Maritime English syllabus for the modern seafarer: comprehensive or

safety-related courses?

Boris Pritchard
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka
Abstract:
This article introduces some insights into the nature and features of maritime English and studies the
effect of those on the future Maritime English syllabus. In this respect two approaches to the syllabus
are highlighted: (a) the minimalist approach oriented to meet the minimum requirements the STCW
Convention 1978/1995 (basically ensuring safe communication using appropriate parts of SMCP
2001), and (b) the extended approach within which Maritime English becomes a comprehensive
educational subject within the overall MET curriculum and ensures the future holder of a maritime
academic degree efficient competence in English for conducting both sea and shore-based duties. To
this end, the growing role and importance of General English within the Maritime English syllabus is
emphasised. In order to be able to study the modern developments in Maritime English, a proposal is
made for starting an international project of compiling and maintaining a web-based corpus of
Maritime English, i.e. a textual and terminological database to be at the disposal of the students,
Maritime English teachers and subject teachers in their research, learning and teaching activities.
Keywords : syllabus design, Maritime English, General English, Maritime English database

1. Introduction
This article deals with some theoretical and practical aspects of syllabus design for Maritime English
based on the nature of Maritime English, needs analysis and their relationship to the Maritime
Education and Training (MET) system.
Principally, two approaches to the study of the role of Maritime English in the overall syllabus for
MET courses are traceable today:
(a) the minimalist (i.e. training-oriented) approach, and
(b) extended, i.e. comprehensive educational approach.
In the minimalist approach Maritime English syllabus only covers the unavoidable minimum
requirements imposed by the IMO STCW Convention 1978/1995 for seagoing certificates of
competence and, partly, by the ISM Code. The knowledge of English and competence in Maritime
English for officers of the watch in this category are highly restricted in their scope and contents to the
important task of the safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment against pollution.
The objectives and the methodology of instruction are overwhelmingly competence-based and
oriented towards vocational training of seafarers, i.e. watchkeeping officers on operational and
management levels.
In the extended or comprehensive educational approach, Maritime English is a constituent part of
regular diploma courses (HND/HNC, Associate Diploma in Science) or academic, degree courses
(principally BSc) in MET. The syllabus is oriented to the needs of knowledge and communicational
competence in Maritime English for shipboard officers and experts (operators, executive officers, and
managers) engaged in the maritime industry on shore, on both operational and management levels.
The Maritime English syllabus in this approach must meet and match English language competence of
rival professions on shore, i.e. holders of a higher education diploma or an academic degree.
In the light of the syllabus requirements for the two categories above this paper studies the nature of
Maritime English required for the purposes above (linguistic features, pedagogical implications,
suitability to practical usage, etc.), with particular reference to the exigencies of the so called 4-E
system of MET1 and the results of the projects such as MARCOM 2 and METNET3.

1
Zade, G.: METNET Publications, www.wmu.se, 2003
 2

Finally, a proposal will be made for instigating a new study on the developments in Maritime English
since the completion almost three decades ago of SEASPEAK 4, a pioneering project on the nature and
pedagogical (ESP) implications of Maritime English, especially VHF maritime communications. The
new project is to study Maritime English in view of the achievements in modern linguistics,
information science and communications, and new marine transport technologies. The broader
purpose of this paper is
(a) to help re-define the role of Maritime English in the modern world, emphasising the two-fold
nature (shipboard and shore-oriented) of Maritime English as an important subject in the MET
curriculum,
(b) to reiterate the importance of the need for acquiring as high communicative competence as
possible (by both shipboard and shore-based personnel) using Maritime English as a lingua
franca in the prevailingly multilingual, multicultural, and multinational communication
situations
(c) to discuss recent requirements for new a new role and relative share of general English in the
overall Maritime English syllabus.
In order to ensure that the above objectives are achieved, this paper finally suggests the necessity to
create and maintain a textual database, written and spoken, of Maritime English (under a possible title
of “Bank of Maritime English”) for:
(i) scientific research into the developments in Maritime English and linguistic
communication at sea,
(ii) the practical use of the database by seafarers, MET students and teachers, maritime
professionals, and
(iii) for developing and designing Maritime English teaching materials.

