning the institution and recognition in terms of maintaining
and renewing theteachers’ commitment.
As theinstitution produces students who may have taken theabove-mentioned
courses and who will use the language that they have learned in the scientic
workplace, we, as researchers and teachers, can play a role in designing English
teacher training in theFrench university science degrees (language teaching sector
for non-linguists called LANSAD in French): creating master’s syllabi for teacher
training, developing research in specialized English and didactics, reinforcing
research-based courses in English (CLIL) and, nally, maybe, adopting a more
structured linguistic policy in French universities.
We provide some proposals in order to re-legitimize and re-give credibility
to courses of English for science and also re-motivate students and sta. As
Chini (2010) suggested, we will refer to teaching language-culture for science
at the university, culture being related to professional and subject dimensions
(Taillefer, 2004), although teachers and researchers of scientic subjects say that
English is a lingua anca in their subject teaching in English (Chaplier, 2013).
Areection should be started among both language and content teachers.
1 THE FRENCH SITUATION
Since 1988, the Bologna Process has pledged to transform and harmonize
European universities so as to encourage mobility and student participation in
theeducation process, foster thesocial conditions required to broaden theaccess
to higher education, and promote employability.
14 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
1.1 THE FRENCH LANGUAGE TEACHING SECTOR FOR
NON-LINGUISTS
Since the 1970s, all French university curricula have integrated language
courses. us, avast language training sector for non-linguists emerged called
theLANSAD sector. It was faced with ahigh demand for English courses for
non-specialists of English and many jobs were developed in universities to meet
this demand. e 1989 reform restructured the French university degrees to
make them compatible with European higher education courses. It contributed
to introducing specialized content in language training. It also referred to
a European dimension to the curriculum, which involves the question of
theplace of languages at universities. On-going globalization and increased trade
have progressively highlighted thecommunicative dimension of language. Until
the2000s, thelanguage teaching sector for non-linguists has grown rapidly and
is characterized by its heterogeneity.
New educational needs have been identied. A new non-specialist English
learner prole has emerged: agreat number of students drawn from all academic
disciplines, with heterogeneous levels in English and variable motivation with
a limited number of hours for English courses. e workforce in this sector
represents 90 percent of students enrolled in higher education (Causa and
Derivry-Plard, 2013: 91).
1.2 THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF ENGLISH LEARNING AND
TEACHING
e political dimension of theissue of English learning and teaching in France
cannot be underestimated. French was alanguage of international exchange and
culture, and was spoken in many countries. egrowing hegemony of English has
generated many negative responses from policy-makers, institutions, the world
of arts, and teachers. elaer deplore that globalization is gradually destroying
whole swaths of culture, lesser-used languages, and even depriving English of
its cultural dimension; hence the generalization of the word Globish refers to
thereduction of alanguage to alingua anca devoid of any traces of culture and
languages (Forlot, 2010; Chini, 2010).
ere is still no real language policy at universities that ‘requires rethinking
the ways of learning languages’ (Rivens Mompean, 2013: 32), except at
theEuropean level (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
and European Language Portfolio).
2 REINTRODUCING THE LANGUAGE AND CULTUL
DIMENSIONS INTO ENGLISH FOR SCIENCE
In science, the language and cultural dimensions are not major concerns.
However, language is essential in conceptualization and the historical and
cultural background are key components in science which is also asocial activity.
Claire Chaplier 15
2.1 CULTURE IN SCIENCE
Culture is one of themost complicated words in theEnglish language (Williams,
1975). Morin (1969) added that theconcept of culture is unclear and complex in
human sciences.
e cultural dimension in theuse of English in scientic contexts is anissue.
In English, the expression scientic literacy is used, which literally means ‘the
ability to write and read’ science and in French culture scientique. equestion of
culture in science is acontroversial notion (Nicolas, 2012: 26). Matalon (1996:9)
stated that culture in science is generally either too far removed from culture
(literature and art) or not widespread enough. Snow (1959) asserted that there
is a double culture: it is a culture where scientists and literary-minded persons
hardly communicate, where professional scientic practices and more personal
reections are totally separated. Culture in science should be reintegrated as
acommon culture even for non-specialists in science and in courses– in science
or English.
