From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining the Perspectives and Crossing the Limits

Full text

350
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume.7 Number.4 December, 2016
Pp.350 - 364
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining the Perspectives and Crossing
the Limits
Claire CHAPLIER
Deputy Director of LAIRDIL (Research Laboratory in Applied Linguistics and Language
Education)
University of Toulouse 3- Paul Sabatier Toulouse, France
Abstract
This paper contributes to the didactic foundations of an epistemology of specialized English
from a French perspective. Scientific English will be the content domain which will serve this
purpose. While its transverse features (e.g. discourse, genre) have been widely investigated, it
continues to lack a comprehensive approach to what is a multifaceted object, namely: 1)
scientific content; 2) expressed in a foreign language; 3) which needs to be appropriated by
student-learners. Another concept is needed. The transition from scientific English to English for
science is regarded in terms of territory, domain and disciplines and from various perspectives
and limits. Scientific English is envisaged as a narrow domain focused on linguistic aspects. To
remain relevant, scientific English needs to be both broadened and enriched, and its scope
delimited. These weaknesses lead to the design of English for science. The meta-concept of
English for science has been forged to overcome these gaps, by crossing boundaries that limit an
epistemological approach. It is then necessary to trace the method which consists in setting the
boundaries for the new territory of language teaching and learning, which overlaps two domains
– English and science – to develop a new domain – English for science –.
Key words: didactics, English for science, epistemology, languages for specialists of other
subjects (LANSAD), specialized languages

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
351
1. Introduction
Compared to traditional areas such as literature, civilization or linguistics, a lack of
research has meant that specialized English (Anglais de spécialité, ASP) has for many years
lacked prestige. This changed in the 1970s when, under the leadership of Professor Perrin, a new
area was developed which combined research into ASP and the didactics of language teaching.
The field has seen ongoing development over the past 50 years; however it continues to suffer
from a lack of epistemological foundations (Van Der Yeught, 2014).
This author argues that ASP specialists are primarily linguists who confine themselves to
the language dimension of their research, but that the study of ASP should not be limited to a
“historical linguistic exercise” (Van der Yeught, 2012: 17). The situation can be compared to a
teacher who teaches Shakespeare’s plays but does not consider Shakespeare himself and the
context (cf. Van Der Yeught, 2014). Similarly, all of the dimensions of ASP have not yet been
integrated into its epistemology.
This paper contributes to the didactic foundations of an epistemology of specialized
English from a French perspective, in the domain of science. While the transverse features (e.g.
discourse, genre) of scientific English have been widely investigated, it continues to lack a
comprehensive approach to what is a multifaceted object, namely: 1) scientific content; 2)
expressed in a foreign language; 3) which needs to be appropriated by student-learners. Research
is carried out in the context of the wider domain known as Langues pour Spécialistesd’Autres
Disciplines (LANSAD)/Languages for specialists of other subjects that emerged in the 1970s.
While LANSAD brings together a set of teaching practices and a clear educational and scientific
direction, it has so far failed to develop into an independent field of scientific research (Van der
Yeught, 2014).
The research into English for science was motivated by the author’s background studies
in science and present position as a lecturer and researcher at a scientific university in France
(Université Toulouse 3 - Paul Sabatier –UPS). Currently, scientific English at UPS is taught by
teachers who have no real expertise or experience in science and/or the didactics of foreign
languages. Their teaching approach mainly relies on the Anglo-Saxon tradition of English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) which is purposive rather than focused on specialized domains: the
emphasis is on language objectives, while professional and disciplinary objectives are either
ignored orjuxtaposed without any real articulation with language. However, as it is clear that
linguistic objectives are important and that teaching scientific English(Crosnier, 2015) is
essential, some teachers draw upon the ASP concept as it combines linguistics with the cultural
dimensions of language (cf. the concept of “langue-culture”
i
).
In developing the meta-concept
ii
of English for science, ASP researchers need to
constantly cross or eventransgress limits and forge new perspectives (Rabatel, 2013). However,
the process is demanding, and resistance, which can be interpreted in terms of perspectives and
limits, may end in new limitations. There are two ways to overcome the problems: one is to
examine the discipline itself in order to comprehend the knowledge to be explored, and the other
is to take a wider, inter- or multi-disciplinary approach (Rabatel, 2013). This leads to a
discussion of the ‘vertical’ (diachronic) dimension of ASP (Van der Yeught, 2014) by exploring
other approaches focusing on science: its philosophy, history, and sociology. By weaving these