2. Maritime English – definition revisited

As suggested in the introduction, it is necessary today to re-define the very concept of maritime
English as well as the content and the role of the subject of Maritime English within the overall MET
curriculum. This has been necessitated by the recent developments
- in the maritime industry (new shipping technologies, information technology, communications;
STCW 78/95; new manning systems (the MarOff system and GP ratings), organisation and human
relationships on board,
- the globalisation process (multicultural, multinational, multilingual speech communities on board
and in port, exposure to the media in dealing with crisis situations),

2
Cole, C.: The impact of multicultural and multilingual crews on maritime communication – What is (y)our
position? In: Conference on Maritime Education and Training – PADECC and WOME 10. IMLA & Rijeka
College of Maritime Studies, Vol. 2, Rijeka, 1999, pp.33-40

3
Cole, C. & P. Trenkner: METNET – The Thematic Network on Maritime Education, Training and Mobility of
Seafarers. In: Proceedings of WOME 11 - 11th IMLA Workshop on Maritime English. Varna, 2001

4
cf.: Strevens, P. & E. Johnson: Seaspeak: A project in Applied Linguistics, Language Engineering, and
Eventually ESP for Sailors. In: TESOL Convention, Honolulu,1982, pp. 1-15,

Strevens, P.: International Maritime English (Seaspeak). In: Fachsprache, pp.1-10, 1988;

Weeks, F., Glover, A., Johnson, E., Strevens, P.: SEASPEAK – Reference Manual Manual. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1984
 3

- modern approaches to the study of language:

(i) various issues of theoretical linguistics
(ii) applied linguistics focusing on language-in-use: psycholinguistics, pragmatics
and sociolinguistics, discourse analysis; cognitive science and lexical semantics)
(iii) information technology in language research (computational linguistics, corpus
lexicography, and knowledge databases)
(iv) recent developments in language teaching and learning, with particular reference
to ESP (communicative, cognitive approach; competence-based learning and task-
based activities; collaborative learning, twinning, content-based learning; class
versus group and project work, etc.)
- modern trends in the seafarers’ employment policy, especially in EU, whereby seafarers (ship
officers and other management level personnel) tend to spend less time at sea due to a reduced
attractive power of seafaring professions for the younger generations and normally end up their
sea-going careers seeking respectable jobs or employment on shore, where, in turn, their
qualifications and education should be equivalent to the holders of academic degrees (notably
BSc) in other lines of trade (e.g. maritime administration, courts; port operations, shipping
businesses, freight forwarding, maritime and ship’s agencies; environment engineering, etc.).
These factors taken as a whole make a comprehensive definition of modern Maritime English very
difficult, if not impossible. This is evidenced in the title of a seminal paper “Maritime English – an
attempt of an imperfect definition” by Peter Trenkner 5 where the author questions the very need for
defining Maritime English and immediately gives an expected affirmative answer. It is to this scholar
and practitioner that we owe the modern use of the term Maritime English6 (with capitalized
Maritime), which markedly lexicalises the crucial concept of our study, its differentia specifica as
compared to other types of ESP, and provides us with a handy linguistic and pedagogical label
allowing for a narrow and wider sense of the term Maritime English.
In the same work P. Trenkner offers a manageable, widely quoted definition of Maritime English as
‘the entirety of all those means of the English language which, being used as a device for
communication within the international maritime community, contribute to the safety of navigation
and the facilitation of the seaborne trade’. In terms of both content and approach, the definition is
linguistically sound and thematically all-inclusive, i.e. pragmatically narrow-scoped and yet
sufficiently wide at the same time.
First, one gathers from the definition that, linguistically, Maritime English is not any separate
language but just a conventional label for a subset or realisation of English language 7 appropriate, in
our case, to a specific maritime setting (e.g. in the act of navigation, in a close-quarters situation, a
cargo handling operation, an act of reading operational or maintenance manual the auxiliary engine,
etc.), used in a determined context of situation (i.e. in a specific speech community, in speech events
influenced by a number of factors creating and receiving the message or spoken interaction in
communication)8, arising and being shaped under specific sociolinguistic circumstances (speaker-
hearer relationships, developing under various degrees of stress). Although frequently combined with
semiotic systems, Maritime English remains the sole reliable means of inter-ship, ship-to-shore, or on-

5
Trenkner. P.: Maritime English – An attempt of an imperfect definition. In: Proceedings of Workshop on
Maritime English (WOME 2A). IMLA, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, 2000, pp. 1-8
6
Trenkner, P.: The IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases as adopted by IMO-MSC 68. In:
Proceedings of WOME 9, Malmö1997

7
Strevens, P. & F.F. Weeks The Creation of a Regularized Subset of English for Mandatory Use in Maritime
Communications: SEASPEAK. In: Language Planning Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1985, pp. 1-8
8
Pritchard, B. & D. Kalogjera: On some features of conversation in maritime VHF communications. In: M.
Coulthard et al.: Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue. Niemeyer. Tübingen, 2000, pp. 185-197
 4

