Use of English in the Scientific Community in France: Obstacles and Stakes

Abstract

English as a lingua franca (ELF) has emerged as a way of referring to
communication in English between speakers with different first languages.
That is the reason why ELF is the language used in science. Yet language is not
limited to communication; it is also tied to the creation of concepts. As English is
developed and transformed by its non-native users into an international scientific
communication language, there is a risk of developing an impoverished form
of English. The use of English as a lingua franca, devoid of culture, and used in
scientific discourse may affect the transmission and the production of scientific
knowledge. We can wonder about the consequences of the development
of English in the scientific academic community and scientific teaching and
learning contexts as all French university curricula have integrated English.
Thus, this paper examines the different representations of science and the English
language used in science. In conclusion, we propose the development 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 the language teaching sector for non-linguists (LANSAD in French).
Key words: representations, science, language, English as a lingua franca,
knowledge, language teaching sector for non-linguists

Full text

USE OF ENGLISH
IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE:
OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
CLAIRE CHAPLIER
Université Toulouse 3– Paul Sabatier, France
Abstract. English as a lingua anca (ELF) has emerged as away of referring to
communication in English between speakers with dierent rst languages.
at is thereason why ELF is thelanguage used in science. Yet language is not
limited to communication; it is also tied to thecreation of concepts. As English is
developed and transformed by its non-native users into aninternational scien ti-
c communication language, there is arisk of developing animpoverished form
of English. e use of English as alingua anca, devoid of culture, and used in
scientic discourse may aect the transmission and the production of scien-
ti c knowledge. We can wonder about the consequences of the development
of English in the scientic academic community and scientic teaching and
learning contexts as all French university curricula have integrated English.
us, this paper exam ines thedierent representations of science a nd theEnglish
language used in science. In conclusion, we propose thedevelopment 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 thelanguage 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 thelanguage of science. It is used and regarded as alingua
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 thelast ten years, theterm English as alingua anca (ELF) has
emerged as away of referring to communication in English among speakers of
dierent 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 acommon native tongue nor acommon (national) culture, and for whom
English is thechosen foreign language of communication’ (Firth, 1996: 240).
Most of the time, language is exclusively considered for communication.
It has been forgoen 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 FNCE: OBSTACLES AND STAKES
Claire Chaplier
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.06.2016.01

Claire Chaplier 5
creates the scientic product. eproduct has to be designed in thescientist’s
mother tongue since it will be beer thought about and expressed. As English is
developed and transformed by its non-native users into aninternational scientic
communication language, there is arisk of developing aform 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) ameans of communication;
• language is thematerial in which knowledge is developed and which is
thescientic 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 sucient; understanding is also a key feature.
Unlike communication, which only deals with inputs and outputs between
transmiers and receivers, understanding is necessarily a reexive 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 theproblem.
is article examines a reective question on the development of English
in thescientic community with aspecic concern for French higher education
(teaching English in theFrench university science degrees– aneducational 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 scientic knowledge if ELF is
used in thescientic community. elink between theissue and our research
domain as a teacher of scientic English and researcher in English for science
at theuniversity level is specied. Once theconsequences of using ELF both in
thescientic community and in scientic higher education have been discussed it
is possible to start dening teaching English for science eciently at universities
to thwart the development of animpoverished form of English in thescientic
community. Finally, thedevelopment 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 dierent disciplines has been debated in
theEuropean community for along time particularly in thedialogue at theconfe-
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 THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
vernacular languages and theuniversal 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 thecase
with Latin as it is with English in the contemporary scientic community, for
example, in theproceedings of thesymposium held at theUniversity of Quebec
in Montreal in 1996 on French and the scientic 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 aproblem that refers to linguistics only. eissue is much
more a fundamental question: how do scientists from dierent 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 wrien by two Germans, Ralph Mocikat and
Hermann Dieter in theFrench journal Les langues modernes in 2014 deals with
thefuture of theGerman language in science and theconsequences of English
used in science in theproduction 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 theEnglish language
in science.
ere are ideological arguments in favour of theEnglish used in this context.
In our era of globalization and internationalization we commonly hear that
English has become theinternational language in many domains. eargument
consists in saying that English is thelanguage of ...– for example, THE language of
science, nance, Europe, companies. But there is no reality to these obvious facts
that refer to politics in thebroadest sense (Truchot, 2008: 142). As aresult English
has become the international language of science and this is afact. Attheheart
of these discussions is therole of English in international contexts (Bruhns and
Nies, 2013).
English is not envisaged in its language dimension by scientists. Historians
of science have oen 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 (Berea,
1996: 105). As Lévy-Leblond (1996: 238) underlined, alanguage is not limited to
its lexicon and specialized vocabulary is only avery limited fraction of thespeech
which is mainly performed in common language. Crosland (2006) added
that language is a signicant part of science even though it is oen neglected.
Lévy-Leblond (1996: 228) asserted that ‘science goes through language’ and
that science cannot do without language. Atext about physics not only contains

