I think that native speakers learn the specialized vocabulary as part of courses about the content of the discipline, as opposed to in a Department of English class. So ESP happens in native speaker instruction, but it is not conceptualized as being language instruction. 

In ESP, students often know what they would say in their native language and need to learn how to say the same thing in English.  When native speakers learn vocabulary, it is new to them (or has different meaning from common usage) and is just part of learning the skill.

Dear Howard,

Thank you for this enlightening answer.

I totally agree with you since we seem both to agree that ESP has to be offered to both native and non-native speakers on equal grounds. The example you brought about pilots is a case in point.

Another example which reminds me of Foucault's 's notion of power is that though you are native speaker of a less canonized, if I may say, variety of English you had to do the IELTS test.

If I were in your shoes I would be hurt not because I have to do the test-actually I will be smarter after all. I will be hurt because of this implicit asymmetrical notion of power. To my mind, your example is a very good instance of a postcolonial relationship.

Seen from this perspective ESP has become an instrument of hegemony since it is normally focused on non-native speakers or to people of less power.

The reason that I am a bit upset is that I wanted to design a course which you will find attached ( only the description-do not worry) and this course is basically a course for native speakers. My suggestion was rejected for this simple reason. Please have a look and you will see how important the course is.

To sum up, inequality is no longer obvious like in the old days. Now it is covered by innocence and the half sincere desire to help while the central theme remains the same- business and maximum profit.

I think that native speakers learn the specialized vocabulary as part of courses about the content of the discipline, as opposed to in a Department of English class. So ESP happens in native speaker instruction, but it is not conceptualized as being language instruction. 

In ESP, students often know what they would say in their native language and need to learn how to say the same thing in English.  When native speakers learn vocabulary, it is new to them (or has different meaning from common usage) and is just part of learning the skill.

Dear Marek,

What you say is perfectly fine and commonsensical. But I mean highly specialized courses such as quantum theory the object of my research or even medicine where Latinized words exceed the amount of words used in the active language.

In other words, highly specialized disciplines do not need basic English instructions since both native and non-native speakers have a command of the language of instruction.

Michael Marek's response is right on the mark -- even freshman English is not conceptualized as language instruction, since instructors are not given training in linguistics, nor are they told they are teaching language.

    Not only is the vocabulary distinctive for each field, but the typical structure of the discourse is quite different. Criteria applied for the evaluation of a successful argument in linguistics is quite different from that applied in archeology, for example. Many non-native speakers have a command of the content, concepts, vocabulary, and discourse patterns of a discipline which would utterly confound a native speaker who was not part of that disciplinary speech community.

Dear Rudy,

You say Michael is right and then you repeat what I said! I m a bit divided between two ideas. Either you think I must be wrong because of my name or you did not understand anything-you choose

it is taken for granted that even native speakers  need instruction on technical jargon , call it ESP or  quantum or  watermelon  !

Dear Dr. Zohoorian,

I gather you  presume learning  a language is a distinct process not encompassing technical jargon, and such a supposition or propositions results in total separation of any language from technical terminologies .  This dilutes language proficiency to its most simplistic basic inadequate device so much so that all literacy norms and touchstones will be hugely undermined . Into the bargain ,  technical jargons  are not necessarily homogeneous in all languages and belief in the universality of these terminologies deprives individual languages and cultures of all their specicificities and sustainability. In fact , colossal incompatibilities have been detected  in delexicalization and relexicalization of vocabulary items as manifested in different languages.   What's more , authenticity is the fulcrum of most  ESP   discussions , the field is already suffering from unresolved conundrums , and trying to make it more inauthentic and vulnerable is counterproductive rather than productive. 

Correct me if I made the wrong presuppositions please.

This discussion is getting interesting. I'm now venturing into the ESP area as I'm trying to finish this book on "English for Communication Arts Professionals."   Any suggestion as to what I should incorporate into my book? 

 Dear Mr. Doyle,

Your suggestions have given me some new ideas of what I should bring to my book. Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. 

Sincerely,

Cameen

Dear Marjan,

I happened to pick up your point about authenticity. I'll bring in authentic materials for my book. Thank you for the suggestion.

Sincerely,

Cameen