board communication and understanding among the participants who constitute a specific multi-
lingual, multi-national and multi-cultural speech community.
Second, ‘the entirety of all the means of the English language’ implies not only the use of a limited
specific maritime or nautical vocabulary intelligible to peer seafarers only but also all other linguistic
means of English (e.g. prevailing lexical combinations and grammatical structures, predominant
tenses, modal expressions, etc.), specific vocabulary or markers of typical speech acts created in
maritime VHF exchanges or conversations (opening signals, turn-taking signals, warnings, requests,
repetitions, closing formulas, greetings, polite forms, forms of address in maritime discourse, etc.).
Third, Maritime English is admittedly just one, but still the most important, though not always the
most reliable device of communication for ensuring safety of navigation 9. Witness to the slight
reservation in the preceding sentence are the numerous cases of failed attempts at settling collision
situations by resorting to spoken VHF communication or by unanswered VHF calls (cf. MARS
reports, Nautical Institute).
Fourth, it should be emphasised that communication in English takes place incessantly in all ports,
straits, fairways, waterways, or sea routes of the world between and among speakers who are almost
ninety-percent non-native speakers of English, i.e. speakers of English as a foreign language, thus
making English the modern lingua franca of the sea. This sole fact, however, does not ensure failsafe
and successful communication. Therefore a small portion of this maritime lingua franca was selected
in order to ensure certain minimum norms of efficient communication for the purpose of safety of
navigation and, more recently, protection of the marine environment. As a result the Standard Marine
Communication Phrases (SMCP) were adopted by IMO in 2001 following SMNV 1978/1985 within a
long process of normalisation and standardisation of Maritime English for safety purposes. It is also
important to note that, no matter how standardised it may be, Maritime English only ‘contributes’ to
the safety of navigation and is just one among the factors working in an interplay with others to ensure
safer ships and cleaner seas.
One point that this definition evades is the fact that, beyond being a means of verbal communication in
the maritime community, Maritime English also has an important heuristic role as a the major medium
of conveying and acquiring maritime knowledge in the modern world, and that, as such it also shapes
our process of building maritime concepts as well as the way we learn about the extralinguistic world
of maritime science, technology, business, etc. As a result, to a certain extent Maritime English
linguistically influences the conceptual framework of non-English-speaking maritime communities,
which is evidenced everyday in process of constant code switching, linguistic borrowing on all levels.
This also has an impact of maritime-related sociolinguistic behaviour. English language, therefore, has
not only become the lingua franca of the modern maritime world but, at the same time, also an
important learning and teaching tool for acquiring knowledge in maritime science and technology.

3. Some notes on the features of Maritime English

Following the communicative approach to special languages 10, Maritime English can be classified as a
specific language variety of General English. It is a part of the user’s communicative competence, at
his disposal, to ensure appropriate use of English in the specific maritime-related situation. The
principal linguistic features of maritime language are the specific technically-marked vocabulary,
contact-induced lexical borrowing and semantic changes, specific lexical range and collocability of the
words of general vocabulary appropriate to the subject-matter, characteristic recurrence and
predictable frequency and distribution of the vocabulary and certain grammatical structures, a range of
discourse markers, all of them being selected under the pragmatic and situational constraints of
maritime communication.

9
Hughes. T. & P. Vihuri: The Use of English as a Standard Marine Language in Ship to Ship and Ship to Shore
Communications. In: Maritime Dictionaries & Education. University of Turku, 2000, pp. 17-28
10
Halliday, M. A.K. , P. Strevens, A. McIntosh: The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. Oxford:
OUP, 1964
 5