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
352
three dimensions together, and borrowing from Piaget’s “internal epistemological critique”
(1970), the present author develops the meta-concept of ‘English for science’ rather than
‘scientific English’. Unlike scientific English, English for sciencecrosses , combines and
articulates the cultural, linguistic and didactical dimensions of ASP (Morin, 1990). However, this
dialectical process requires the construction of a framework that can overcome both the
diachronic and the syntactic limits and perspectives of English for science.
2. Observations about scientific English and its context
Scientific English in its current form contains several limits that can be regarded as barriers
and inconsistent perspectives. This is due to the general context of LANSAD to which scientific
English belongs. LANSAD as an object is essentially limited to the definition of its elements
(ASP, ESP) (§1) and determined according to institutional constraints applied to the transmission
of knowledge in higher education (§2). Furthermore, scientific English has essentially been
viewed from the perspective of language, while science itself should also be examined in order to
identify its key elements (§3).
2.1. ASP, ESP and LANSAD: a confused domain
An analysis of the general context of language teaching for non-linguists, together with
specialized languages such as ASP (with a particular focus on scientific English), ESP and
didactics offers a particularly fruitful direction for understanding how LANSAD is organized.
Langue de spécialité (LSP) is a French term used to refer to specialized languages (ASP
is the variant for English) and was defined by Perrin (Mémet& Petit, 2001, p.312) and Petit
(2002, 2004). Following their work, the French Société des Anglicistes de
l'EnseignementSupérieur (SAES) approved the following definition (2011), which characterizes
ASP as “a discipline and the fourth branch of ‘English studies’ which examines these objects and
develops a didactic reflection on its teaching and learning” (Mémet& Petit, 2001: 8). According
to Mémet (2008, p. 27), ASPcan be studied from different perspectives: linguistics, didactics,
pedagogy, civilization and culture.
Early issues of the journal Asp, published by the Grouped'Etude et de
RechercheenAnglais de Spécialité(GERAS) pertaining to scientific English show that there are
more pedagogical approaches than didactic reflections (with the exception of research by authors
like Crosnier (1993, 1996)). The principal approach sees language solely from a linguistics
approach and leaves aside other didactic and specialty perspectives. Discourse analysis (e.g.
Carter&Rowley,2001, 2003;Banks, 1998, 2006
iii
) is another perspective of research that was
followed with the study of genre defined by Swales (1990). Many French researchers in English
studies (e.g. Sionis, 1994; Martin, 1996) are, or have been influenced by Trimble (1985)’s and
Swales (1990)’s major works on scientific discourse, in particular the enunciative theory of
French linguists, or research into the sciences of language
iv
(Laffont, 2005). While the transverse
features (e.g. discourse, genre) of scientific English have been studied, vertical studies of the
intersection between the specialized domain, science, and language have been neglected,
together with the diachronic approach. This is supported by the following quote, which shows
that ASP and scientific English have not been studied from all possible perspectives, “To date,
LSPs have never been systematically described and their perimeters are poorly defined, some of
themare constantly changing” (Van der Yeught, 2012, p. 5).

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
353
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition of specialized languages, ESP was developed for economic,
scientific and technical reasons (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987) and became the
dominantinternational approach. It is based on multiple purposes rather than specialized
domains, which means that there is no set body of knowledge to transmit to learners. The focus
is on the learner’s pedagogical objectives and specific professional needs rather than language.
Furthermore as Swales (1985) notes, the approach is essentially synchronic:
ESP practitioners are concerned with the ‘here’ and ‘now’ of their own working situation;
in general they do not look across to see what other people in similar situations are doing
and they do not look back to see what people in their own or other situations have
done(p.2).
ESP’s pragmatic approach makes it an interesting pedagogy yet, as we have seen, it has
limits. Nevertheless, most scientific English teaching relies on the ESP tradition, while ASP and
ESP do not take the same theoretical approach to language.
There are didactic consequences for ASP/scientific English teaching related to, for
example, the appropriation of knowledge by learners and efficiency. Usually, English teachers in
French scientific universities teach and learn the ‘object’ simultaneously. Most have had no
specific training in LANSAD or specialized/scientific English except during their studies and
preparations for competitive examinations .Moreover, they rarely have any experience of
scientific communities(industry, laboratories, education/training). Their approach frequently
relies on the Anglo-Saxon ESP tradition, although if the ASP approach is used, the language
dimension (language as a tool) is emphasized. From the learner’s perspective, courses that are
based on language as a tool do not always serve their professional objectives. Moreover, they
have little motivation to learn a ‘language’ that they have already been learning for seven years
at school. Course contents often reflect a lack of scientific knowledge. It is clear that ASP’s
didactic approach has not yet emerged.
The fundamental problem lies in the general context of teaching and learning languages
for non-specialists, which is rarely seen as a research domain. The characteristics of teaching and
learning are non-existent and hence the aim is unclear (cf. Van der Yeught, 2014). This leads to
epistemological and structural problems: an absence of knowledge that can be transmitted to
teachers and students, and a lack of teacher training (Van der Yeught, 2014). A didactic approach
specific to ASP has not yet emerged.
LANSAD appears to be more similar to a “territory” (O’Connell, 2016) with blurred
boundaries, rather than a clearly delimited domain. It has no set framework and lacks a
methodological approach. Although the reasons for this situation are many and varied, a lack of
institutional policy is the major one. The terms LANSAD, ASP/ LSP and their didactics are often
confused, while they are in fact distinct. Two types of LANSAD course are taught: the first is
designed for students with different specializations who take the same English course, but are not
taught a specialized language; in the second, students with the same specialization are taught
LSP. In the humanities, the first case prevails and the notion of LSP is seen as irrelevant.

