Termiz state University foreign phylology faculty 404-group student Xudoyberganova Dilshodaʼs presentation

Termiz state University foreign phylology faculty 404-group student Xudoyberganova Dilshodaʼs presentation

Recieved by: Uraqova Sh

English for specific purposes

ESP Defination

• English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is a learner-centered approach to teaching English as an additional language, which focuses on developing communicative competence in a specific discipline such as academics, accounting, agrology, business, IT, teaching, and engineering.

Absolute and variable characteristics

• Absolute characteristics
• 1. Design to meet specific needs of the learners,
• 2. related to content (i.e. In its themes and topics) to particular disciplines, occupations, and activities,
• 3. Centered on the language appropriate to those activities in syntax, lexis, discourse, semantics, etc and analysis of this discourse
• 4.differentiated to General English.

Variable characteristics

1. restricted as to the language skills to be learned (e.g. Reading only), 2. not taught according to any pre-ordained methodology

Activity 1.

ESP

Activity 2. Jigsaw reading

How humans learned to speak Article. New scientist. 26. March 2022. (38-41)

I N THE early afternoonof16 January 1769, HMS Endeavour dropped anchor inthe Bay of Good Success onTierra del Fuego. WhenCaptainJamesCook andhis crewcame ashore,theyweremetbyagroupofIndigenous people, probablyHaushhunter-gatherers. Two ofCook’s party advanced. Soon,two of theHaushalso stepped forward, displayed small sticks andthrewthemaside.Cook’smen interpreted this as anindicationof peaceful intentions. Theywere right:the groupswere soonexchanging gifts and sharing food.With no commonlanguage and inhabitingutterly differentworlds,they couldnonetheless communicate throughahigh-stakes game of cross-cultural charades. Most ofushave faced our own communicationchallenges,perhaps resorting to pointing and gesturingwhenabroad. And yetindaily life,we rarely give language a second thought –nevermind itsmany perplexingmysteries.Howcannoises convey meaning?Where do the complex layers oflinguistic patterns come from?Howcome childrenlearnlanguage so easily,whereas chimpanzees canscarcely learnit at all? We believe these questionshave remained unanswered because scientistshave been looking atlanguage allwrong.Agrowing bodyof researchunderminesprevailingideas thathumans possess aninnate language ability somehowwired into our brains, encoding grammatical rules.Inournewbook, The LanguageGame,we argue thatlanguage isn’t about rules at all.AsCook’s encounter illustrates,itis aboutimprovisation,freedom and the desire to beunderstood, constrained only by our imaginations. This radicalidea helps toexplainthose long-standingmysteries aboutlanguage – aswell ashowlanguage evolved andwhy itmakeshumans special. For generations, scientistshave soughtto understandhowthe rules oflanguage derive frombiology. The founding figure inmodern linguistics, NoamChomsky,has long argued thatlanguage is governed by a “universal grammar” somehowbuiltinto our genes and brains,withspecific grammars ofindividual languages as variations onthisuniversal blueprint.More recently, psychologist Steven Pinker atHarvard University proposed that humanshave anevolved language instinct, created bynatural selection.

• I N THE early afternoonof16 January 1769, HMS Endeavour dropped anchor inthe Bay of Good Success onTierra del Fuego. WhenCaptainJamesCook andhis crewcame ashore,theyweremetbyagroupofIndigenous people, probablyHaushhunter-gatherers. Two ofCook’s party advanced. Soon,two of theHaushalso stepped forward, displayed small sticks andthrewthemaside.Cook’smen interpreted this as anindicationof peaceful intentions. Theywere right:the groupswere soonexchanging gifts and sharing food.With no commonlanguage and inhabitingutterly differentworlds,they couldnonetheless communicate throughahigh-stakes game of cross-cultural charades. Most ofushave faced our own communicationchallenges,perhaps resorting to pointing and gesturingwhenabroad. And yetindaily life,we rarely give language a second thought –nevermind itsmany perplexingmysteries.Howcannoises convey meaning?Where do the complex layers oflinguistic patterns come from?Howcome childrenlearnlanguage so easily,whereas chimpanzees canscarcely learnit at all? We believe these questionshave remained unanswered because scientistshave been looking atlanguage allwrong.Agrowing bodyof researchunderminesprevailingideas thathumans possess aninnate language ability somehowwired into our brains, encoding grammatical rules.Inournewbook, The LanguageGame,we argue thatlanguage isn’t about rules at all.AsCook’s encounter illustrates,itis aboutimprovisation,freedom and the desire to beunderstood, constrained only by our imaginations. This radicalidea helps toexplainthose long-standingmysteries aboutlanguage – aswell ashowlanguage evolved andwhy itmakeshumans special. For generations, scientistshave soughtto understandhowthe rules oflanguage derive frombiology. The founding figure inmodern linguistics, NoamChomsky,has long argued thatlanguage is governed by a “universal grammar” somehowbuiltinto our genes and brains,withspecific grammars ofindividual languages as variations onthisuniversal blueprint.More recently, psychologist Steven Pinker atHarvard University proposed that humanshave anevolved language instinct, created bynatural selection.