Claire Chaplier 7
mathematical equations as students seem to think but also chunks of sentences.
In all sciences, scientic abstraction and rhetorical concepts exist because of
language in theform of anatural language, that is to say, alanguage of culture.
e formulation of hypotheses and the construction of theories are the most
important parts of the process of theproduction of knowledge. e process is
conducted thanks to language which is part of theargumentation and thus plays
a major role. While the experiments and measurements which participate in
theprocess are independent of language.
Before examining the reason for the universality of English in science,
theuniversality of science should be analyzed. Fourez and Larochelle (2004: 56)
investigated theorigin 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 Reexivity, Bourdieu
(2004:10) asked:
How is it possible that a historical activity, inscribed in history as
scientic 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
aneternal 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 thevictory 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
dierent 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. eobjective descriptions that we can have in Oslo or in Naples give
theeect of auniversal discourse.
As Fourez and Larochelle (2004: 62) said it, yes science is universal and so is
theEnglish language. ey justify theuniversality of English with economic and
political factors which are not due to thelanguage 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. theuse of English or French
at international conferences’ (Crystal, 1997: 254). An international auxiliary
language is considered as aninterlanguage which is dened as alanguage meant
for communication between people from dierent 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
theeducated technocracy and language market. Science can be called universal in
thesame way English has become universal, that is to say in favour of economic,
political and military domination (Menahem, 1976).

8 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
In science, thelanguage 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 anobjectivist point of view which believes in theexistence
of a unique, objective truth which is independent of languages and history
(Mocikat and Dieter, 2014: 36).
BACK TO LATIN AS THE LINGUA FNCA 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 oen
justied 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 beer understand the current role of English as theinternational language.
It reminds us that an auxiliary language is indispensable for the circulation
of ideas, especially scientic ideas. It can be obvious, but it is oen forgoen.
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 theCatholic 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 scientic communication
experienced its decline from the 17th century. Its domination in the Middle-
Ages and early modern times caused real scientic sclerosis. At that time, theage
of Scholastics, novelty was hardly part of people’s interest; it was much more
a question of compiling established knowledge and arming the permanence
of indubitable truths that is to say, given as objectively true. Maybe this was
possible with asingle 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, theuniversal language was no longer
enough and vernacular languages were thesolutions. An unprecedented rise of
empirical science took place precisely when Latin was abandoned and thedesire
for knowledge freed from theshackles of Latin. In fact, thedecline of Latin and
therise of national and vernacular languages to thestatus of scientic languages
have played afundamental role in thedevelopment 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 scientic 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 theperiods 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 thecomplexity of thelanguages that are (also)
theexpression of social forms of thought’ (Aden and Peyrot, 2009: 18–19).
Using alingua anca for science in professional usage can raise thequestion
of limited language prociency such as impoverished forms of language and
anabsence 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 wrien communication. euse of ELF, devoid of culture, and
used in scientic discourse may aect the transmission and the production of
scientic knowledge. Lévy-Leblond (1996: 23) recommended granting as much
importance to understanding scientic 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 theadvantages of our time
as we do not know those of previous eras’ (Lévy-Leblond, 1996: 23).
We will examine theconsequences of thedevelopment of English in the scien-
ti c academic community and scientic teaching and learning contexts.
1 TNSMISSION AND PRODUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
In our era of globalization, international scientic 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: abroad public should understand the idea, but
also theproducer of theidea 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
thelanguage?’ (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 anarticle
on theFrench language as anexpression of scientic thought (1956), there is still
the need to add language in physics, despite physics possessing the algebraic
language since Descartes (1960: 391–401).
In thecreative phase of thehypothesis formulation for example, it is necessary
to use one’s native language (when theuser is not procient in English), because
it promotes the development of new ideas, and thus free access to knowledge
(Mocikat and Dieter, 2014: 38). emessage is rst thought in thenative language
before being spoken so when alingua anca is used in this case it loses its roots
in thecommon cultural ground and is then deprived of avital source. ‘Science is
done as it is spoken’ (Levy-Leblond, 1996: 259–260).
When one uses alanguage, it means that they use asystem of standards that
shape thought and its relationship to theuniverse. Each language has asystemic