In terms of applied linguistics Maritime English is a particular kind of (English) language for specific
purposes (ESP). This calls for determining learning strategies and teaching methodology for two major
aspects of Maritime English syllabus: (a) interactive aspect and (b) textual aspect (features of texts as a
major type of maritime knowledge resources). The first aspect has been the subject of much research
by conversation and dialogue experts within discourse analysis and pragmatics (e.g. speech acts in
maritime exchanges) and has been the main topic (maritime safety communications by VHF) of
numerous conferences and workshops on Maritime English. The standardised form of maritime
communications (SMCP 2001) has been integrated in to the IMO Model Course 3.17 on Maritime
English11 and has become an obligatory part of any national Maritime English syllabus. The second
aspect has somehow been neglected, as only subsidiary to STCW and safety requirements, but is now
gaining in importance with the growing need for high quality shore-based personnel, i.e. for ex-ship
officers turning into highly IT-literate managers, communicators and presenters.
Maritime English, as any register or genre, varies under the influence of situational (contextual)
constraints, i.e. those according to field (subject-matter), mode (medium), and tenor (style). The most
prominent variation according to subject-matter or domain is manifested in specific topics (cf. the
language of operating instructions, repair and maintenance manuals, talking to an agent, exchanges
with the sea or docking pilot, etc.). The choice of the linguistic form will depend on the cognitive role
of English language (in expressing concepts, lexicalising terms), evaluative role (showing attitudes
and values) and affective role (expressing emotions, feelings). There may be, however, more drastic
changes or switches in the use of grammatical forms (cf. the lengthy sentences and the elaborate
structure of paragraphs in international conventions, e.g. Merchant Shipping Act, law of the sea,
COGSA), discourse markers for opening or closing messages (Mayday, Say again, Over and out, etc.),
and discourse connectors (first, second, finally, lastly, e.g. in Seaways MARS texts on collisions or
near-accidents at sea).
According to the medium used, maritime communications are divided into spoken and written ones. It
still seems likely that spoken communication will continue to have the predominant role over the
written for some time although, supported by information science and technology, safety
communications using non-spoken media are on the constant increase today and are expected to take
over in the not very far future. In line with this trend, some authors suggest that the voice component
of e.g. ‘survival English for shipboard use (i.e. safety-based spoken communication) is ‘doomed to
shrink in the years to come’ 12. This primarily holds for the highest priority procedures (distress,
urgency, safety, as well as some non-safety communications, e.g. ship reporting systems). The role
and importance of automatically-derived, ready-made communication patterns, particularly computer-
generated messages based on speech-recognition and menu-selected message formats within GMDSS
(DSC/EGC etc.), which are normally broadcast in the written mode but also offer a voice mode option,
will no doubt be on the constant increase in the very near future.
Research in the lexical, structural, and, in particular, pragmatic features of the recordings of real
maritime communications shows however that there is a wide gap between these formalized
‘languages’ and the kind of English used in real everyday maritime situations 13. The reasons for these
differences also arise out the very nature of the process of communication, since under varied
circumstances (speakers and hearers as different linguistic persons acting in different communicational
situations, psychological pressure, emotional stress, sense of personal responsibility, need for prompt
reaction, panic, etc.), messages or exchanges tend to be incomplete, sentences often elliptical or
broken in their communicative or discursive structure. It is this kind of difference that must be
subjected to a systematic linguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic study in order to arrive at an
all-inclusive description of the features of modern Maritime English and turn them into teachable units
incorporated in the overall Maritime English syllabus.

11
Logie, C.: Thinking globally, acting locally: implementation of IMO model course 3.17, Maritime English. In:
Proceedings of WOME 11 - 11th IMLA Workshop on Maritime English, Varna, 2001
12
Weeks, F.F.: Whither Maritime English. In: Proceedings of WOME 9, Malmö, 1997
13
Pritchard, B.: Maritime VHF Communications: Standards versus Practice. In: Proceedings of Workshop on
Maritime English (WOME 2A). IMLA, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, 2000, pp. 44-54
 6

Language variation according to attitude (also referred to as tenor or style), which usually combines
and interacts with the two previous ones, is the third constraint affecting maritime communication. It
is manifested in the oppositions: formal - informal, stiff/cold - loose, polite - impolite, standard -
colloquial, professionally-marked vs. unmarked, etc.
Maritime VHF communications concerning safety of navigation are formal in nature, though the
degree of formality may differ according to subject-matter. Distress communications, for example, are
highly formal, partly because the formality of the message is recommended by IMO, though one
should expect them to be neutral in the first place. However, as a maritime VHF exchange in the
distress or search and rescue procedure develops, the degree of formality tends to decrease, but never
reaches the extent of informality typical of everyday spoken language. The same holds for some
exchanges following broadcasts of navigational warnings or information. Announcements of ship
arrivals in practice, on the other hand, are normally much less formal, the degree of informality
depending on the extent of knowledge and mastery of English by the participants and on the context of
situation, particularly if the participants share the same previous knowledge, experience and
presuppositions obtaining in the context of situation or gained through experience (e.g. frequent ship
callings at a port, personal acquaintance of participants, etc.). In maritime English the above almost
usually combine with local varieties (British English, American, Australian, South African English,
English used as ‘lingua franca’ in India etc.) and varying degrees of mastery of English by the
participants in communication. The latter can be extremely relevant sociolinguistically and
psycholinguistically (cf. native speakers vs. ESL or EFL speakers), and may be the reason for
misunderstandings and, unfortunately, fatal errors resulting in the failure of communication especially
in the case of the interchange and need for effective linguistic interaction between
officers/crewmembers and passengers.
As a rule, therefore, any linguistic tool for communicating at sea should be:
(a) systematic, i.e. the selected form of communication should fit the overall framework of the
general and highly specialised, restricted communication systems (conveying the message and
producing the expected response), and
(b) user-friendly, i.e. ensuring on the one hand the capability of selecting a linguistic form
most appropriate to the context of situation, and the one the most readily available within the linguistic
and communicative competence of the user.
The two requirements set forth above represent the principal prerequisite for establishing any
standardised version of a language used for specific purposes and must be clearly reflected in any
Maritime English syllabus. Beside being oriented to safety-based maritime communication, the
Maritime English syllabus should also be designed to meet the specific needs of the learner, related in
content (themes and topics) to a variety of maritime activities and occupations, and centred on the
language appropriate to these activities.
This means that, for example, as far as lexis is concerned, any future study of Maritime English should
not only deal with the specific vocabulary in the layman’s notion of Maritime/Nautical English but
should also account for:
(i) a very limited number (up to 7 %) of strictly technical / nautical terms, whose central
lexical meaning (i.e. the word used in isolation, outside the context) is restricted to
maritime use only and thus 'unambiguous' by nature (e.g. some terms referring to ship
design and construction, general seamanship, cargo work, ship handling, etc. fore-and-aft,
halyard, starboard, bow, rudder, stevedore),
(ii) numerous semi-specific general vocabulary items, often highly polysemous, which are
disambiguated in the maritime context only, e.g. some verbs, descriptive adjectives and
basic concept nouns or semi-lexical nouns (heave, haul, steer; clear, bound; line, set,
position, time, situation),
(iii) function words (e.g. auxiliary verbs) and semi-lexical items (let, make, provide, set, get).
 7