Scientic discourse seems completely devoid of therootedness of theparti cu-
lar speech of its villages and local cultural characteristics (Fourez, 1996: 124). It
appears that scientic culture has been forgoen. Yet it is needed to understand
a scientic description. Science forms a common language that provides
benchmarks to scientists in the same way as local elements provided common
benchmarks to all villagers. To realize theimportance of this shared culture in
science, one should try to read ascientic book from the16thcentury: one will soon
be convinced that common culture is necessary for theuniversality of scientic
discourse to be operational (Fourez, 1996: 125).
Another type of culture which allows for appropriate scientic knowledge,
through writing or oral forms should be evoked. Both are two dierent cultures
(Trabant, 2013). Writing transmits rigor and oral performance belongs to
another more open world with its own type of rigor and logic (Lévy-Leblond,
19 96: 255).
2.2 LANGUAGE IN SCIENCE
The primary function of language is to communicate, and above all, it is
aheuristic instrument. It has both an external communication function and
an internal cognitive function. Language proficiency, if necessary, is not
sufficient in acommunication perspective. Rastier (2007: 1) pointed out that
‘the mastery of a language engages as well the expression of the individual
as social communication and cultural transmission’. Moreover, language
shapes the thought of its speakers, but it is through language that culture
is transmitted from generation to generation. As Galisson stated (1994),
language and culture (concept of language-culture) cannot be separated.
It is ‘the unbreakable bond between language and culture’ (Kramsch, 1993;
Risager, 2006, 2007).
16 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
e complexity of the relationship between culture and language is best
summarized by Levi-Strauss (1974: 84–85):
First language can be treated as aproduct of culture: alanguage used
in a society reects thegeneral culture of thepeople. But language
is also part of culture and constitutes one of the elements among
others [...] language can also be treated as a condition of culture,
and for two reasons: thediachronic reason since it is mainly through
language that aperson acquires theculture of thegroup[...] language
also appears as acondition of culture, insofar as thelaer has asimilar
architecture to that language. e one and the other are built by
means of correlations, i.e. logical relationships.
He added that both form theunity of thehuman mind. For Valdès (1985: 1), ‘no
one can feel emotion, and therefore genuinely think in anarticial language’.
Culture has been reintroduced not in language but in communication as
a social act (cf. work of ethnography and anthropology of communication).
According to Chini (2010), if a language is not recognized as the language of
others, it is disconnected from its cultural dimension because no one identies
with it. us it is no longer expressive. It becomes alanguage-object which is not
really alanguage (as it has been described).
2.3 COMPARING ENGLISH FOR SCIENCE AND ENGLISH FOR LAW
English for science can be compared to English for law in the teaching and
learning context at universities. e laer is narrowly linked to the history
of the systems and institutions that have developed their own unique legal
concepts and principles. elanguage of science has always favoured theclarity
of communication between researchers. In seeking common ground, it seems
that scientists really sacriced their own cultural background for a so-called
universal language. According to some scholars, there is practically no language
in mathematics classes taught in English, for example.
English for law has a high degree of cultural knowledge whereas English
for science has a low cultural component. Yet this positioning has no scientic
proof; it is more ideological and reports on current practices. English for law
has a real existence in teaching contexts at universities compared to science in
France because adistinction can be made between the French law system and
theAmerican and British systems. As some disciplines are stamped Anglo-Saxon
like economics and law, English becomes a natural vehicle to thinking. In hard
sciences, English has no cultural dimension, it is only vehicular. erefore, Fourez
(1996: 5) noted that scientic eort has been constantly traversed by historical
projects and acultural dimension. Scientic English does not take into account
thecultural aspect at universities in France.
Language and culture are two factors to be deemed in the process of
teaching and learning a foreign language. When learning a language, one not
Claire Chaplier 17
only stores knowledge about the language, but one learns how to speak and to
use it to communicate (M.-F. Narcy-Combes, 2005: 81). It is for this reason why
integrating scientic culture in courses of English for science is essential.