10 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
set of forms and categories which not only allow someone to communicate but
also shape her/his analysis of reality, inuence her/his reasoning (Leduc, 1996).
Using French, English or any other language refers to asystem of thought and
culture that is specic to each linguistic group. eresearcher’s intuition opens
with all its nuances and network of images at theheart 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 theexplosion of scientic discoveries at theend of
theRenaissance coincided with thedecline of Latin as thelanguage of reection
in European nations. Galileo thought in Italian, and Kepler or Leibniz in German
and Newton in English. Only the results of their reections 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 theworld
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 suciently mastered by
aninternational scientic community to become truly commonplace for commu-
ni cation and reection.
2 TNSMISSION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENTIFIC
ACADEMIC TEACHING AND LEARNING CONTEXTS
e problem of transmission of scientic knowledge can be analyzed at two
levels:
• in science courses taught in English by non-native science professors
(based on acase study in aFrench scientic university (Chaplier, 2013)),
• in courses of scientic English by English teachers teaching in French
scientic 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
theprofessor’s concern to master language. Language gives way to thecontents
that are familiar to students and which are transmied by the professors in
aform of English they are not sure whether it is correct. Science professors have
no teaching experience in a specialized scientic domain in English and no
certication in English. ey say they are not very comfortable linguistically
even if they claim that language is not abarrier as they use it regularly. For them,
theonly subject of interest is thecontent.