(iv) an unlimited number of very productive multi-word lexical units consisting of the words
of general vocabulary having specific meaning in the maritime context and setting:
compound nouns (shipping forecast, deep-see trade, close-quarters situation, vessel
traffic service, muster station, master station, land earth station, assistant engineer, finger
pier, blue water, beat up) and prepositional / adverbial phrases (heave in, heave on, heave
up, heave to, heave away).
(v) linguistic expressions of speech acts in maritime communication, discourse connectors
and markers in maritime texts.

4. Maritime English – some aspects of future syllabus design

4.1 This section discusses two aspects of needs analysis: (1) the type of Maritime English required by
the target learners, and (2) the ratio of General English (EGP), General Maritime English (GME), and
Maritime English for Specific Purposes (MESP) in the Maritime English syllabus.
The aspect of General English is primarily determined by the general principles, methodology and
syllabus design for the courses of English as a Second/Foreign Language (ESL, EFL), which also
apply to any Maritime English course 14. The share of General English in any Maritime English course
will largely depend on the objectives and specific purpose of the course the degree of knowledge and
competence of target learners, and the history of English language contacts of a particular maritime
nation15. Thus, a comprehensive Maritime English course, especially the one shown under the heading
of English for Academic Purposes, will involve a great deal of General English, particularly to meet
the industry’s (ship manager’s) expectations 16 for the trainee to become an efficient communicator and
presenter in English. On the other hand, as reasonably suggested by F. Weeks in his paper ‘Whither
Maritime English?’17, the lecturer faces the difficult option of having to select from the choice of
seven-class typology of English for MET institutions:
1. Standard English,
2. Standard English with ‘Belonging’ English (for native English speakers),
3. Survival English for shipboard use,
4. Maritime Business English,
5. Technical English,
6. Communications English, especially for use over voice radio, and
7. IMO SMCP courses.

14
see: Ellis, R.: Understanding Second Language Acquisition. OUP, 1985.; and Cook, V.: Second Language
Learning and Language Teaching. Arnold, London, 2001.

15
For more detailed information see:

Sager, C.J., Dungworth.D, McDonald, P.: English Special Languages. O. Brandstetter Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1980.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

16
Nisbet, A.: (1997) English for seafarers: The ship manager’s view. In: Proceedings of WOME 9, Malmö,
1997
17
Weeks 1997, op. cit.
 8