3 PROPOSALS
We propose to develop research in English for science, teacher training, teaching
English for science and science in English in theCLIL system to students since all
French university curricula have integrated English
3.1 MASTER’S DEGREE FOR TEACHER TINING
IN THE LANGUAGE TEACHING SECTOR FOR NON-LINGUISTS
e increasing demand to ensure courses in specialized English in thelanguage
teaching sector for non-linguists has not changed thetraining of future language
teachers. Teaching in the teaching sector requires knowledge of specialized
language that cannot be reduced solely to vocabulary. is language requires,
however, asolid education which must integrate discursive, historical, cultural,
professional and disciplinary dimensions. It is therefore necessary to train
teachers, not to specialized English in general but to a specic variety of
specialized English like English for science. us teachers will be operational
in this sector where the demand is high. However, before developing training,
research on thesubject which starts with adescription and areection in terms
of thedidactics system is essential. For any training, didactic transposition and
references to knowledge (Chevallard, 1985) are needed and required.
If formal training in thesubject specialization is dicult to design– linguistic
training and non-linguistic discipline training at theuniversity level– training in
specialized languages of aspecic specialization included in thelinguist training
should be envisaged. ere is scarce training for teaching in specialized languages
and specialized English in theclassical path of Anglophone studies dedicated to
teaching, but none are mandatory either before the competitive examinations
(capes, agrégation), or even later. ere are two master’s degrees for anglais de
spécialité (ASP, French conception of specialized English): one at the École
Normale Supérieure in Cachan and one at the University in Le Havre. ese
courses specically address the needs of qualitative language teaching sector
for non-linguists in specialized English, but they remain below thequantitative
requirements of the sector. Master DIDALAP (DIDActique des Langues
étrangères utilisées dans les Activités Professionnelles/ Didactics of Foreign
Languages Used in Vocational Activities) will be opened soon (in September 2016
in Toulouse) for students and teachers in thelanguage teaching sector for non-
linguists. emaster’s degree seeks to train for theteaching of languages used in
professional activities notably in the language teaching sector for non-linguists
(at university). It aims at developing the capacity to use language in action at
theworkplace and at combining eld teaching skills and training in research of
didactics.
18 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
3.2 RESEARCH IN SPECIALIZED LANGUAGES/ENGLISH
Even though numerous studies have been conducted on thetransversal characte-
ristics (e.g. speech, style) of specialized languages, thevertical studies on thesame
object– theintersection between language and specialty– remain rare (Van der
Yeught, 2014). ere is a real epistemological decit in specialized languages
(ibid.). is remains true for scientic English.
My own research on the elaboration of a concept called English for science
illustrates theresearch in specialized English. Some elements of theepistemolo-
gical reection are given here. e rst problem lies in the concept of science.
Fourez and Larochelle (2004: 62) said that science is universal and consequently
valid at all times and in all places. is statement is only partially true. In reality,
science has a language, culture, territory and temporality (Pestre, 1995). Science
is inherently asocial activity. Even if anindividual discovers new knowledge, it is
not part of science unless thenew knowledge is communicated and evaluated by
others. And science requires collaboration, oen with many people with diverse
skills and knowledge.
While its transverse features (e.g. discourse, genre) have been widely
investigated, scientic English still lacks acomprehensive approach pertaining to
themultifaceted object at stake: (1) ascientic content, (2) expressed in aforeign
language, (3) which needs to be appropriated by learners. Weaving together
the three dimensions mentioned above and resorting to Piaget’s ‘internal
epistemological critique’ (1970), we will be able to elaborate a new concept,
that of English for science instead of scientic English. Contrary to scientic
English which usually erases thehistorical and genetic circumstances of scientic
discourses in order to make them universal (Stengers, 1987), English for science,
neither thejuxtaposition of English and science nor its sum (Morin, 1982), will
then transgress, combine and articulate the cultural, linguistic and didactical
(Chevallard, 1994) dimensions of specialized English. Science is not only amaer
of objectivity but also scientic practice as construction (Hacking, 1983).
eaim is to reintegrate scientic thinking to thepragmatic aspect of thelanguage
of science (especially, English) through an interdisciplinary approach: history,
sociology, and philosophy of science.
3.3 TEACHING WITH THE CONTENT AND LANGUAGE
INTEGTED LEARNING SYSTEM
Given themove towards English-taught programs in universities with theAnglo-
Saxon conception of specialized English (English for Specic Purposes
tradition), theroles of language and content merit further research, specically
their integration, and thecourses which can be learnt from anEnglish specialized
perspective to adapt to this new situation.