Claire Chaplier 11
Oral transmission of knowledge and oral interaction in class are issues of
teaching science in English. Language skills mainly refer to thecommunicative
competence or ease factor (Kurtàn, 2003: 147–150). e science professors
speak of diculties concerning uency, clarity of expression, vocabulary and
varied turns of phrases in order to reformulate what they have said. In general,
they slow down thespeed, 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 theend. Long (1983) and Pica (1994) argued that
comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982) is necessary for language learning. In this
case, thevery specic and new knowledge that teachers transmit to thestudents
in English (the input) may not be really understandable as broad understanding is
not theobjective 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 dicult to transmit their knowledge
into their native language to their non-native students in class as they have read
too many scientic articles in English. As they do not have thelinguistic material
to understand what they read in their native language, they may not be able to
have thecorrect input to transmit in French. einput they have read in English
may not be equal to the output they have expressed in French. e output in
French will become theinput 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: thesemantic and pragmatic dimensions (Trabant, 2013). esemantic
relation, that is to say therelationship to reality, is dicult to handle and above
all in aforeign language. As teaching involves arelational dimension, thestudents
can ask questions to clarify points on dicult subjects or ask for more details.
Consequently theteacher has to know thenuances of thelanguage to reply and
to understand the underlying meaning of the student’s question. e use of
thelingua anca is problematic in this case.
e relevance of English for ascience 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 thecurriculum taught in lingua
anca when teachers and students are not English-speakers (Truchot, 2008:125).
ese curricula are based on anerroneous estimate (ibid.) and therefore aberrant
knowledge on language. eusefulness of obtaining such adegree, knowing that
student mobility is increasingly widespread can also be questioned. Consequently,
thevalidity of theEnglish language has become anissue.
Beacco and Byram (2007) wondered what theconsequences of thedevelop-
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 THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
explicitly warned against ‘unintended eects of this oer of English on thevitality
of thenational language’, referring to
e research that shows that if alanguage is no more than anexpression
of living science and modernity, its other societal functions can suer
from this loss of legitimacy: such dynamics may tend to create asitua-
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 thecommunication among thepersons who do not have acommon
language. eexchange of specialized content will cause aqualitative decline in
form and backward linguistic development. ere is arisk to ‘build statements
that juxtapose disciplinary concepts, such as labels, regardless of theL2 forms’
(Narcy-Combes, 2005: 56). If thespeaker is not aspecialist in theeld, he/she
cannot ‘build cohesion based on domain knowledge’ (ibid.) and theinteraction
will prove to be dicult or impossible for the listener. In this case, it is even
dicult to speak of language.
2.2 TEACHING SCIENTIFIC ENGLISH
e expression scientic English is used in thecase of English teaching in French
university science degrees. e questions of contents to be taught and of
thecompetences of theEnglish teachers in terms of specialized contents are raised.
Trouillon (2010: 100) asked a relevant question: ‘Is scientic English
anEnglish apart?’ Scientic English is atype of English as there are Englishes
which are ‘ hybrids reecting the complex process of loan word, combination
and style with other language varieties (or discourses)’ (Ricento, 2006: 4).
Scientic English is therefore ‘a particular variety of English in that it is very
representative of adiscourse community that does not need English as mother
tongue […]’ (Trouillon, 2010: 100). It should be useful to distinguish between
theEnglish used by scientists (daily) from scientic English taught in class.
English teachers who teach scientic English in scientic degree programs
think that they know their area of expertise: teaching and learning scientic
English in anacademic context for science students who are non-specialists of
English. Yet they cannot integrate knowledge and expertise in scientic English
in aprofessional context. However, it seems that thestudents must be placed in
acontext of action. ey cannot either understand the scientic issues of their
actions because they are not familiar with didactics of languages or of disciplines.
In fact, teaching scientic 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 theinstitution.

Claire Chaplier 13
ere is therefore a lack of teacher training in scientic English at
universities. As a result, practical knowledge in English is taught without
scientic knowledge, which could especially be damaging at the master’s level.
Without theknowledge 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 thefact that learners position themselves as experts
as they advance in their studies. As Dudley Evans and St John (1998: 188) noted,
theteacher does not have to ‘become aspecialist 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, theuniversity 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. equestion of thecontent 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 theteachers’ commitment.
As theinstitution produces students who may have taken theabove-mentioned
courses and who will use the language that they have learned in the scientic
workplace, we, as researchers and teachers, can play a role in designing English
teacher training in theFrench 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 scientic subjects say that
English is a lingua anca in their subject teaching in English (Chaplier, 2013).
Areection 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
theeducation process, foster thesocial conditions required to broaden theaccess
to higher education, and promote employability.

14 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
1.1 THE FRENCH LANGUAGE TEACHING SECTOR FOR
NON-LINGUISTS
Since the 1970s, all French university curricula have integrated language
courses. us, avast language training sector for non-linguists emerged called
theLANSAD sector. It was faced with ahigh 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
theplace of languages at universities. On-going globalization and increased trade
have progressively highlighted thecommunicative dimension of language. Until
the2000s, thelanguage teaching sector for non-linguists has grown rapidly and
is characterized by its heterogeneity.
New educational needs have been identied. A new non-specialist English
learner prole has emerged: agreat 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 theissue of English learning and teaching in France
cannot be underestimated. French was alanguage of international exchange and
culture, and was spoken in many countries. egrowing hegemony of English has
generated many negative responses from policy-makers, institutions, the world
of arts, and teachers. elaer 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
thereduction of alanguage to alingua 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
theEuropean level (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
and European Language Portfolio).
2 REINTRODUCING THE LANGUAGE AND CULTUL
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 asocial activity.