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
354
Therefore, there is confusion in both the organization of LANSAD teaching and its
constituent elements. This leads to a lack of perspectives and a need for specific boundaries in
the definition of ASP (although it seems to be a broader domain than ESP), and in the design of
ESP and LANSAD. Furthermore, in the LANSAD context, a didactic approach has rarely been
taken in order to guarantee high standards in the teaching/learning process. The emphasis is on
language rather than the content and the didactic approach. GERAS is the leading French
research group on ASP, and one of its Special Interest Groups (ESP learning and teaching) has
studied the link between ASP and didactics.
2.2. Hyper-specialization and the closure of disciplines in higher education
LANSAD, LSP/ASP and notably scientific English lack epistemological foundations.
This is due to two institutional limits: the researchers’ and teachers’ education, and institutional
recruitment; the first having an impact on the second.
The first point to note is that the English education of LANSAD researchers and teachers
is focused on literature, civilization and linguistics and follows competitive exams to become
teachers. Consequently, they are focused on the language dimension in their research and
teaching. As Lerat (1995, p. 20-21) points out, the linguist is torn between the general
functioning of language and the specialty which characterizes it. Generally the language
dimension takes precedence. Second, there are few LANSAD researchers, notably in scientific
English. Teachers organize their teaching based on their personal knowledge and epistemology
rather than research. Those that do use research-based scientific English rarely take into account
specialty or diachronic analyses, due to their resistance and reticence in tackling scientific
English from other perspectives (Rabatel, 2013).
This situation, which is found in both LANSAD and academic scientific contexts, can be
explained by the institutional organization of higher education research. This is inherited from
Comte’s positivism, which generates a number of sealed barriers.
In higher education, although other models have been proposed (Piaget, 1970),
knowledge continues to be organized vertically (Magnet, 1999). This means that the knowledge
organization model (Tableau synoptique des connaissances positives, 1907) implies a hierarchy
(Hacking, 1983) that places mathematics at the top alongside other hard sciences, “Knowledge
on the top of the hierarchyis, by convention, called ‘positive knowledge’” (Hacking, 1983, p.
153). This rigid, hierarchical system prevents disputes over methods, but hampers the enrichment
and transference of concepts. However, specialized languages in general, and specialized English
in particular, are not structured in a positivist manner. Instead, they take an inter- or multi-
disciplinary form that encompasses and even encroaches upon disciplines in the humanities and
exact sciences. Although multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches are advocated in research and
teaching programs, it is rather as an ideal than a concrete aim; they are rarely operational in
reality. As Morin (1999) stresses, “the organization of knowledge I currently struggling with a
fundamental conflict between the disciplinary closure and poly-disciplinary reorganization”.
Students should be able to use their training and knowledge to grasp the ‘complexity of the real’.
Given the difficultly of teaching and learning a foreign language, learning requires a focus on
new problems and progress comes from crossing disciplinary limits (Cortès, 2003, p. 10). For
instance, although specialized vocabulary is the most visible/taught aspect of LSP, teaching

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
355
should also encompass the syntactic and semantic relations between the language and the
specialty. Moreover, the aim of LSP is to be taught, which implies the development of a didactic
methodology.
This organization leads to the hyper-specialization of disciplines and hence their
compartmentalization. Consequently, with a few rare exceptions syllabi are established
according to the classical division between disciplines and specialties, notably between the hard
sciences and humanities. It then becomes unlikely that teachers, researchers and decision-makers
work together. According to Lahire
v
(2012), there are “negative effects of disciplinary
confinement, hyperspecialization and a narrow form of academic professionalism”. We are
deprived of “elements of enrichment of one’s thought”(p.322). Moreover, the established
knowledge is only partial, and a clear image of the world is lacking.
It appears that when English courses are introduced in scientific universities, they are
viewed as “incommensurable worlds” (Kuhn, 1962). This means that they are embedded in
starkly contrasting conceptual frameworks and languages do not overlap sufficiently to permit
them to interact, or exchange ideas in order to optimize teaching and research cooperation.
2.3. Science as a key domain for teaching scientific English
Scientific English is not yet a domain, discipline or a sub-discipline of ASP. We know
that it is composed of two domains – language and science – that are taught as multiple, separate
“disciplines” (Fourez, 1996, p. 81), e.g. chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
English studies is an academic subject with an established community specialized in the
field. As Fourez and Larochelle (2004,p. 82-83) assert, academic categorizations have both
advantages and drawbacks. The main advantage is that they are an interesting way to consider
the world. Each category has its own powerful, scientific approach (Callon, 1989). Teaching
according to discipline consists in transmitting specific ways of examining and solving a set of
questions that are part of a standard heritage. However, although this point of view is specific, it
is not inevitable and other approaches could have been taken. The chosen perspective is always
partial and often determined socially and historically. The boundaries between disciplines are the
result of the particularity of the point of view that is adopted. However, in the case of English for
science, it is insufficient to merge several disciplines as they mainly consist of scholarly
knowledge.
The phrase ‘scientific English’ contains two terms: language and science. However, the
latter has received little attention in research and teaching, and merits further investigation. The
problem with science primarily lies in its unclear definition, which often relies on social
representations. This is not only due to the lack of teachers’ and researchers’ knowledge, but also
to the nature of ‘science’ itself. Science has always been seen as hermetic and limited to
specialists who are the only ones who can understand it. Non-specialist teachers are excluded by
the use of standardized symbols, equations and concepts. They skim the surface, or use science
as the background or pretext for the study of language as a tool. However, science is also a
domain that can be apprehended through other disciplines, and this analysis argues that its many
aspects should be understood. It is generally perceived through various clichés that are analyzed
here.

