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.

Hello!

Your question in some ways answers itself, with the word genre - different discipline and occupational and domains are often characterised by use of particular genres for conveying discourses occurring within those domains incurring often consistent language forms. These correlate with different purposes, and often language is adapted to that. Hallidayan (ie. Michael Halliday, 1985 - a big fat book about systemic functional grammar, or SFG) ideas about language articulate this - one of his oft-cited ideas is grammatical metaphor, for instance using verbs as nouns like with gerunds. Such as, 'with the setting of the tables and the serving of the meals the waiting staff's job is almost finished'. 

However, this genre, a description of waiting staff's tasks, it is just that - a description, characterised by use of the verb 'to be' (or in SFG terms, relative processes). In this example, 'is finished' is passive voice of the verb 'finish'. However, this form is vb to be - past participle. Or it is vb 'to be' + adjective - the 'finished job'!, an alternative grammar articulation?

I think that there are two issues you need to consider in parameters of your question:

1. would native speakers of English, who may monolingual, cope as well as non-native speakers, with an alternative non-traditional perspective to first the syntax and then to the perspective of considering a genre approach to articulating discourses in a particular discipline or occupation?

& 

2. what is the focus in the ESP context, the English or the specific purpose?

A response to No. 1 is easy: probably the native speakers would be a bit naive, if not actually hopeless if they were monolingual. One reason is that non-native speakers certainly bring a wider range of cognitive experiences relating to language than monolingual native speakers. Regarding English, more multilingual people including non-native speakers of English are likely to be using English at least in part for their jobs or in their fields, especially online. Native speakers are at a severe disadvantage here. For instance, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO. See Doc 9835 AN/453 - Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements, 2nd Ed, available online as Pdf See Section 5.3), which is in charge of things such as how and what pilots say to air traffic control warn pilots from native English-speaking cultures that they are normally far worse at communication with English than non-native English-speaking pilots who are generally much better with all the set protocols. There is a lot of research to back this up (which sorry I shall not do right now as this is supposed to be just a short answer). And aviation English is one of the strictest,  with the most specific purposes in the world. Sadly though, even in the ICAO, any pilot from US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Ireland does not need to be tested - which is stupid and dangerous and probably a relic of the colonialist cultural imperialism of English and the present day baseless pride that goes with it among some people in the world these days.

My response No. 2, is shorter - it is the purpose. Do people study ESP for the sake of the English? You and I might, because it is our discipline or field of research. But do the pilots from Ethiopia, Bahrain, Russia, Korea, Brazil or Mexico study aviation English for the English? Probably not - probably so they can pass their tests, get certified to fly their planes, keep themselves and their passengers safe, get big salaries and go home rich. Once they can do that, I do not think that they are going to be interested in studying English very much any more.

The field of ESP enters the field of literacy - Aviation English is very much a set of literacy skills. As such, the English begins to be left behind. Equally in the idea of native speakers not needing to learn how to speak or write in English for a specific or specialised purpose, simply because they can speak and write English fluently and euphemistically about other things outside of the target purpose is as impractical an idea as it is becoming redundant. For example, I come from Australia and if I wanted to study Medicine in Britain, I would need to do the IELTS test along with all the other punters. I know that, and i accept that and agree with it. But there are a lot of doctors from Australia who are clever but also pretty stupid in as far as they are too proud or too naive even to see what the IELTS test is like, and they do not do very well. In this case for them it is not the English or even the medicine English that matters - rather it is the English for the test.

I hope you can grasp the perspectives I mention, because I think they are important - though I suspect some traditional orthodox applied linguist may respond and disagree with me. Anyway, I hope that this helps you

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 Cameen,

Marjan Zohoorian earlier pointed out that the 'E' seems anachronistic in ESP regarding so-called 'native speakers'. In a sense i agree.

However it depends on what English is perceived to be - say, a monolithic cultural entity or phenomenon in the world; or, say, just one type of language or language code, language being just one mode of communication.

I would imagine that 'Communication Arts Professionals' are of varying types and would use language (I am not saying 'languages') in different ways, say, in spoken-audio media, written-visual media, or hybrid media. Language can incorporate English, can simply be English or English only, and also can be a mix like a pidgin or creole with English becoming changed mixed with something else. Further, English as tool, or a code which needs to be learned or acquired in order to be able to do or make something else (here is the real 'specific purpose aspect of 'English' as ESP.

Also, have the people who you have in mind in your book grown up with English, with English plus something else, or not grown up wit English - ie. they have learned English as consciously and explicitly as a target learning target or goal?

Um, I think that I have been presenting a variety of perspective of how English can be manifest, and I think that any one of us thinking, teaching or writing about 'English' these days do need to consider just what the English which we talk about is. But there is more, we would need to be sure that people who hear or read us share or can empathise with our perception/s of English.

Good luck with your book.

Dear Brahim,

Finally I have had time to examine the course proposal you provided last September. It is quite easy to see how your proposal was not accepted: politics, including skewed uptake of political and cultural discourse. Your aim, doing something with returning jihadists, is constructive and it is not a field I would choose to enter lightly.

It was interesting to see how you wished to use common ground across monotheistic religions' scriptural heritages with texts relating to Alexander the Macedonian, with, I suppose, further common ground being using English translation of the texts. 

My only doubt about doing that is that works often lose something of their integrity in translation, and of course there is variability across translations of a given work, even at the genre level.

You show how course-participants would enter the discourse field of the course from the view point of Muslim scholar's perspective on comparative religion, and then do basically a text analysis of different versions of the same historical discourse, which coincidentally would come from different religious cultural sources. I like that; I try the same multi-layered approaches myself. My problem is something I outline at the end of my last answer just above, " we would need to be sure that people who hear or read us share or can empathise with our perception/s of English" and also perceptions of the field and aims of the course as well. I just think that different stakeholders would always have a different take on what you propose. What should you do? I certainly would think about how to pitch (ie. propose) it in a different way, such as putting the word 'Language' or 'Register' or something like that in the title of the course.

Whatever - obviously you have given your project a great deal of thought and feeling. Please do not give up. Those idiots in governments which just detain, exile and otherwise punish and stigmatise jihadists (who or whatever they are) need a bit of the intelligence that you clearly can contribute to this issue.

 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

Thanks for clarification Dr. Zohoorian.