Claire Chaplier 15
2.1 CULTURE IN SCIENCE
Culture is one of themost complicated words in theEnglish language (Williams,
1975). Morin (1969) added that theconcept of culture is unclear and complex in
human sciences.
e cultural dimension in theuse of English in scientic contexts is anissue.
In English, the expression scientic literacy is used, which literally means ‘the
ability to write and read’ science and in French culture scientique. equestion of
culture in science is acontroversial 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 scientic practices and more personal
reections are totally separated. Culture in science should be reintegrated as
acommon culture even for non-specialists in science and in courses– in science
or English.
Scientic discourse seems completely devoid of therootedness of theparti cu-
lar speech of its villages and local cultural characteristics (Fourez, 1996: 124). It
appears that scientic culture has been forgoen. Yet it is needed to understand
a scientic 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 theimportance of this shared culture in
science, one should try to read ascientic book from the16thcentury: one will soon
be convinced that common culture is necessary for theuniversality of scientic
discourse to be operational (Fourez, 1996: 125).
Another type of culture which allows for appropriate scientic knowledge,
through writing or oral forms should be evoked. Both are two dierent 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
aheuristic instrument. It has both an external communication function and
an internal cognitive function. Language proficiency, if necessary, is not
sufficient in acommunication 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 THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
e complexity of the relationship between culture and language is best
summarized by Levi-Strauss (1974: 84–85):
First language can be treated as aproduct of culture: alanguage used
in a society reects thegeneral culture of thepeople. 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: thediachronic reason since it is mainly through
language that aperson acquires theculture of thegroup[...] language
also appears as acondition of culture, insofar as thelaer has asimilar
architecture to that language. e one and the other are built by
means of correlations, i.e. logical relationships.
He added that both form theunity of thehuman mind. For Valdès (1985: 1), ‘no
one can feel emotion, and therefore genuinely think in anarticial 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 identies
with it. us it is no longer expressive. It becomes alanguage-object which is not
really alanguage (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 laer is narrowly linked to the history
of the systems and institutions that have developed their own unique legal
concepts and principles. elanguage of science has always favoured theclarity
of communication between researchers. In seeking common ground, it seems
that scientists really sacriced 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 scientic
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 adistinction can be made between the French law system and
theAmerican 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 scientic eort has been constantly traversed by historical
projects and acultural dimension. Scientic English does not take into account
thecultural 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 scientic 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 theCLIL system to students since all
French university curricula have integrated English
3.1 MASTER’S DEGREE FOR TEACHER TINING
IN THE LANGUAGE TEACHING SECTOR FOR NON-LINGUISTS
e increasing demand to ensure courses in specialized English in thelanguage
teaching sector for non-linguists has not changed thetraining 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, asolid 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 specic 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 thesubject which starts with adescription and areection in terms
of thedidactics system is essential. For any training, didactic transposition and
references to knowledge (Chevallard, 1985) are needed and required.
If formal training in thesubject specialization is dicult to design– linguistic
training and non-linguistic discipline training at theuniversity level– training in
specialized languages of aspecic specialization included in thelinguist training
should be envisaged. ere is scarce training for teaching in specialized languages
and specialized English in theclassical 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 specically address the needs of qualitative language teaching sector
for non-linguists in specialized English, but they remain below thequantitative
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 thelanguage teaching sector for non-
linguists. emaster’s degree seeks to train for theteaching 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
theworkplace and at combining eld teaching skills and training in research of
didactics.

