1. Introduction
It is well known that native speakers of English around the globe are by far outnumbered today by speakers of English as a second or as a foreign language (Crystal, Reference Crystal2008). English is thus regularly used as a lingua franca, i.e. an intermediary language used between speakers of various linguistic backgrounds, for transnational and intercultural communication in many domains of life (such as business, diplomacy, higher education, tourism, etc.). The study of conditions of using ‘English as a Lingua Franca’ (ELF), intrinsically connected to the fields of World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition (Schneider, Reference Schneider2012), has come to be a booming sub-field and topic of research in English linguistics over the past few years, as is indicated by the publication of a few textbooks, the establishment of a conference series, and the launch of a scholarly journal (JELF). The focus of these approaches has been on the functions, usage conditions, and practical applications of ELF (Seidlhofer, Reference Seidlhofer2011), and also, though to a lesser extent, on any characteristic structural properties (Dewey, Reference Dewey2007; Jenkins, Cogo & Dewey, Reference Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey2011; Cogo & Dewey, Reference Cogo and Dewey2012). Clearly, ELF can be found in a wide range of possible applications and contexts, as Cogo & Dewey (Reference Cogo and Dewey2012: 31) have stated: ‘As a natural phenomenon of sociolinguistic variation, ELF includes all types of communicative events, from the transactional to the interactional, and various possible settings, such as the institutional and the casual.’ It is considered to be independent of the interactants' native-speaker status: prototypically ELF involves communication between non-native speakers of English, but sometimes native speakers participate in such encounters as well. It centrally involves accommodation, negotiation and adjustment of forms to achieve successful communication.
I claim in this paper, however, that there is one additional, typical context of ELF usage which has been insufficiently recognized so far in the ELF debate, namely using ‘English for Specific Purposes’ (ESP). By their very nature, the ‘specific purposes’ addressed in this definition call for a level of expertise that often implies international and hence cross-linguistic interaction which then, quite naturally, is carried out in English – and English then, of course, serves as an auxiliary language, constituting ELF usage. I suggest, therefore, that there is a natural overlap, a lot of common ground connecting ELF and ESP. Furthermore, I propose that this relationship should be investigated with respect to both ‘institutional’ contexts (the typical ESP domain) and ‘casual’ applications (which are typically not viewed as such).
2. Focus on English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
2.1 Characterizing ESP
‘English for Specific Purposes’ (ESP) has been recognized as an established (if minor) sub-field in linguistics, covered by a few textbooks (e.g. Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984; Robinson, Reference Robinson1991), a journal (English for Specific Purposes, since 1981), many scholarly studies, and some (constrained) theory. As a sub-discipline of Applied Linguistics, the emphasis of ESP is essentially on practical perspectives, with a focus on uses of English in specific subject domains, essentially for technical purposes. There is a strong association with teaching concerns (cf. Widdowson, Reference Widdowson, Selinker, Tarone and Hanzeli1981; García Mayo, Reference García Mayo2000), to the extent that it has been stated that ‘ESP is a subarea of TESOL’ (Kim, Reference Kim2008: 3).
ESP is often opposed to ‘general English’ (some knowledge of which is presupposed). It is usually subdivided into several topic-related branches. Conventionally, three main sub-types are distinguished (Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984; Kim, Reference Kim2008: 2): English for Occupational Purposes (‘EOP’) (cf. Kim, Reference Kim2008), English for Academic Purposes (‘EAP’), and English for Science and Technology (‘EST’), supplemented by more minor ones (García Mayo, Reference García Mayo2000: 15; Kim, Reference Kim2008: 5–6), such as ELP (Legal), EMP (Medical), ESS (Social Sciences), EBP (Business), and others. It is noteworthy, however, that all of these branches typically have institutionalized, ‘serious’ fields as topics, domains which are important in social and public life and for its economic basis.