CLIL, which has grown in Europe since the1990s (Dalton-Puer, 2007), has
been dened as ‘an educational approach where [content] subjects […] are taught
Claire Chaplier 19
through themedium of a foreign language’ to students at all educational levels
(Dalton-Puer, Nikula, and Smit, 2010: 1). Some approaches highlight thedual
integrative focus on content and language, taught by subject specialists or team
teaching (Greere and Räsänen, 2008). ere are dierent types of classication of
CLIL courses ranging from theabsence of theintegration of language and content
to full collaboration between language and discipline specialists. e cases for
courses where theobjective is both disciplinary and linguistic (Wol, 2003: 37;
Stoller and Grabe, 1997: 19–20) are ‘rarer and more positive’ (Tail lefer, 2004: 111).
Science courses in English could be envisaged through the CLIL system
with a partnership among eld specialists in cooperation on the part of
the teacher’s investment – cooperation (being the lowest degree of teacher’s
investment), collaboration and team-teaching (Dudley-Evans, 2001). e aim
here is to reinforce thelanguage dimension in science courses in English which
is oen forgoen (cf. Chaplier, 2013). As Gajo (2009: 19) emphasized, there are
language issues of thedisciplines and disciplinary issues of languages. Sustained
interaction between content and language lecturers is not common (Räisänen,
2009), probably due to a traditional lack of interaction between disciplines.
is cooperation is obviously not simple to implement. It depends on the eld
situation: material/organizational issues, nancial problems but also relationship
problems and risk taking (Aden and Peyrot, 2009: 25). Relationship problems
(Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Barron, 2002) may be due to dierences in
personality, pedagogy and also subjects taught (especially science and language).
is approach can be implemented in the laboratory works (chemistry,
biology, physics, etc.) in scientic universities which are oen managed with
two professors, one of them can be theEnglish teacher. elaer will participate
in the lab work in French by taking notes on the linguistic and pragmatic
diculties met by the students. He/she will take into account the academic
input, thetreatment of thecontents in thereception and production phases and
theinteraction which are themain features of CLIL (Wol, 2003). Finally both
professors will conceive the lab work in English and the course of English for
science will enrich thelab work.
With such collaboration the contents have a beer chance to match those
that are taught in the parallel curriculum so that the input is understandable,
emotionally marked (Krashen, 1981) and correlated with thelearners’ acquisition
level (Pienemann, 1984).
CONCLUSION
It is undeniable that a common language of communication is necessary
in the scientic community to exchange knowledge. But it is essential to
understand therelation between language and specialist domain, and thevarious
communicative dimensions conveyed by language (Lévy-Leblond, 1994: 239).
Many examples in wrien and oral scientic communication demonstrate
20 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
linguistic and cultural problems related to language. It is indeed necessary that
areal political language in science (Levy-Leblond, 1996: 248) and at universities
is implemented. Consequently it is essential to revisit theteaching of languages
and English for science. In university education, the epistemic function of
language is more important than its communicative function. Good teaching
not only provides information but always tries to re-elaborate knowledge,
thus engaging students to participate in the creative process of research.
eepistemic function of language must be considered and that is what we have
tried to do in our approach. us thelanguage teaching sector for non-linguists
would be beer structured and will be a rst step towards a linguistic policy
within universities.
REFERENCES
Aden, J. andPeyrot, M. (2009) Les DNL ou les enjeux dun Enseignement Transculturel
des disciplines [NLD or issues of a transcultural education of disciplines].
Leslangues modernes, 3: 17–27.
Barron, C. (2002) Problem-solving and EAP: themes and issues in acollaborative
teaching venture. English for Specic Purposes, 22: 297–314.
Beacco, J.-C. and Byram, M. (2007) Guide for theDevelopment of Language Education
Policies in Europe From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg:
Editions du Council of Europe. Available from hp://www.coe.int/.../Source/
Guide07_Executive_20Aug_EN.doc [Accessed on 16 July 2015].
Berea, M. (1996) egrammar of maer. In R. Chartier and P. Corsi (eds.). Sciences
and Languages in Europe (pp.109–125). Paris: Ecole des hautes études en sciences
sociales.
Bourdieu, P. (2004) Science of Science and Reexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
De Broglie, L. (1956) eFrench language as anexpression of scientic thought. In
OnthePaths of Science (pp.391–401). Paris: Albin Michel.