18 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
3.2 RESEARCH IN SPECIALIZED LANGUAGES/ENGLISH
Even though numerous studies have been conducted on thetransversal characte-
ristics (e.g. speech, style) of specialized languages, thevertical studies on thesame
object– theintersection between language and specialty– remain rare (Van der
Yeught, 2014). ere is a real epistemological decit in specialized languages
(ibid.). is remains true for scientic English.
My own research on the elaboration of a concept called English for science
illustrates theresearch in specialized English. Some elements of theepistemolo-
gical reection 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 asocial activity. Even if anindividual discovers new knowledge, it is
not part of science unless thenew knowledge is communicated and evaluated by
others. And science requires collaboration, oen with many people with diverse
skills and knowledge.
While its transverse features (e.g. discourse, genre) have been widely
investigated, scientic English still lacks acomprehensive approach pertaining to
themultifaceted object at stake: (1) ascientic content, (2) expressed in aforeign
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 scientic English. Contrary to scientic
English which usually erases thehistorical and genetic circumstances of scientic
discourses in order to make them universal (Stengers, 1987), English for science,
neither thejuxtaposition 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 amaer
of objectivity but also scientic practice as construction (Hacking, 1983).
eaim is to reintegrate scientic thinking to thepragmatic aspect of thelanguage
of science (especially, English) through an interdisciplinary approach: history,
sociology, and philosophy of science.
3.3 TEACHING WITH THE CONTENT AND LANGUAGE
INTEGTED LEARNING SYSTEM
Given themove towards English-taught programs in universities with theAnglo-
Saxon conception of specialized English (English for Specic Purposes
tradition), theroles of language and content merit further research, specically
their integration, and thecourses which can be learnt from anEnglish specialized
perspective to adapt to this new situation.
CLIL, which has grown in Europe since the1990s (Dalton-Puer, 2007), has
been dened as ‘an educational approach where [content] subjects […] are taught

Claire Chaplier 19
through themedium of a foreign language’ to students at all educational levels
(Dalton-Puer, Nikula, and Smit, 2010: 1). Some approaches highlight thedual
integrative focus on content and language, taught by subject specialists or team
teaching (Greere and Räsänen, 2008). ere are dierent types of classication of
CLIL courses ranging from theabsence of theintegration of language and content
to full collaboration between language and discipline specialists. e cases for
courses where theobjective 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 thelanguage dimension in science courses in English which
is oen forgoen (cf. Chaplier, 2013). As Gajo (2009: 19) emphasized, there are
language issues of thedisciplines 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 dierences 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 scientic universities which are oen managed with
two professors, one of them can be theEnglish teacher. elaer will participate
in the lab work in French by taking notes on the linguistic and pragmatic
diculties met by the students. He/she will take into account the academic
input, thetreatment of thecontents in thereception and production phases and
theinteraction which are themain features of CLIL (Wol, 2003). Finally both
professors will conceive the lab work in English and the course of English for
science will enrich thelab work.
With such collaboration the contents have a beer chance to match those
that are taught in the parallel curriculum so that the input is understandable,
emotionally marked (Krashen, 1981) and correlated with thelearners’ acquisition
level (Pienemann, 1984).
CONCLUSION
It is undeniable that a common language of communication is necessary
in the scientic community to exchange knowledge. But it is essential to
understand therelation between language and specialist domain, and thevarious
communicative dimensions conveyed by language (Lévy-Leblond, 1994: 239).
Many examples in wrien and oral scientic communication demonstrate