2.2 Linguistic properties of ESP (with relevance for ELF research)
ESP has been found to be characterized by rather specific linguistic properties which mostly relate to three main levels of language organization: ‘a certain vocabulary, specific forms and functions, and how these functions interrelate to produce coherent texts’ (Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 18). As is the case with all varieties of English, these are frequency-based associations, i.e. certain tendencies and preferences on these levels rather than clear-cut defining distinctions can be observed.
Most importantly, ESP texts employ a characteristic constrained vocabulary, a (typically large) stock of items which, obviously, is determined by the topic under discussion. Hence, the ability to understand and manipulate it requires factual knowledge of the subject matter. The words used are often highly specialized and technical items (Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 18) which are largely non-transparent to an outsider – hence the difficulty for a lay reader in comprehending ESP texts. Some of these items are rare ‘hard words’ while others may be ‘semi-technical words which often change their “normal” meaning when put into a specialized context’ (Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 19). A considerable proportion of such technical lexemes typical of a specific discipline tend to be internationalisms (and often Latinisms). Finally, it has been argued that ESP vocabulary is characterized especially by products of specific word formation processes – Kennedy and Bolitho (Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 19 and ch. 4) identify three in particular: compounding, derivation (with ‘scientific’ prefixes and suffixes), and acronyms (abbreviations).
Secondly, identifying typical ‘forms and functions’ relates to the level of grammatical structures and their conditions of use. In ESP texts and communication, certain grammatical patterns tend to be preferred, a distribution which is often functionally determined. For example, ESP texts, and even more so EST texts, and perhaps written texts more so than speech in general, are known to display more passives, more complex nominal groups, and fewer question tags than other text types (Kennedy and Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 19). Clearly this is reminiscent of (and possibly caused by) Biber's (Reference Biber1989) dimensions of style features, which are closely associated with specific text types. Informational style, for example, shows a lack of personal involvement and its markers (such as first and second person personal pronouns, discourse markers, wh-questions, etc.). As is well known, the grammar by Biber et al. (Reference Biber1999) consistently worked out frequency-based associations of specific structural patterns with four main styles of British and American English. One of these is ‘academic prose’ – no direct relationship between this grammar and ESP has been established so far, but the close relationship (and presumably to some extent the structural similarity) between these genres is evident.
Thirdly, ESP is characterized by specific textual properties and discourse conventions. Participation in ESP interactions operates via the production and intertextual perception of characteristic, coherent text types in their respective usage contexts. Again, this can be connected with a closely related, wider linguistic perspective, namely text linguistics. Beaugrande and Dressler (Reference Beaugrande and Dressler1981) proposed seven conditions of textuality – properties such as cohesion, coherence, intentionality, situationality, intertextuality, etc., which mark every individual text and also text type; obviously, this applies to ESP texts as well (though to my knowledge this perspective has not been systematically worked out). For example, related parameters include the ‘role and status of the participants’ (Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 20), typical activities, and the linguistic needs derived from them.
Given the applied, teaching-oriented tradition of ESP research, the importance attributed to authentic, subject-specific texts, including their properties and the conditions of their production in context, as models for teaching also is no surprise. In fact, ESP has explicitly moved in this direction recently, considering the growing importance of ‘genre analysis’ in the discipline: increasing emphasis has been placed on ‘the forms of discourse that particular discourse communities engage in, their communicative conventions and purposes, the role texts play in particular environments, [and] their genre products’ (García Mayo, Reference García Mayo2000: 45).
3. The relationship between ELF and ESP
To my knowledge (and based on a search of writings on both subjects), a special relationship between ELF and ESP has hardly been recognized so far – only indirectly and weakly so (if at all). From the ESP side, the fact that ESP uses typically occur in international settings is addressed, e.g. by Kim (Reference Kim2008:1), who mentions professional uses of English in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan (similarly García Mayo, Reference García Mayo2000: 22f.; Kennedy & Bolitho, Reference Kennedy and Bolitho1984: 1), but I have not found any explicit reference to ELF in writings on ESP. Conversely, from the ELF side, no mention is made of ESP in some recent standard sources on ELF (e.g. Jenkins, Reference Jenkins2007; Mauranen & Ranta, Reference Mauranen and Ranta2009; Seidlhofer, Reference Seidlhofer2011; Cogo & Dewey, Reference Cogo and Dewey2012), with two exceptions, both weak and indirect.