The share of general English will vary with each of the classes above but will definitely be much
higher, for example, in the case of Nos. 4 and 5 than in Nos. 3, 6, and 7).
A study of the role of General English in Maritime English syllabuses 18 shows that the need for
general English increases with the linguistic and cultural distance from the English-speaking world. In
Norway, for example, there is hardly a need for associate diploma or degree courses in MET to
include any general English. Indeed, the tuition of many technical subjects will be conducted in
English, instead. As a result, only brief courses in nautical or marine engineering English are taught,
including the most relevant parts for SMCP 2001. This corroborates one of the conclusions of the
METNET project19 that, in addition to the need for a harmonized Maritime English syllabus for
international use, these courses and syllabuses must also meet specific national requirements for
learning English as a foreign language20. Therefore, as a general rule it may be concluded that the
more competent a student is in General English, the higher the likelihood of easier and faster
development of his linguistic competence in Maritime English for specific purposes (e.g. in
performing communicative duties in deck and engine-room watchkeeping on both operational and
management level, communication with the harbour authorities, etc.).
To lay people, the concept of ‘Maritime English’ is a very vague one because they often fail to realise
the difference between ‘Maritime English’ and ‘English’ (except for a few specific ‘nautical’ terms
and a number of sailors’ jargon phrases). This also holds for their idea of the necessity for a special
maritime English syllabus. However, the study of the history and developments in teaching Maritime
English shows that the determination of Maritime English syllabus depends on a number of factors:
a) recent developments in syllabus and materials design in teaching general English as a
foreign language (EFL), e.g. communicative approach to language learning, teaching
technologies,
b) developments in teaching English for specific purposes (ESP), e.g. content-based learning,
collaborative-learning, project-based learning, cognitive approach applying cognitive
processes of maritime subjects to the teaching of Maritime English
c) requirements of STCW Convention 78/95, e.g. strict requirements and recommendations
concerning the knowledge of English and competence in maritime English for particular
certificates of competence
d) requirements of particular national MET systems (e.g. vocational vs academic education
and training)
e) results of the needs analysis preceding course design and development, e.g.
purpose/objectives of the course, attendants/trainees, type of Maritime English appropriate
to learners’ specific requirements (phonetic, phonological, grammatical and other
linguistic aspects of interference between mother tongue and English language affecting
the ease/difficulty of learning and communicative competence (cf. METNET), language
learning traditions, etc.).
4.2 These requirements raise the often disputed question of the type of English needed for the various
Maritime English syllabuses within specific national or harmonized international MET systems. Such
problems have been the issue of numerous WOME workshops and EU MET projects (e.g. MARCOM,

18
Pritchard, B.: The Role of General English in ESP - the Case of Maritime English. In: Proceedings of WOME
11 - 11th IMLA Workshop on Maritime English, Varna, 2001
19
As presented during the Italian and Slovenian METNET meetings in Jesolo and Portorož in June 2002
20
cf. also Baş, M., D. Er, I. Cicek, & O.K. Hag: ITUMF Maritime English Education & Training Model. In:
Proceedings of International Seminar on Maritime English, ITUMF-JICA, Istanbul, 2002, pp. 183-199

Nisbet, A.: Marlins Experiences of Standardising Systems for Maritime English. In: Proceedings of
International Seminar on Maritime English, ITUMF-JICA, Istanbul, 2002, pp. 91-96
 9

CAMET, METHAR, EASTMET, METNET, and GLOMET - the most recent IAMU project).
Basically, these can be reduced to three sets of questions:
(i) What are the minimum requirements for English Language syllabus design (and
materials development) for the purpose of professional/vocational training (STCW-
based), on the one hand, and degree-based MET courses, on the other?
(ii) Is there a reasonable and acceptable ratio (in content and in size) between general
English (EGP) and ‘Maritime’ English within the English language syllabus, either in
vocational or academic MET?
(iii) To what extent (and for what kind of trainees/students) should Maritime English be an
independent subject in the overall MET curriculum?; What is the role and function of
English in teaching maritime subjects? This is closely related to the issue as to who
should teach Maritime English, e.g. in CBL or collaborative learning; relationship
between the Maritime English teacher and subject teachers?
By asking these questions we tacitly assume that there exist different types of (Maritime) English(es)
for different maritime uses and purposes. Thus, the following types of Maritime Englishes might be
suggested, using a somewhat modified “family tree of ESP ‘Englishes” by Dudley-Evans/St John:
 10

Figure 1 - Chart of Maritime Englishes21

English for General Purposes (EGP)

English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES ENGLISH FOR OCCUPATIONAL PURPOSES

EST E. for Professional Purp

EMedPurp
EMedPurp
Nautical English
ELegalPurp
Marine
Engineering
ELin/Econ/Mang English

Maritime English EBusinessPurp

General Maritime E. for Vocational Purposes

English
Maritime English
Naut., Engineering
for safety
communications
Shipping, Ports,
Survival Maritime
Marine Environment English, etc.

etc.