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
356
It is often said that science can do without language. However, language is a significant,
although neglected part of science (Crosland, 2006). Scientific abstraction and rhetorical
concepts owe their existence to language. AsLévy-Leblond (1996) puts it “language pulls
science” (“la langue tire la science”
vi
).
`There is another widely-shared belief that science is universal (Lévy-Leblond, 2004, p.
104). But few researchers have addressed the meaning of universality, except for some who have
turned to epistemology, history and philosophy. Levy-Leblond (1996), Pestre(1996),
Fourez(1996) and Soler (2009) all study science and notably the issue of its universality. Fourez
and Larochelle (2004) define the term “universal”. Science is universal in some aspects (Fourez,
1996). It is a form of knowledge shared between two legitimate poles: on the one hand, there are
several types and models of knowledge that are location dependent; on the other hand,
universality feeds into both spontaneous ideas of objectivity and the uniform effectiveness of
science and technology (Dahan, 2000).
Fourez and Larochelle (2004) link the universality of science to the universality of
language, “yes science is universal, so is the English language”. They argue that the universality
of English was due to the power of American economics and politics, rather than the language
itself. “Even if science is or claims universality for itself, it is forced to make this claim in a non-
universal language” (Hauge, 1996,p. 154). When English is selected as the language of science it
is not a neutral decision, although the choice does not affect the status of science, either in terms
of results or claims of truth. The linguistic choice has an impact on the epistemology of science.
The use of English (or any other language) always draws upon its specific system of thought or
culture. Thus it is impossible to assert outright that science has neither a nationality nor a
language (Leduc, 1996).
Finally it is assumed that the culture of science (which does not mean the same in English
and French) can be taken into account when teaching scientific English. Culture scientifique is
the expression used in French whereas in English, ‘scientific literacy’ is used, which literally
translates into alphabétisationscientifique (Nicolas, 2012). Scientific literacy is a controversial
notion (Désautels, 1998,p. 16). All definitions lie between two extremes: at one end of the
spectrum, it is seen as an autonomous culture, while at the other it is conceived of as an element
that contributes to the action of the citizen in a real situation (Nicolas, 2012).
Language is linked to culture. In science, the language dimension is viewed as non-
essential. This is not the case in humanities, which are situated in a historical and cultural
background (Mocikat& Dieter, 2014).
Science is a form of knowledge that is built with a language in a culture that has specific
ways of thinking and a particular world view. In general, it is relevant to study language in
relation to science and to integrate these elements in thinking about English in scientific
domains, which also allows us to explore other perspectives.
3. Tracing the method
LSP is a mentally constructed object (Van der Yeught, 2012,p. 12). Consequently, unlike a
natural object it cannot be described from its external appearance, and instead has to be
constructed and supported by theory. Thus it is necessary to set the boundaries for the new

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
357
territory of language teaching and learning, which overlaps two domains – English and science –
to develop a new domain – English for science – before establishing it as a ‘discipline’ (Fourez,
1996,p. 81). To do so means push backing the disciplinary limits of English studies and
exploring new perspectives(cf. Rabatel, 2013) in order to examine the specialty itself and to
determine the boundaries of knowledge. However, this dialectical process requires the
construction of a framework based on a didactic perspective that is able to encompass the limits
and perspectives of English for science.
My aim here is not to annex “disciplinary territories” but rather to gather them together in
order to have a clearer view of the world (Lahire, 2012, p. 325). Science is also an individual
concern as science and society are linked. Rather than integrate different disciplines, the author
seeks to use them to inform her own thinking.
3.1. Exploring other perspectives
Epistemology is at the crossroads of many related disciplines that are more or less closely
linked (Soler, 2009). It leads us to examine disciplines that have science as an object—history,
philosophy and sociology—because it can be seen from various perspectives. “An
interdisciplinary approach aims to build appropriate knowledge to a situation which uses the
disciplines for this purpose and does not imply any devaluation of the disciplinary knowledge it
uses”(Soler, 2009, p. 14).
Epistemology is an integral part of the philosophy of science and “not a luxury of
thought” (Lecourt, 2003, p. 105). Integrating the philosophy of science enables us to better
understand different intellectual approaches, modes of scientific thought, and their emergence
(the diachronic perspective, e.g. Baconian thought). Lecourt (2003)takes the example of the
analogy, which was seen as part of a pre-scientific stage of thought and was a key element of the
magicalconception of the world during the Renaissance. However, it is integral to the inventive
approach, and even had a central place in scientific creation(cf.Diderot). Similarly, Lévy-
Leblond (1996, p.269)questions the value of the philosophy of science for science and argued
that it could provide “a meeting between philosophical reflection and scientific knowledge on a
secured and marked terrain”.
Epistemology can also be applied to the history of science. Here, it is necessary to
explore the concept from two complementary perspectives: synchronic and diachronic(Cassin,
2013). From the synchronic perspective, the current corpus of scientific English constituted by
individual researchers and national research networks (e.g. GERAS) is analyzed in order to
understand its current state of development in research and education. The diachronic
perspective is supported by history and aims to establish, through the study of the past, the
elements that contributed to the constitution of science and the scientific ideal .In other words, it
is the study of the conditions of the genesis and development of scientific knowledge. The
diachronic approach examines the transitions and transfers between different languages and
cultures: from Greek to Latin; interactions with Jewish and Arabic traditions; from one ancient
language to a vernacular language; from one vernacular language to another; from one tradition
or system to others; or from one field of knowledge and disciplinary logic to others. For Lévy-
Leblond (1996, p. 23), we cannot fully benefit from the present unless we understand past eras.