In Seidlhofer (Reference Seidlhofer2011), the term ‘ESP’ is used but the notion is not really referred to. In fact, the argument that ESP constitutes a special set of uses of English is actually turned around when discussing the relationship between English as a Native Language (ENL) and ELF, arguing that ELF today constitutes the ‘default’ communicative context. Seidlhofer states: ‘we might start thinking of learning speaking and writing ENL as ESP’; ‘it is ELF that is EGP [English for General Purposes]’ (200). From the perspective of her re-conceptualization of ELF (as the globally dominant context of using English) this may seem logical, but clearly this posits an unconventional understanding of ESP. In a sense, it is interesting that the author's focus is so strongly on a functional definition of ELF but the ESP function is disregarded completely.
In the second instance, while the notion of ESP is referred to (indirectly), the term is not used as such; but nevertheless the relationship is thus indirectly recognized. Jenkins, Cogo & Dewey (Reference Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey2011: 297) list typical domains of ELF, such as ‘business, education (both school and university settings), tourism, politics, technology and the media’, and argue that of these ‘two … [are] especially prevalent: business English and academic English’ (p. 281). Instead of the label ESP the authors introduce the terms ‘BELF’ and ‘ELFA’ for these domains (and the same applies to Mauranen & Ranta, Reference Mauranen and Ranta2009). Irrespective of terminology, however, a strong overlap with the core domains and concerns of ESP becomes obvious here. Scholars like Susanne Ehrenreich (Reference Ehrenreich, Mauranen and Ranta2009) on business English in transnational companies and Anna Mauranen on academic English, operating fully in an ELF framework, have thus built a bridge between both disciplines, albeit without explicitly discussing the connection with ESP.
In contrast I believe this relationship needs to be recognized and made the focus of future research much more explicitly. I thus propose the following
Hypothesis:
(H) There is a substantial amount of overlap between ELF and ESP (in specific contexts); both are intrinsically related.
This relationship can be viewed, and thus substantiated, from both ends:
• Many ELF interactions constitute instances of ESP usage – if they are focused on a specific subject (as they frequently are: ELF users tend to get together in specific contexts which revolve around a topic, and often these encounters are organized by some institution).
• ESP usage constitutes a case of ELF if speakers with different linguistic backgrounds are involved in the interaction (as is frequently the case: ESP is usually practiced by expert groups; and expert groups are often transnational by their very nature).
Thus, for example, German engineers involved in technology development in collaboration with other European partners, and with plants and collaborators in China, Japan, Korea, the US, or elsewhere on the globe, practice ESP as experts focusing on their respective tasks and ELF in their interaction with other non-native speakers of English at the same time; both perspectives are intrinsically tied together. ESP is target-oriented and typically transcends national boundaries, and so the need for ESP interactions constitutes one important motivation for ELF usage. I am thus tempted to coin the ‘blended acronym’ ‘ELFSP’, ‘English as a Lingua Franca for Specific Purposes’, even if it may sound forbiddingly clumsy.
There are a number of conceptual similarities and theoretical parallels between ELF and ESP which motivate my claim for the need for a combination of both.
• Both represent a ‘function, not a variety’, as Seidlhofer (Reference Seidlhofer2011:77) stated with regard to ELF, i.e. their definition relates to specific usage contexts and conditions, not to properties typically associated with dialects of a language such as regional or social coherence with an identity-creating and sociolinguistically indexical role.