20 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
linguistic and cultural problems related to language. It is indeed necessary that
areal political language in science (Levy-Leblond, 1996: 248) and at universities
is implemented. Consequently it is essential to revisit theteaching 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.
eepistemic function of language must be considered and that is what we have
tried to do in our approach. us thelanguage teaching sector for non-linguists
would be beer structured and will be a rst step towards a linguistic policy
within universities.
REFERENCES
Aden, J. andPeyrot, M. (2009) Les DNL ou les enjeux dun Enseignement Transculturel
des disciplines [NLD or issues of a transcultural education of disciplines].
Leslangues modernes, 3: 17–27.
Barron, C. (2002) Problem-solving and EAP: themes and issues in acollaborative
teaching venture. English for Specic Purposes, 22: 297–314.
Beacco, J.-C. and Byram, M. (2007) Guide for theDevelopment of Language Education
Policies in Europe From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg:
Editions du Council of Europe. Available from hp://www.coe.int/.../Source/
Guide07_Executive_20Aug_EN.doc [Accessed on 16 July 2015].
Berea, M. (1996) egrammar of maer. 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 Reexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
De Broglie, L. (1956) eFrench language as anexpression of scientic thought. In
OnthePaths of Science (pp.391–401). Paris: Albin Michel.
Bruhns, H. and Nies, F. (2013) Introduction. Trivium 15. Available from hp://
trivium.revues.org/4767 [Accessed on 10 July 2015].
Carter-omas, S. (2005) Langlais à lépreuve de la pluralité : Quelles implications
pour la communication scientique [English test of the plurality: what
implications for scientic communication]. Lavenir des langues et des sciences
humaines dans les Grandes Écoles. Lapprentissage des langues : impératif utilitaire de
communication ou enjeu de culture? Évry: France.
Causa, M. and Derivry-Plard, M. (2013) Un paradoxe de lenseignement des langues
dans le supérieur: diversication des cours pour les étudiants et absence de
formation appropriée pour les enseignants [A paradox of language teaching in
higher education: diversication 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 luniversité au 21e siècle (pp.55–74). Paris: Riveneuve.
Chaplier, C. (2013) Des cours de sciences en anglais à l’EMILE: état des lieux, réexion
et recommandations. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, 32,
3: 57–79.
Chevallard, Y. (1985) La transposition didactique [Didactic Transposition]. Grenoble:
Lapensée 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 lépreuve
(pp.135–180). Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.
Chini, D. (2010) Réponse à Gilles Forlot Statut dominant de langlais : à propos de
quelques eets sur les représentations et limplication aective et cognitive des
élèves dans les apprentissages langagiers [Answering to Gilles Forlot Dominant
status of English: about some eects on representations and aective and cognitive
involvement of students in language learning]. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 7 (1).
Available from hp://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) eLanguage of Science: From theVernacular to theTechnical.
Cambridge: Luerworth Press.
Crystal, D. (1997) eCambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dalton-Puer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
Classrooms. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puer, C., Nikula, T. and Smit, U. (2010) Charting policies, premises and
research on content and language integrated learning. In C. Dalton-Puer,
T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds.), Language Use and LanguageLearning in CLIL
Classrooms (pp.1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1993) Subject specicity in ESP: How much does theteacher need
to know of thesubject? 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: AMulti-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) eSearch for thePerfect 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 asecond language: Notes towards
acultural grammar. English for Specic 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 hp://acedle.org/IMG/pdf/Forlot_
Cahiers-Acedle_7-1.pdf [Accessed on 16 July 2015].
Fourez, G. and Larochelle, M. (2004) [Taming Epistemology]. Apprivoiser lépistémologie.
Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Fourez, G. (1992) [e Construction of Sciences: the Logic Scientic Inventions].
La Construction des sciences. Les logiques des inventions scientiques. Bruxelles:
DeBoeck.