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
358
Epistemology also draws upon the sociology of science in the context of interactions
between science and society. This allows an examination of the influence of science on the
political, economic and social organization of philosophical and religious thought and literature,
together with social constraints on the development of science. In the Anglo-Saxon approach,
external factors have increasingly been taken into account. One example is Bloor’s “strong
programs” that essentially gave rise to the field called ‘science studies’ or ‘science, technology,
and society’. One of the key points in this perspective is the analysis of controversies (e.g.
Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Shapin and Schaffer,
1985). Here, the ‘science’ in question is science in the making, i.e. scientific activities rather than
the established scientific corpus. The emphasis on various elements taken from the philosophy of
science triggers the development of competences (i.e. sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence,
Council of Europe, 2001), that are underused in the current language learning/teaching context.
3.2. Setting limits and establishing a framework
The problem then becomes one of limiting the integration of other disciplines in a way
that avoids simply listing them, and developing a relevant concept. A preliminary framework
needs to be designed. Introducing the philosophy and history of science implies drawing a clear
limit between the field of study and others by determining what is encompassed by the concept.
It should not be forgotten that the aim of English for science is teaching with regard to the
definition of ASP. Therefore, a didactic perspective is necessary. Knowledge should be limited
as a function of educational institutions and society, and the focus should be placed on teaching
and learning aspects in this specific context.
Currently, the aim of teaching is not considered in terms of didactic
vii
when referring to
ASP, and notably scientific English. However, teaching should be framed by the didactic
system
viii
and not the classroom, because the topic of interest is knowledge. In the classroom, the
teacher-learner relation is most visible. Empirically, this relation seems to be binary. Yet as a
starting point didactic theory must posit, as a theoretical entity, a ternary relation that unites three
‘objects’: the teacher, the learner and knowledge. Knowledge must be introduced into the
didactic relation because very little of what takes place between teacher and learners can be
understood in the absence of context.
The author first looked at the pedagogical triangle of Houssaye (1988), which can be
considered as a minimum study system based on the concepts of knowledge, teacher, and
student. However, neither the specificities of knowledge, nor contextual elements are taken into
account in this system. Another approach is required, as the main aim is the English teacher’s
training in LANSAD. It is difficult to grasp the teacher’s knowledge in a particular context. This
difficulty can be circumvented by studying it using a didactic approach that is supported by
disciplines that focus on “relationships to knowledge” (Joshua, 1996, 2002). The relationship is
considered from an anthropological perspective (Chevallard, 1989) as the aim is to address the
relationship to knowledge not from the point of view of the subject, but in terms of knowledge
itself. This emphasizes the cultural dimension and captures the effects of social environments on
both the subject and knowledge, in the specific context of the teaching act (Garnier, 2003).
First, the construction of knowledge should be analyzed in terms of the relationship
between the actors, the teaching and learning context, and knowledge. This is known as didactic

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
359
transposition (DT), which is a notion introduced into the didactics of mathematics by Chevallard
(1985, 1991). This concept constitutes “a researcher’s working tool” (Chevallard, 1992) that is
able to explain the full complexity of the teaching/learning process. This is particularly
important, as teaching English for science does not solely consist of knowledge (like
mathematics) but knowledge associated with skills, life skills (savoir-être), etc. DT examines the
origin of knowledge, and the mechanisms that drive the introduction of new types of knowledge
in schools. It focuses on the scientific analysis of ‘didactic systems’, based on the assumption
that the teaching object (savoir enseigné), normally pre-exists as scholarly knowledge (savoir
savant), which is “a body of knowledge, not knowledge in itself”. Scholarly knowledge is
transformed into knowledge to be taught (savoir à enseigner) and then into taught
knowledge(savoir enseigné). The aim here is to integrate the last two forms of knowledge, which
constitute the interactions between the learner, the teacher and knowledge.
The history/philosophy/sociology of science approaches can contribute to courses or
teacher training of, or in English for science. The target is the teachers and their teaching, as well
as the learner and their learning, which implies implementing or enhancing other skills. For
example, when teaching uses an Anglo-Saxon approach based on the sociology of science (and
notably its controversies) more competences are identified and mobilized: the ability to argue
and take a reasoned decision, or a critical approach to information and understanding of
scientific knowledge.
`The disciplinary and didactic/educational issues are thought together in DT theory.
Moreover, this theory provides legitimacy to the activities of English teachers and normativity
(in the sense of standardization) to English for science courses in the LANSAD domain.
4.The meta-concept of English for science
As seen previously, the reorganization of scientific English knowledge not only has
didactic interest but goes further: it constitutes another perspective from which to examine LSP
didactics. English for science becomes a meta-concept aimed at teaching, and an operative
concept in the implementation of teaching and learning systems. Theapproach is both
methodological (because it is research-based) and epistemological (because it requires the
construction of a set body of knowledge). Epistemology is applied to didactics (Mercier, 2008)
and the meta-concept is determined through its object, objective and methodology.
4.1. Object
Unlike scientific English, which usually erases the historical and genetic circumstances of
scientific discourse (Fourez, 1996) in order to make it universal (Stengers, 1987), English for
science, which is neither the juxtaposition of English and science nor its sum, crosses, combines
and articulates the cultural, linguistic and didactical dimensions of ASP (cf. Morin, 1990
ix
).
Science is not only a matter of objectivity, but also involves the construction of scientific
practice (Hacking, 1983). Studying the whole that is not present in each separate part fosters the
emergence of quality. It implies the determination of features and the exploration of perspectives
that have not, so far, been taken into account in scientific English.