• With respect to the relationship between their practitioners, both can be viewed as ‘communities of practice’, collaborative social groups constituted by specific tasks at hand and by a shared enterprise of some kind, a notion introduced by Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (Reference Eckert and McConnell-Ginet1992) and discussed authoritatively in Meyerhoff (Reference Meyerhoff, Chambers, Trudgill and Schilling-Estes2002). For ELF, Seidlhofer (Reference Seidlhofer, Volk-Birke and Lippert2007; Reference Seidlhofer2011: 87–8) has emphasized the importance and relevance of this notion (similarly Ehrenreich, Reference Ehrenreich, Mauranen and Ranta2009: 134). ESP research has not taken it up, as far as I know, but its relevance to ESP, defined by language use focused on some ‘special purpose’ and hence shared topic, is immediately transparent.
• Thirdly, both approaches emphasize their ‘applied’ nature, with a strong emphasis on teaching needs and strategies; in both disciplines journal papers and conference presentations very often deal with teaching issues.
• Finally, text-linguistic and discourse-analytic lines of thinking are prominent in both ELF and ESP: both tend to be realized in characteristic communicative frames and discourse settings; both are associated with characteristic text types; both are marked by specific structural and textual properties; and while ELF is not as strongly topic-centered as ESP is, it may be assumed to follow suit here as well, given that ELF users normally get together in tightly circumscribed social contexts.
In practice, a look at the table of contents of ELF publications or the program at ELF conferences shows that much work on ELF is actually on ‘ELFSP’, investigating lingua franca uses of English in very specific, topic-defined settings.Footnote 1 Clearly, ELFSP is alive, even if it is leading a somewhat shadowy life, not being recognized as such so far.
In the following section I illustrate a case of ELFSP – but I want to add an additional dimension to the picture, the observation that unlike the impression one can gain from earlier writings ELFSP can be ‘just for fun’, as it were. As was stated above, studies of ESP usually relate to ‘serious’ subfields, which are important and productive in a society, illustrated by the prominent subtypes of EOP, EAP, EST, etc., mentioned earlier. Obviously, this is of concern to Applied Linguistics for its practical and monetary value. But it is not the whole story; it fails to cover the entire range of ELF and ESP applications. People increasingly interact in international and multicultural settings around ‘less serious’ topics – they come together to discuss or practice sports, travel, the arts, and other pleasant things in life. Clearly, these are instances of both ESP and ELF, hence ELFSP, but in nonprofessional, leisure-activity settings. Cases in point may be international sports competitions, windsurfing lessons, music festivals, online gaming, congregational youth meetings, and certainly many more occasions, provided they are transnational in participation and centering on some topic or activity; there are certainly many more types of leisure activities triggering ELF and ESP at the same time. For the time being, and the purpose of the present paper, we may coin the even more tongue-twisting acronym ‘LA-ELFSP’ to denote ‘leisure-activity ELF-ESP’ as a subtype in its own right. Given the less socially constrained nature of such activities it may be hypothesized that LA-ELFSP will be more strongly informal and may be associated with relatively more oral components and characteristics, but this remains to be investigated further.
My case study of LA-ELFSP concerns English as conventionally used in scuba diving. I work out some persistent properties of this type of communicative context and some observations which can typically be made in such settings which illustrate the qualities observed on ELF and ESP in earlier writings, summarized above, to substantiate my claim that ELFSP (and LA-ELFSP, for that matter) constitute linguistic topics in their own right.
4. The language of scuba diving as a case study of LA-ELFSP
Scuba diving is an activity which, based on its needs and its very nature, typically (though not obligatorily) results in contexts which generate conditions favorable to LA-ELFSP.Footnote 2 It is usually carried out at select (often tropical) locations to which divers travel because there is exciting submarine wildlife to see. Given inherent dangers and needs, it can hardly be performed individually but typically attracts divers to systematically provided frameworks, i.e. diving organizations, centers and bases which provide the necessary infrastructure, local support, instruction and equipment. For these purposes, people have to get together and to interact in specific roles – scuba diving practitioners and their structured environment thus constitute a classic case of a ‘community of practice’, a typical trait of ELF and ESP.