Bruhns, H. and Nies, F. (2013) Introduction. Trivium 15. Available from hp://
trivium.revues.org/4767 [Accessed on 10 July 2015].
Carter-omas, S. (2005) Langlais à lépreuve de la pluralité : Quelles implications
pour la communication scientique [English test of the plurality: what
implications for scientic communication]. Lavenir des langues et des sciences
humaines dans les Grandes Écoles. Lapprentissage des langues : impératif utilitaire de
communication ou enjeu de culture? Évry: France.
Causa, M. and Derivry-Plard, M. (2013) Un paradoxe de lenseignement des langues
dans le supérieur: diversication des cours pour les étudiants et absence de
formation appropriée pour les enseignants [A paradox of language teaching in
higher education: diversication of courses for students and lack of appropriate
training for teachers]. In M. P.Faure Derivry-Plard,and C.Brudermann (eds.).
Apprendre les langues à luniversité au 21e siècle (pp.55–74). Paris: Riveneuve.
Chaplier, C. (2013) Des cours de sciences en anglais à l’EMILE: état des lieux, réexion
et recommandations. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, 32,
3: 57–79.
Chevallard, Y. (1985) La transposition didactique [Didactic Transposition]. Grenoble:
Lapensée sauvage.
Claire Chaplier 21
Chevallard, Y. (1994) Les processus de transposition didactique et leur théorisation
[e didactic transposition process and theorization]. In G.Arsac, Y. Chevallard,
J. L. Martinand and Tiberghien (eds.) La transposition didactique à lépreuve
(pp.135–180). Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.
Chini, D. (2010) Réponse à Gilles Forlot Statut dominant de langlais : à propos de
quelques eets sur les représentations et limplication aective et cognitive des
élèves dans les apprentissages langagiers [Answering to Gilles Forlot Dominant
status of English: about some eects on representations and aective and cognitive
involvement of students in language learning]. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 7 (1).
Available from hp://acedle.org/IMG/pdf/Chini_Cahiers-Acedle_7-1.pdf
[Accessed on 16 July 2015].
Chartier, R. and Corsi, P. (eds.) Sciences and Languages in Europe. Paris: Ecole des
hautes études en sciences sociales.
Crosland, M. (2006) eLanguage of Science: From theVernacular to theTechnical.
Cambridge: Luerworth Press.
Crystal, D. (1997) eCambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dalton-Puer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
Classrooms. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puer, C., Nikula, T. and Smit, U. (2010) Charting policies, premises and
research on content and language integrated learning. In C. Dalton-Puer,
T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds.), Language Use and LanguageLearning in CLIL
Classrooms (pp.1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1993) Subject specicity in ESP: How much does theteacher need
to know of thesubject? ASp 1: 1–10.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001) Team teaching in ESP. In J. Flowerdew and M.Peacock (eds.)
Research Perspectives in English for Academic Purposes (pp.225–238). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. and St John, M. J. (1998) Developments in ESP: AMulti-Disciplinary
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dugal, J.-P. and Léziart, Y. (2004) La circulation des savoirs entre recherche et
formation : l’exemple des concepts didactiques lors d’une action de formation
de conseillers pédagogiques [e circulation of knowledge between research and
training: the example of didactic concepts in an action of training educational
counselors]. Revue française de pédagogie, 149: 37–47.
Eco, U. (1997) eSearch for thePerfect Language (e Making of Europe). New Jersey:
Wiley Blackwell.
Firth, A. (1996) e discursive accomplishment of normality. On ‘lingua franca’
English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 237–59.
Flowerdew, J. and Miller, L. (1996) Lectures in asecond language: Notes towards
acultural grammar. English for Specic Purposes, 15: 121–140.
Forlot, G. (2010) Place de l’anglais et paradoxes des apprentissages langagiers
à l’école [Place of English and paradoxes of language learning at school]. Les
Cahiers de l’Acedle, 7 (1). Available from hp://acedle.org/IMG/pdf/Forlot_
Cahiers-Acedle_7-1.pdf [Accessed on 16 July 2015].
Fourez, G. and Larochelle, M. (2004) [Taming Epistemology]. Apprivoiser lépistémologie.
Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Fourez, G. (1992) [e Construction of Sciences: the Logic Scientic Inventions].
La Construction des sciences. Les logiques des inventions scientiques. Bruxelles:
DeBoeck.