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
360
4.2. Aim
The meta-concept aims to provide another vision of science. English for science is a
cultural way of structuring a vision (Fourez&Larochelle, 2004, p. 37). First, it is necessary to
understand current science teaching in order to design the concept. For this reason it draws upon
research in science education that focuses on science not only as a finished product but also in
action (in the form of science and technology teaching). Both comprehension and the production
of science must be reintegrated into the study of science, and above all English for science
courses. While science courses emphasize the production of science, English for science
emphasize understanding. English for science is not limited to the scientific lexicon, and
therefore it must incorporate the role of the researcher, links with the rest of the world and
therefore human relations with the world. A more holistic view of science and knowledge
through language/ discourse (Narcy-Combes, 2005) comes from integrating the “human and
social” dimension of science in order to establish a sub-discipline of ASP (Petit, 2004, p. 7) with
the aim of achieving a higher level or professionalism. Narcy-Combes (2005, p. 37-41)
developed a didactic perspective of language centered on three transductive
x
relationships. The
focus is no longer solely on language, but extends to components such as culture, knowledge and
parole-discourse. This helps students, teachers and decision-makers to broaden their view of
science. The construction of this meta-concept is intended to help in training teachers of English
in the LANSAD domain.
4.3. Methodology
The authoroperates, as Piaget (1970) says, her own “internal epistemological critique”, i.e. she
questions the methods of evaluation and legitimization of the knowledge that it produces and
teaches. The problem of the “foundations” (Piaget, 1970) of English for science can be examined
by researchers in the ASP domain, and not only epistemologists (Lemoigne, 2003). Its scientific,
philosophical and humanist approaches mean that epistemology is polysemous (Verhaegheet al.,
2004, p. 1). A synthetic meaning is then drawn from thinking on the construction and
management of knowledge in science in the context of its relationship with other domains of
scientific thinking.
As mentioned previously, the philosophy, history and sociology of science applied within
a didactic framework help to determine their most coherent and relevant articulation. The author
is guided by the influence of science on language and the weight of culture on science (Pestre,
1996).
The issue of reference arises when discussing the content of teaching English for science,
which cannot be determined simply by scholarly knowledge (as in mathematics). English for
science is a corpus of multi-referential knowledge (Accardi, 2001). The determination of the
types of knowledge in English for science is part of ongoing research.
5.Conclusion
This paper has discussed the transition from scientific English to English for science in
terms of territory, domain and disciplines and from various perspectives and limits. Scientific
English is envisaged as a narrow domain focused on linguistic aspects. To remain relevant, it
needs to be both broadened and enriched, and its scope delimited. These weaknesses led to the
design of English for science. Although the expression ‘scientific English’ refers to two domains,