Divers from many countries travel to attractive locations and come together there, very often forming international groups together with locals and divers from other countries. In Egypt, for example, famous for its magnificent diving sites on the Red Sea and also both relatively easily accessible from Europe and a potential goal or transit stop from the Asia-Pacific region, I have met divers from Australia, Japan, China, Russia, and all across Europe and Egyptians, of course, both as divers and as support staff. Not surprisingly, then, in diving encounters for in-group and on-site communication, both spoken and written, use of English is the default norm, irrespective of location and origins of participants. Scuba diving thus constitutes classic ELF territory.
Of course, verbal exchanges tend to focus on the subject matter at hand – the equipment, the divesite, rules for behavior during the dive and underwater interaction, etc. Scuba diving thus also constitutes a classic application of ESP.
Hence, it seems uncontroversial that we are talking about ELFSP here. Furthermore, the divers go there deliberately in their free time or vacation to have fun in experiencing the underwater world – for them this is a leisure activity (though, admittedly, not necessarily so for the professionals who provide the infrastructure: the divemasters, helpers, business agents for dive centers, etc. – here the definition meets its boundary). Therefore, typically scuba diving constitutes a model case of LA-ELFSP!Footnote 3
Scuba-diving English is marked by a few characteristic properties which in part derive from its character as LA-ELFSP, largely in line with descriptions of features of ESP and ELF offered above. It is not ‘a dialect’ but rather a set of inherent linguistic habits and conventions typical of a community of practice. But it is characterized by some specific linguistic properties as lined up above for ESP in particular: a special lexis with typical components, structural preferences in specific contexts, and characteristic discourse features and text types.
Given its technical nature, vocabulary components are highly typical of scuba diving language. As was found to be characteristic of ESP, there is a technical vocabulary which consists of words with a special meaning, which are accessible only to the specialist and require familiarity with the subject matter; many of these, illustrated in example (1), are Latin-derived internationalisms. In some cases we also encounter semantic narrowing – terms which are in wider use as well but assume a special, technical meaning in the diving context – see (2). Lexical expansion, the coining of new words needed, operates by means of the standard patterns of word formation, but shows the clear overrepresentation of some specific types of word formation observed in ESP in general: acronyms (3) and compounds (4).
(1) Technical vocabulary, internationalisms and Latinisms
buoyancy, equalize (-ization), decompression, descend / ascend, regulator, navigation, …
(2) Semantic narrowing
- equalize:
general meaning: ‘make something equal’
diving LA-ELFSP meaning: ‘deliberately increase inner-ear pressure through Eustachian tubes to balance rising external pressure while descending’
- the bends:
general meaning: ‘curve(s)?’
diving LA-ELFSP meaning: ‘serious diving-related disease, caused by nitrogen bubbles deposited in one's joints’
(3) Word formation types: Acronyms
scuba (‘self-contained underwater breathing apparatus’)
BCD (‘buoyancy control device’)
BC (‘buoyancy compensator’)
DCS (‘decompression sickness’)
DAN (‘divers alert network’)
SPG (‘submersible pressure gauge’)
NDL (‘no-decompression limit’)
MOD (‘maximum operation depth’)
OLF (‘oxygen limit fraction’)
(4) Word formation types: Compounds
dive table, bottom time, decompression sickness, recompression chamber, nitrogen narcosis (‘rapture of the deep’), remote exhaust valve, first stage, O-ring, night dive; to off-gas
A few idiosyncratic details deserve closer attention. First, the list of compounds includes a compound verb (to off-gas) – a type which is possible but rare in general English. Second, the words nitrox and trimix illustrate a small number of ‘neoclassical blends’, representing a pattern which also is known but rare elsewhere. Thirdly, some technical vocabulary items illustrate processes which are more widely found in lexical usage. There appears to be some functional, possibly regional, synonymy in technical vocabulary: the object depicted in Figure 1 is technically called a BCD (‘buoyancy control device’), but sometimes it is referred to just as BC (‘buoyancy controller’), or also simply (and I suspect this may be typical of German or European divers, though I have no evidence apart from personal impressions) a jacket. The oxygen container, shown in Figure 2, is commonly referred to as the tank, but I have repeatedly heard German and Dutch divers refer to it as a bottle – clearly a case of (erroneous) lexical transfer from one's native-language (in German the object is referred to as [Sauerstoff-]Flasche), typical also of ELF discourse.