21
The bold type labels are suggested by the author of this paper.
 11

The classification above is based on the register/genre approach to Maritime English, i.e. classification
according to field (subject-matter), medium (VHF communications), and tenor (e.g. survival
communications), and it highly reflects the purpose of any particular type of Maritime English. The
model also includes a layer recently referred to as General Maritime English (cf. METHAR Project),
i.e. the indispensable constituent of any Maritime English syllabus, which ensures basic maritime
communication, represents a cognitive linguistic tool for acquiring most important maritime concepts,
and provides a link to the more specific layers of Maritime English.
4.3 Although no specific answer to the three questions above can be attempted without empirical
research22, the chart of Maritime Englishes suggests at least that any individual Maritime English
syllabus/course admittedly consists of three layers:
- English for General Purposes
- General Maritime English, and
- Maritime English for Specific Purposes
and that their mutual ratio will depend on many factors such as the results of needs analysis, IMO
requirements, ISF tests, ship owner/operator/manager’s expectations, developments in ELT and ESP,
etc.). The last layer is register/genre-dependent and its role and share in the overall syllabus are
tailored to the results of needs analysis. Elements of these layers are normally determined in advance
(e.g. model textbook, entry level of competence of the target group) but they are always subject to
modification by the teacher during the course by introducing in-house materials, student-generated
materials, trainees’ projects, etc. The relative share of the three in a particular syllabus is difficult, if
impossible to tell or prescribe, though the course objectives and teacher’s own preferences and
experience will largely determine their ratio. It is hoped therefore that the proposed study/project on
the future of Maritime English will also encompass a comprehensive study of current issues in
Maritime English (its role in modern communication systems, features, typology versus needs
analysis, pedagogical relevance of the three layers above, etc.). The project should also take into
consideration a number of institutional or individual research projects 23 on Maritime English
syllabuses.
However, it is most likely that the future syllabuses of Maritime English will generally follow recent
and future developments in MET systems worldwide and will depend on the way and extent to which
they meet the requirements of the maritime industry. These, in accordance with the METNET and
GLOMET projects, can be isolated as modules of a ‘4E’ concept 24, i.e.:
- Essentials (meeting minimum requirements as per STCW Convention 1978/1995,
- Extension (extension within STCW and beyond, shipboard-related, non-degree MET),
- Enrichment (degree-based MET systems for a combination of shipboard and shore-based
employment), and
- Elevation (MSc and MBA for work in the maritime industry ashore).
Maritime English syllabus for the first ‘E’ (Essentials) should meet the lowest requirements and will,
as in the case of Maritime English requirements for the IMO watchkeeping certificates of competence,
be limited to basic navigation/marine engineering, seamanship, and – primarily - to safety of
navigation (e.g. STCW – A-II/1 and A-III/1 and IMO Model Course 3.17 Maritime English). Almost
any national model of Maritime English syllabuses, and the relative coursebook or in-house materials,
can be said to meet these requirements today, especially as far as basic SMCP 2001 for a particular
certificate are concerned. Moreover, they also comply with specific national requirements concerning
learning and teaching ESP and Maritime English.
22
Partial answers can be found in the various deliverables to the MARCOM, EASTMET, and METNET Projects
(cf. www.wmu.se) and these, along with the Seaspeak project, will provide the theoretical framework and
reference material for further research.
23
E.g. questionnaires for MARCOM and IMO Maritime English Mission in PRC 2001.
24
The concept was initiated by Professor G. Zade and has been explicated in the METNET project materials
(final report and deliverables), cf. METNET website: www.wmu.se
 12

In the Extension module, i.e. the one most frequently encountered at MET institutions of higher
education in Europe and elsewhere, the duration of the maritime English course within the usual three-
year diploma or BSc degree curriculum is normally three to five semesters (depending on the language
and cultural difference). With respect to content, in addition to the minimum STCW 95 requirements
above, the syllabus also includes topics in international maritime law and law of the sea, shipping and
port operations, marine environment, information technology, etc. (e.g. handing over a navigational
watch, entering/passing a VTS area and calling at a port, applying IMO reporting procedures,
operating & maintenance instructions for machinery, gears, equipment, engine-room fault finding and
trouble shooting, etc.).
The syllabus for the third module (Enrichment), which goes well beyond STCW 95, is far more
demanding with respect to Maritime English in that it involves new topics and methodology (business
operations in shipping, port operations, maritime law and administration, terminal operation, port
planning and cost policy, costal environment protection, management), mainly for the management
level students. The basic methodology follows the principles of content-based learning and
collaborative teaching or ‘twinning’). It may be part of a three/four-year degree course or a separately
tailored post sea-career course of several months duration. Maritime English requirements for this
module/level have been laid down in the METNET project 25. A special Work Package (WP7) contains
English language back-up materials for three courses following the curricula for of Protection of the
Marine Environment, Port Operations & Costs, and Shipping Operations (cf. Cole et al. 2003, see also
METNET web site at www.wmu.se). This system of learning/teaching Maritime English can be easily
adapted to other spheres of shore-oriented MET programmes.
On the fourth level (Evolution), still an insufficiently exploited area in MET, the role of Maritime
English decreases and that of General English increases as holders of MSc or MBA degree in maritime
studies are supposed to become efficient communicators, presenters, managers, and IT experts in the
maritime sector. In this module English language is more likely to become a communicative or
cognitive learning medium (a linguistic learning vehicle) for lecturing on or studying other subjects
rather than a separate subject. Again, as in the preceding module, content-based learning, project-
based learning, and twinning subject teachers with the English teacher, etc. are the principal
methodological features of the English language syllabus.
As a final remark it must be noted that General English permeates all the four modules, with the role,
importance, and intensity of Maritime English courses reaching the highest point on the third level.
The syllabus for Maritime English for Specific Purposes (e.g. nautical or seafaring English, Marine
Engineering English, on the other hand, is highly represented in the first module (Essentials),
gathering momentum in the second (Extension). General Maritime English, as the syllabuses
examined suggest, is equally present on all four levels.
In the future, with the introduction of modern means/codes of both verbal communication and sign
language26, prevalence of information technology, and with the growth of integrated shipping
technologies, the three types of Maritime English will be losing on their specific character and are
likely to merge, thus imposing new requirements on English language for use in the maritime industry.
This will necessitate the future ship and port officer to be equally competent in English (General
English) and highly versatile in any subset of English language used in a particular maritime sub-
profession or setting. Therefore, the role of General English within Maritime English syllabuses is
expected to grow increasingly in importance.