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
361
(English and science) the latter has rarely been the subject of study. Moreover, the focus has
always been on teaching and learning contexts. Yet it lacks a didactic approach. The meta-
concept of English for science has been forged to overcome these gaps, by crossing boundaries
that limit an epistemological approach.
Firstly, scientific boundaries must be set to the territory of English for science in order to
become a domain and then a discipline in the long term. The design therefore crosses the limits
of English studies and explores new perspectives, taking into account the domain of science from
an inter- or multi-disciplinary perspective. This process has an impact on the contributing
disciplines and domains. Indeed the impermeable limits of external disciplines (such as the
history of science) can be made permeable as transductive relationships (cf. § III. 2) between
language, culture, knowledge reveal common ground and modify the identity of individual
disciplines. The boundaries between English for science and these domains and disciplines can
be envisaged as “frontiers” (cf. The Frontier). This implies changes in both the disciplines and
domains that participate in the encounter and thus teaching English for science and science in
English. Consequently, both English for science and other established disciplines can be thought
of outside the state of institutional organization of science and university, based on a particular
distribution of legitimate objects of study across disciplines.
About the Author:
Claire Chaplier is a senior lecturer in the didactics of specialized English and more specifically
science at the Université Toulouse 3 - Paul Sabatier (France) after completing a diploma in
nuclear engineering and a master’s degree in chemistry (University Paris 6). She has obtained a
Habilitation to conduct researches(HDR in French) in the epistemology of didactic usage of
English for science (1st December 2016, Université Toulouse 3).
References
Accardi, J. (2001). La référence en didactique des LVE : le cas de l'espagnol. Villeneuve
d'Ascq:Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Banks, D. (2006). The simple present and the simple past in the scientific journal article:
adiachronic perspective.ASp, 49-50, Available at http://asp.revues.org/726 ; DOI :
10.4000/asp.726
Banks, D. (1998). Vague quantification in the scientific journal article.ASp, 19-22, Available at
http://asp.revues.org/2666 ; DOI : 10.4000/asp.2666
Callon, M et al., (1989). La science et ses réseaux, genèse et circulation des faits scientifiques.
Paris: La découverte.
Carter-Thomas, S.& Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2001).Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific
discourse: the role of information structure. ASp, 31-33, Available at
http://asp.revues.org/1752 ; DOI : 10.4000/asp.1752
Carter-Thomas, S.& Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2003).Analysing the scientific conference presentation
(CP), A methodological overview of a multimodal genre.ASp, 39-40, Available at
http://asp.revues.org/1295.DOI : 10.4000/asp.1295
Cassin, B. (2013). Penser en langues.Trivium, 15, Available at http://trivium.revues.org/4768.
Council of Europe.(2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
362
Chevallard, Y. (1985).La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
Chevallard, Y. (1989). Le concept de rapport au savoir, rapport personnel, rapport institutionnel,
rapport officiel. In Actes du séminaire de didactique desmathématiques et de
l’informatique (pp. 211-235). Grenoble: LSD Imag et Institut J. Fourier.
Chevallard, Y. (1991). La transposition didactique, du savoir savant au savoir enseigné.
Deuxième édition. Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.
Chevallard, Y. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique : Perspectives apportées par une
approche anthropologique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques 12, (1), 73-112.
Comte, A.(1907).Cours de philosophie positive.Paris: Éditions Schleicher Frères.
Cortès, J. (2003).Préface.Synergies Monde Arabe, (1), 10-11.
Crosland, M. (2006).The Language of Science: From the Vernacular to the Technical.
Cambridge: LutterworthPress.
Crosnier, El. (1993). L’abstract scientifique anglais - français : contraintes et
libertés.ASp,2,Available at http://asp.revues.org/4287 ; DOI : 10.4000/asp.4287
Crosnier, E. (1996). L'intérêt de la modélisation comme aide à la rédaction en anglais pour les
scientifiques français.ASp, 11-14, Available at http://asp.revues.org/3439 ; DOI :
10.4000/asp.3439
Crosnier, E, (2015). L’étude de l’affect dans les textes scientifiques en anglais peut-elle atténuer
le sentiment d’échec chez les étudiants ? Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en
langues de spécialité,34, (2), Available at http://apliut.revues.org/5225 ; DOI :
10.4000/apliut.5225.
Dahan, A. (2000). La tension nécessaire.Alliage, 45-46, Available at
http://revel.unice.fr/alliage/index.html?id=3849.
Désautels, J. (1998). Une éducation aux technosciences pour l'action sociale. In La recherche en
didactique au service de l'enseignement.Journées internationales dedidactique des
sciences de Marrakech(pp. 9-27).Marrakech (Maroc): Université Cadi Ayyad, Facultédes
sciences Semlalia.
Fourez, G. (1996).La construction des sciences, les logiques des inventions scientifiques.
Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Fourez, G.&Larochelle, M. (2004). Apprivoiser l'épistémologie. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Garnier, A. (2003). Le rapport au savoir du professeur : entre contrainte et autonomie. Une étude
de cas dans un cycle de gymnastique au collège. (Unpublished doctoral disssertation).
Université Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III, Toulouse, France.
Hacking, I. (1983).Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of
Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hauge, H. (1996). Nationalising science. In R. Chartier& P.Corsi(dir.),Science et langue en
Europe(pp.159-169). Paris: École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Houssaye, J. (1988).Le triangle pédagogique. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Hutchinson, T.& Waters, A. (1987).English for specific purposes: A learning centred approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Joshua, S. (1996). Le concept de transposition didactique n’est-il propre qu’aux mathématiques?
In C. Raisky&M. Caillot (Eds.). Au-delà des didactiques, ledidactique. (pp. 61-
73).Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Johsua, S. (2002). Spécificités disciplinaires, spécificités didactiques, vers une didactique
comparée. In P. Venturini, C. Amade-Escot&A. Terrisse (eds.),Etude des