Figure 1. BCD
Figure 2. Tank
Structural characteristics exist as well but are not that strongly generalizable overall, as they are more strongly dependent upon specific contexts and text type. Genre-specific texts are marked by consistent patterns – which contribute to the intertextual recognition of such texts and their purpose. Text (5) provides an example (and the texts in Figure 3 can be analyzed along similar lines):
Figure 3. Introducing the dive guides
(5) Divesite descriptions on websites:
• ‘The overhangs are spectacular and you will come across some small caves with soldier-fish and squirrel-fish. Occasionally whitetip reef sharks are spotted here, and there are a number of moray eels and scorpion-fish. The wall has some very large table corals and plenty of anemones …’ (Bohol, The Philippines; http://www.bohol.ph/article22.html, last accessed 6 March 2013)
• ‘The light that enters the cave creates incredible scenery. Soft and hard corals in all kind of shapes and forms are everywhere. …’ (Greece; http://www.bluefindivers.gr/cavedive.htm, last accessed 6 March 2013)
• ‘Dwejra is one of the most spectacular dive sites in Malta, with deep water (60 metres) and many caves and arches. The most dramatic is the 35 metre long tunnel that opens from the Inland Sea to the open sea, where the bottom drops suddenly. The clear waters and depths can be deceptive. …’ (Malta; http://www.visitmalta.com/en/boat-dives, last accessed 6 March 2013)
The examples under (5) represent three different divesite descriptions from different countries and, in fact, continents as they are conventionally found on websites, obviously with the goal of attracting divers. Despite the variety of origins and differences in contents some consistent linguistic properties can be observed, including the following:
• the use of present tense throughout: overhangs are … , wall has … , light enters … , tunnel opens …;
• many copula patterns (NP is NP/AdjP): overhangs are spectacular; sharks are spotted; coral are … everywhere; dramatic is the … tunnel; waters … can be … deceptive
• many strong, positively loaded adjectives, mostly premodifying: spectacular (twice), large, incredible, dramatic, clear, ..
• simple structures (coordinated clauses: and you will …; and there are …; with deep waters …; little subordination except relative clauses: that enters …, that opens …);
• but complex and specific vocabulary with many compounds: soldier-fish, whitetip reef sharks, table corals, hard corals, …
The texts in Figure 3 display similar consistencies in structural constituency, and are represented here also to illustrate and lead us to the third major dimension of ELFSP, the importance of certain text types and special discourse conventions. They are all taken from the same website and serve the same purpose, that of introducing the dive guides who work for the diving center (again, of course, to convince a potential customer to dive with this center rather than any other).
It is obvious that these texts follow a set discourse organization pattern. On each individual they provide the same structured information, in rather similar language. Broadly, the constituent elements can be identified as the following:
• name of the guide;
• short CV, with his education background;
• the guide's diving experience and formal qualifications;
• information on how the guide joined the team;
• emphasis on the guide's passion for diving and his willingness to serve guest needs; …
All of this is offered in a consistent, slightly elevated style, in simple but colorful language. The present tense and the present perfect predominate; some nonfinite subordination can be found; etc.
In scuba diving interactions a few more situation-specific, highly conventionalized and structured text and discourse types are regularly encountered (as is typical of ESP). It is noteworthy that these texts are frequently multimodal, combining written and, often quite prominently, visual elements with specific modes of oral presentation. The importance of Beaugrande and Dressler's (Reference Beaugrande and Dressler1981) notion of intertextuality becomes evident: divers, and all participants in these typical diving interactions, share rather precise expectations as to the structure, contents, and linguistic elements of the texts they are faced with, and this familiarity with discourse structure conventions helps them to cull the important pieces of information from these texts (in Beaugrande and Dressler's Reference Beaugrande and Dressler1981 wider sense of ‘functional linguistic units’, including presentations and images) which they need for safe diving. Figures (4) to (6) provide a few examples.