22 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
Frath, P. (2001) Hégémonie de langlais; fantasmes et dangers [Hegemony of English;
fantasies and dangers]. Les langues modernes, 3: 31–38.
Gajo, L. (2009) De la DNL à la DdNL: principes de classe et formation des enseignants
[From NLD to Disciplines said to be NL: class principles and teacher training].
Les langues modernes, 3: 15–23.
Galisson, R. (1994) Formation à la didactologie des langues-cultures [Didactology
training in language-cultures]. Formations à lenseignement et à la recherche en FLES,
ÉLA, 95: 119–159.
Greere, A. and Räsänen, A. (2008) Report on theLANQUA subproject on content and
language integrated learning– Redening CLIL: Towards multilingual competence.
Available from hp://www.unifg.it/sites/default/les/allegati para grafo/
20-01-2014/lanqua_subproject_on_clil.pdf [Accessed on 3November 2015].
Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in thePhilosophy of
Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for Specic Purposes: Alearning centred
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jodelet, D. (1997) Les représentations sociales [Social Representations]. Paris: PUF.
Krämer, W. (2013) [Native language, anengine of creativity for thought]. La langue
maternelle, moteur de la créativité de la pensée. Trivium, 15. Available from hp://
trivium.revues.org/4682 [Accessed on 18 August 2015].
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Kurtàn, Z. (2003) Teacher training for English-medium instruction. In C. Van Leeuwen
and R.Wilkinson (Dir.) Multilingual Approaches in University Education: Challenges
and Practices. Nijmegen: Uitgeveerij Valkhof Pers & Talencentrum Universiteit
Maastricht.
Leduc, P. (1996). Les implications culturelles des pratiques scientiques [Cultural
implications of scientic practices]. Conférence de synthèse la langue d’usage en
science: responsabilité collective ou individuelle, Université du Québec, Montréal,
19 to 21 March 1996.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1974) Structural Anthropology . New York : Basic Books, Inc Publishers.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1996) La pierre de touche. La science à l’épreuve… [Touchstone.
Testing Science…]. Paris: Folio.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (2004) La science est-elle universelle? [Is science universal?].
Alliage, 55–56: 104–114. Available from hp://revel.unice.fr/alliage/index.
html?id=3602. [Accessed on 18 August 2015].
Long, M.H. (1983) Native/non-native speaker conversation and thenegotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4: 126–41.
Matalon, B. (1996) La construction de la science. De lépistémologie à la sociologie de la
connaissance scientique [e Construction of Science. From Epistemology to Sociology
of Scientic Knowledge]. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Menahem, G. (1976) [Science and theMilitary]. La science et le militaire. Paris: Seuil.
Mocikat, R. and Dieter, H. (2014) La langue allemande pour la science, quel avenir?
[What is thefuture of German language for science]. Les langues modernes, 1: 35–41.
Morin, E. (1969) [From cultural analysis to political culture]. De la culturanalyse à la
politique culturelle. Communications, 14: 5–38. Doi: 10.3406/comm.1969.1192.
Claire Chaplier 23
Available from hp://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/
comm_0588-8018_1969_num_14_1_1192 [Accessed on 9 August 2015].
Morin, E. (1982) Science avec conscience [Science with Conscience]. Paris: Fayard.
Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2005) Didactique des langues étrangères et TICE [Didactics of
Foreign Languages and TICE]. Paris: Ophrys.
Narcy-Combes, M.-F. (2005) Précis de didactique – Devenir professeur de langue.
[Didactic Handbook– Becoming aLanguage Teacher].Paris: Ellipses.
Nicolas, H. (2012) Analyses de pratiques denseignement de savoirs de la physique
stabilisés (lénergie) et controverses (le changement climatique) [Analyses of teaching
practices of knowledge of stabilized physics (energy) and controversies (climate
change)]. Université Toulouse le Mirail-Toulouse II.
Pestre, D. (1995) Pour une histoire sociale et culturelle des sciences. Nouvelles
dénitions, nouveaux objets, nouvelles pratiques [For asocial and cultural history
of science. New denitions, new objects and new practices]. Annales. Économies,
Sociétés, Civilisations, 3: 487–522.
Piaget, J. (1970) Logique et connaissance scientique [Logic and Scientic Knowledge].