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
363
pratiqueseffectives : l'approche des Didactiques(pp. 17-24). Grenoble: La pensée
sauvage.
Kuhn, T. (trad. Laure Meyer). (2008) (1re éd. 1962), La structure des révolutions scientifiques.
Paris: Flammarion.
Laffont, H. (2005).Contribution à la caractérisation de l'anglais pour l'ingénieur. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Université Bordeaux2, Bordeaux, France.
Lahire, B. (2012).Monde Pluriel. Paris: Seuil.
Lecourt, D. (2003). Pourquoi enseigner la philosophie et l'histoire de sciences dans les cursus
scientifiques. Rue Descartes, 41,( 3). Paris: Ed. Collège international de Philosophie.
Leduc, P. (1996).Les implications culturelles des pratiques scientifiques. Conférence de synthèse
la langue d’usage en science: responsabilité collective ou individuelle. Université du
Québec, Montréal, 19-21 March, Available at http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/bibliotheque-
virtuelle/publication-html/?tx_iggcpplus_pi4%5bfile%5d=publications/pubk105/k105-
7.html#3
Lemoigne, J.-L. (2003).Le constructivisme Tome IIEpistémologie de l'interdisciplinarité. Paris:
L'Harmattan.
Lerat, P. (1995).Les langues spécialisées. Paris: PUF.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1996). La langue tire la science.In In R. Chartier & P. Corsi (dir.),
Sciences et Langues en Europe(pp. 235-245). Paris: EHESS.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (2004) La science est-elle universelle ? Alliage, 55-56, Available at
http://revel.unice.fr/alliage/index.html?id=3602.
Magnet, A. (1999). Réseaux de cohérence et de cohésion dans la pratique de l'anglais
scientifique.ASp, 23-26, Available at 1999. http://asp.revues.org/2331 ; DOI :
10.4000/asp.2331.
Martin, J. (1996).Les enjeux du discours scientifique : la stratégie de véridiction.ASp, 11-14,
Available at http://asp.revues.org/3414 ; DOI : 10.4000/asp.3414
Mercier.A. (2008). Pour une lecture anthropologique du programme didactique. Éducation et
didactique2, (1), Available at http://educationdidactique.revues.org/251
Mémet, M.& Petit, M. (dir.). (2001), L’Anglais de Spécialité en France : Mélanges en l’honneur
de Michel Perrin. Bordeaux: GERAS Éditeur.
Mémet, M. (2008).Bref historique de ASp, la revue du GERAS.ASp, 25-28.
Mocikat, R.& Hermann, D. (2014).La langue allemande pour la science, quel avenir ? Les
langues modernes, 1, 35-41.
Morin, E. (1990).Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: Seuil.
Morin, Edgar, (1999).Affronter l’incertitude. Propos recueillis par Martine Fournier et Jean-
Claude RuanoBorbalan, Sciences humaines, 24.
O’Connell, A.-M. (2016).Enseignement des langues en immersion. Approche didactique,
perspective philosophique, exemple pratique : le cas de l’Irlande. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2005).Didactique des langues et TICE. Paris: Ophrys.
Nicolas, H. (2012).Analyses de pratiques d'enseignement de savoirs de la physique stabilisés
(l'énergie) et controversés (le changement climatique). (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Université Toulouse le Mirail - Toulouse II, Toulouse, France.
Petit, M. (2002). Éditorial.ASp, 35-36, Available athttp://asp.revues.org/1552.
Petit, M. (2004).Quelques réflexions sur la fiction à substrat professionnel : du général au
particulier. InM.Petit & S.Isani,Aspects de la fiction à substratprofessionnel (pp. 3-23).
Bordeaux: Université Victor Segalen.

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.7. No. 4 December 2016
From Scientific English to English for Science: Determining CHAPLIER
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
364
Pestre, D. (1996). Langages, cultures et pratiques. Les sciences physiques des derniers siècles et
leurs contextes. In R. Chartier & P. Corsi (eds), Sciences et Langues en Europe(pp. 127-
137).Paris : EHESS.
Piaget, J. (1970). Logique et connaissance scientifique. Paris: Encyclopédie de la Pléiade.
Rabatel, A. (2013).L’engagement du chercheur, entre ‘éthique d’objectivité’ et ‘éthique de
subjectivité’.Argumentation et Analyse de Discours, 10, Available at
http://aad.revues.org/1526.
SAES. (2011).Évolution et enjeux des formations et de la recherche dans le secteur
LANSAD.Available at saesfrance.org/arc/pdf/ASP-LANSAD-
Didactique_de_l_anglais_DEFdoc.pdf
Shapin, S.& Schaffer, S. (1985).Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the
Experimental Life.New Jersey: Princeton UniversityPress.
Simondon, G. (1989).L’individuation psychique et collective. Paris: Aubier.
Sionis, C. (1994). La notion de programme et de modèle d’enseignement en langue de spécialité.
ASp,5-6, Available at http://asp.revues.org/4040 ; DOI : 10.4000/asp.4040.
Stengers, I. (éd.). (1987).D'une science à l'autre. Des concepts nomades. Paris: Seuil.
Soler, L. (2009).Introduction à l'épistémologie. Paris: Ellipses.
Swales, J. (1985).Episodes in ESP. Oxford: PergamonPress.
Swales, J. (1990).Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Trimble, L. (1985).English for science and technology: A discourse approach.Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Van der Yeught, M. (2012).L’anglais de la bourse et de la finance : description et recherche.
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.Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, 33, (1),
Available at http://apliut.revues.org/4153 ; DOI : 10.4000/apliut.4153.
Verhaeghe, J.-C., Wolfs, J.-L., Simon X.& Compère D. (2004), Pratiquer l’épistémologie.
Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur.
Notes:
i
French academics have adopted the concept of “langue-culture” that does not separate the linguistic and the cultural
aspects of language.
ii
A concept which encompasses the concept of scientific English.
iii
For example articles in 1998 and 2006 in a diachronic perspective.
iv
Sciences du langage.
v
Referring to the human and social sciences.
vi
Or “language sticks it tongue out at science” in reference to Einstein who stuck out his tongue instead of smiling on
his 72nd birthday, because he had been smiling for photographers all day.
vii
Which can be defined as the (historically incipient) science of knowledge diffusion and acquisition in society.
viii
A ‘didactic system’ is defined as the relation to a body of knowledge that is organized in the interaction between a
teacher and learners in an institutional context.
ix
Edgar Morin advocated “complex thought”referring toPascal whosaid, “I would notknow the partswithout knowing
the whole, not to know the wholewithout knowingspecificallythe parts” (Pascal, 1657,1962,120)
x
This means that the terms cannot be separated and are to be considered as a whole (Simondon, 1989).