Figure 4. The dive guide's briefing
Figure 5. Ads and posters, descriptive texts
Figure 6. The divesite description (map / poster)
Figure 4 illustrates a speech event which is important for the safety of scuba diving (and considered obligatory if carried out responsibly) and which typically precedes each dive: the dive guide's briefing. The local guide, familiar with the location and all of its conditions, instructs the divers who are about to participate in the dive on what they need and want to know. This is a highly structured speech event with a number of typical features. It is oral and largely a monologue (though not quite, as questions can be asked), and it can be multimodal, involving a map. It involves specific roles, marked by an unequal authority distribution: important, needed information is delivered by the expert to less well informed listeners. Comprehensibility is important, because safety issue are involved, so overly complex language tends to be avoided. The structure of the presentation largely follows a predetermined script, a sequential order of mandatory elements; the divemaster usually talks about the following points:
• characteristics of the dive site (location, depths, distances, underwater currents);
• weather and water conditions;
• planned structure of the dive (entry mode, direction, depth, timing, things to be seen, exit mode);
• under-water communication, security signs and issues;
• buddy allocation;
• and possibly others.
Locations where diving is a major industry are typically lively places, full of people, shops, restaurants, etc., meant to serve the needs of visiting divers and to proffer a source of livelihood for the locals. Hence they are typically full of posters with advertisements and informative texts of all kinds – and these, of course, also constitute multimodal ‘texts’ (with typical relations between image, catchphrase/title, and more text) which the recipients are subconsciously familiar with and know how to react to. Figure 5 provides a few examples. Contents of specific sub-types are largely as is to be expected and similar to each other (e.g. ads for dive centers), full of set phrases, often brief, and often multimodal (and sometimes also multilingual).
The briefing mentioned above often relates to a physical representation of the divesite in the form of a map posted on location, illustrated in Figure 6. Again, this is a multimodal text type, with some expected (or even required) constituents, plus some variable elements. Typical components include the map itself, with some descriptive text; descriptions of landscape features and wildlife, safety instructions; notes on the site's history; instructions reflecting environmental concerns; ads by sponsors; and so on.
Further examples of specific text types associated with particular scuba-diving discourse settings could be mentioned – e.g. the logbook entry: divers are expected to record their dives in booklets provided for that purpose and in a diary-like format with a few set parameters for which space is provided (time, sea condition, depth, bottom time, air consumption/pressure gauge; descriptive notes on wildlife seen, etc.) and some leeway for individual variability.
5. Summary and conclusion
In this paper I have tried to make the following points:
• ELF and ESP are related in significant ways.
• There is some overlap between their properties and usage conditions.
• Specific properties can be observed on the levels of lexis, structure and discourse/text.
• These properties are closely associated with, and partly caused by, specific text types and discourse conventions.
• The notion of ELFSP tends to relate to ‘serious’ domains but applies to leisure-time settings as well.
• English used internationally in scuba diving constitutes a model case of LA-ELFSP.
• The discourse of scuba diving shares and illustrates many characteristic properties of both ELF and ESP.
EDGAR W. SCHNEIDER holds the Chair of English Linguistics at the University of Regensburg, Germany. He is a sociolinguist and World Englishes scholar, known widely for his ‘Dynamic Model’ of the evolution of Postcolonial Englishes, and has edited the journal English World-Wide for many years. He has lectured on all continents and published many articles and books, including the two-volume Handbook of Varieties of English (Mouton 2004) and, for Cambridge University Press, Postcolonial English (2007) and English Around the World (2011). Email: edgar.schneider@ur.de