22 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
Frath, P. (2001) Hégémonie de langlais; 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 lenseignement et à la recherche en FLES,
ÉLA, 95: 119–159.
Greere, A. and Räsänen, A. (2008) Report on theLANQUA subproject on content and
language integrated learning– Redening CLIL: Towards multilingual competence.
Available from hp://www.unifg.it/sites/default/les/allegati para grafo/
20-01-2014/lanqua_subproject_on_clil.pdf [Accessed on 3November 2015].
Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in thePhilosophy of
Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for Specic Purposes: Alearning centred
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jodelet, D. (1997) Les représentations sociales [Social Representations]. Paris: PUF.
Krämer, W. (2013) [Native language, anengine of creativity for thought]. La langue
maternelle, moteur de la créativité de la pensée. Trivium, 15. Available from hp://
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 scientiques [Cultural
implications of scientic 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 hp://revel.unice.fr/alliage/index.
html?id=3602. [Accessed on 18 August 2015].
Long, M.H. (1983) Native/non-native speaker conversation and thenegotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4: 126–41.
Matalon, B. (1996) La construction de la science. De lépistémologie à la sociologie de la
connaissance scientique [e Construction of Science. From Epistemology to Sociology
of Scientic Knowledge]. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Menahem, G. (1976) [Science and theMilitary]. La science et le militaire. Paris: Seuil.
Mocikat, R. and Dieter, H. (2014) La langue allemande pour la science, quel avenir?
[What is thefuture 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 hp://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 aLanguage Teacher].Paris: Ellipses.
Nicolas, H. (2012) Analyses de pratiques denseignement de savoirs de la physique
stabilisés (lénergie) 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
dénitions, nouveaux objets, nouvelles pratiques [For asocial and cultural history
of science. New denitions, new objects and new practices]. Annales. Économies,
Sociétés, Civilisations, 3: 487–522.
Piaget, J. (1970) Logique et connaissance scientique [Logic and Scientic 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
reections. In E. de Oo, and A. López de Vergara Mendez (Coor.) Las lenguas
para nes especícos 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 hp://www.revue-texto.net/
Reperes/emes/Rastier/Rastier_Eloge.pdf. [Accessed on 9 June 2015].
Ricento, T. (2006) AnIntroduction to Language Policy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Risager, K. (2006) Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Bualo:
Multilingual Maers.
Risager, K. 2007 Language and Culture Pedagogy: From aNational to aTransnational
Paradigm. Bualo: Multilingual Maers.
Rivens-Mompean, A.(2013). Les Centres de Ressources en Langues: vers la modélisation
du dispositif d’apprentissage [e Language Resource Centers: towards
theModelling of theLearning Device]. Villeneuve dAscq: Presses Universitaires
du Septentrion.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005) English as alingua 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 thedidactic action]. In G. Sensevy and
A. Mercier Agir ensemble: laction didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves
(pp.13–49). Ed Paideia: Presse Universitaires de Rennes.
Snow, C. P. (1959) eTwo Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.
Stengers, I. (ed.). (1987) Dune science à lautre. Des concepts nomades [From aScience to
Another. Nomadic Concepts]. Paris: Le Seuil.
Stoller, F. and Grabe, W . (1997) A Six-T’s approach to content-based instruction.
In M.Snowand D.M.Brinton (eds.) eContent-Based Classroom (pp.78–94).
White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.

24 USE OF ENGLISH IN THESCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN FNCE: OBSTACLESANDSTAKES
Supiot, A. (2013) Communiquer ou se comprendre ? [Communicating or under-
standing one another?]. Trivium, 15. Available from hp://trivium.revues.
org/4701 [Accessed on 2 October 2015].
Trabant, J. (2011) Einführende Bemerkungen [Introductory Remarks]. In Berlin
Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaen BBAW (pp. 13–20). Berlin:
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaen.
Trabant, J. (2013) Tributaire de sa propre langue [Depending on Ones Own
Language]. Trivium, 15. Available from hp://trivium.revues.org/4701 [Accessed
on 2 October 2015].
Trouillon, J.-L. (2010) Approches de langlais 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 adisciplinary subject in a foreign language in theFrench context of
the social sciences: challenge, observations and implications]. ASp, 45–46:
111–126.
Truchot, C. (2008) Europe: lenjeu linguistique [Europe: theLanguage Issue]. Paris:
Ladocumentation française.
Valdès, J. M. (1986) Culture Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van der Yeught, M. (2012) Langlais de la bourse et de la nance: description et recherche.
[e English of theStock 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 arecommended route to
contribute to theprofessionalization of language learning]. Recherche et pratiques
pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, 33 (1). Available from hp://apliut.revues.
org/4153 [Accessed on 12 July 2015].
Williams, R. (1975) Keywords: AVocabulary 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 asenior lecturer in thedidactics of specialized English and
more specically science at theUniversité Toulouse 3– Paul Sabatier (France).
Email: claire.chaplier@univ-tlse3.fr.