Paris: Encyclopédie de la Pléiade.
Pica, T. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language
acquisition? Conditions, processes, and outcome. Lang uage Learning, 44: 493–527.
Pienemann, M. (1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6 (2): 186–214.
Räisänen, C. (2009) Integrating content and language, in theory, in practice: Some
reections. In E. de Oo, and A. López de Vergara Mendez (Coor.) Las lenguas
para nes especícos ante el reto de la convergencia Europea. 8th International AELFE
Conference (pp.33–41). La Laguna, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones.
Rastier, F. (2007) Éloge paradoxal du plurilinguisme [Paradoxical praise of
multilingualism]. Texto! , 12(3). Available from hp://www.revue-texto.net/
Reperes/emes/Rastier/Rastier_Eloge.pdf. [Accessed on 9 June 2015].
Ricento, T. (2006) AnIntroduction to Language Policy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Risager, K. (2006) Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Bualo:
Multilingual Maers.
Risager, K. 2007 Language and Culture Pedagogy: From aNational to aTransnational
Paradigm. Bualo: Multilingual Maers.
Rivens-Mompean, A.(2013). Les Centres de Ressources en Langues: vers la modélisation
du dispositif d’apprentissage [e Language Resource Centers: towards
theModelling of theLearning Device]. Villeneuve dAscq: Presses Universitaires
du Septentrion.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005) English as alingua franca. In A. S. Hornby (ed.). Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 7th edit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sensevy, G. (2007) Des catégories pour décrire et comprendre l’action didactique
[Categories to describe and understand thedidactic action]. In G. Sensevy and
A. Mercier Agir ensemble: laction didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves
(pp.13–49). Ed Paideia: Presse Universitaires de Rennes.
Snow, C. P. (1959) eTwo Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.
Stengers, I. (ed.). (1987) Dune science à lautre. Des concepts nomades [From aScience to
Another. Nomadic Concepts]. Paris: Le Seuil.
Stoller, F. and Grabe, W . (1997) A Six-T’s approach to content-based instruction.
In M.Snowand D.M.Brinton (eds.) eContent-Based Classroom (pp.78–94).
White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
24 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
Supiot, A. (2013) Communiquer ou se comprendre ? [Communicating or under-
standing one another?]. Trivium, 15. Available from hp://trivium.revues.
org/4701 [Accessed on 2 October 2015].
Trabant, J. (2011) Einführende Bemerkungen [Introductory Remarks]. In Berlin
Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaen BBAW (pp. 13–20). Berlin:
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaen.
Trabant, J. (2013) Tributaire de sa propre langue [Depending on Ones Own
Language]. Trivium, 15. Available from hp://trivium.revues.org/4701 [Accessed
on 2 October 2015].
Trouillon, J.-L. (2010) Approches de langlais de spécialité [Approaches to Specialized
English]. Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan.
Taillefer, G. (2004) Enseigner une matière disciplinaire en langue étrangère dans
le contexte français des sciences sociales : dé, observations et implications
[Teaching adisciplinary subject in a foreign language in theFrench context of
the social sciences: challenge, observations and implications]. ASp, 45–46:
111–126.
Truchot, C. (2008) Europe: lenjeu linguistique [Europe: theLanguage Issue]. Paris:
Ladocumentation française.
Valdès, J. M. (1986) Culture Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van der Yeught, M. (2012) Langlais de la bourse et de la nance: description et recherche.
[e English of theStock Market and Finance: Description and Research]. Paris:
Ophrys.
Van der Yeught, M. (2014) Développer les langues de spécialité dans le secteur
LANSAD – Scénarios possibles et parcours recommandé pour contribuer à
la professionnalisation des formations [Developing specialized languages for
specialists of other disciplines– Optional scenarios and arecommended route to
contribute to theprofessionalization of language learning]. Recherche et pratiques
pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, 33 (1). Available from hp://apliut.revues.
org/4153 [Accessed on 12 July 2015].
Williams, R. (1975) Keywords: AVocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana
Paperbacks.
Wol, D. (2003) Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are
transfer of knowledge and of language ensured? ASp, 41–42: 35–46.
Claire Chaplier is asenior lecturer in thedidactics of specialized English and
more specically science at theUniversité Toulouse 3– Paul Sabatier (France).
Email: claire.chaplier@univ-tlse3.fr.