5. Bank of Maritime English

The issues raised in the sections above call for further research of theoretical and practical aspects of
the recent developments in Maritime English. In the process of globalization, the research on and

25
Cole, C. & P. Trenkner: METNET – The Thematic Network on Maritime Education, Training and Mobility of
Seafarers. In: Proceedings of WOME 11 - 11th IMLA Workshop on Maritime English, Varna, 2001
26
Weeks, F.: Ship to Shore Communications: Present Fact and Future Prospects. 1998
 13

learning/teaching of Maritime English will be conducted within the general developments and trends
in the following spheres:
a) general & theoretical linguistics,
b) cognitive science (categorization, classification, lexical and terminological databases, etc.)
c) information science & information technology (knowledge databases), and
d) general trends in learning/teaching theory and technology
With reference to the above, the research and practical teaching in Maritime English will, of necessity,
rely heavily on the technology of gathering and processing huge amounts of data, i.e. written texts,
recordings and transcripts of live spoken discourse in the maritime sector, and some paralinguistic
elements (diagrams, pictorial material, etc.).
Therefore, it can be expected that future research in Maritime English will be mainly conducted within
the area of computational linguistics, corpus linguistics in particular. This urges for the compilation of
a comprehensive, all-inclusive and highly representative Corpus of Maritime Texts (in English), with a
possible working title: Bank of Maritime English27. It is to include two main sub-systems:
(i) a multi-purpose maritime knowledge database (KDB) and
(ii) a maritime terminological database (LDB) to be possibly linked with the WordNet and
EuroWordNet databases28

This corpus should, in turn, be available on the internet (e.g. IMLA IMEC website) not only to those
interested in the theoretical and practical issues in Maritime English but also (and perhaps in many
cases, primarily) to many other professions in the maritime world (e.g. marine environmentalists,
experts engaged in safety at sea, marine technologies, communications, legal aspects, economics &
logistics of maritime transport, sociological, psychological, cultural studies, ocean studies, etc.).
In order to be sufficiently representative of both maritime science and industry, the corpus is to
encompass the following sub-corpora (sets of texts), divided and classified according to register and
genre into:
- nautical studies
- maritime safety studies
- marine engineering & ship's propulsion
- information technology and communications
- marine automation
- ship handling
- general seamanship
- port operations
- protection of the marine environment
- maritime administration
- international maritime legislation (conventions, regulations, agreements, etc.)
- international maritime bodies & institutions
- maritime law and law of the sea
- maritime transport technology & logistics
27
The name is suggested after Collins-COBUILD’s corpus called ‘Bank of English’, a 400 million-word corpus
of the English language.
28
Marinelli, R., A Roventini, G. Spadoni (2003) Linking a subset of Maritime Terminology to the Italian
WordNet. In: Proceedings of 3a Conferencia Internacional de Terminologia Maritima. Lisbon, 2003 (in print)
 14

- economics of ports and shipping,

- maritime education and training,
- cartography, oceanography, etc.
The project is to be conceived and guided by experts in linguistics (Maritime English) and information
science, with an obligatory advisory role of experts in the maritime subjects. Therefore, it is to be a
joint multidisciplinary product ensuring expertise and user-friendliness. These experts are expected to
supply the project with the texts and/or advice on their representative character.
The practical benefits of the proposed project are multifold:
- retrieval from the web-based ‘Bank of Maritime English’ of any sort of information for a variety
of purposes and uses (artificial intelligence in the specific field) – basically information other than
linguistic in nature
- creation, maintenance and constant upgrading of a textual and knowledge database (KDB) on
international maritime legislation
- using the information for research purposes (legal, technical, environmental, navigational safety,
linguistic, etc.)
- source of information for defining the properties of relevant concepts in the maritime studies and
the maritime industry (conceptual and terminological database)
- retrieval and practical use of the materials for learning & teaching of Maritime English, both
written and spoken English (in the classroom and individually)
- a textual database of spoken maritime communications (VHF and other) form world RCC, VTS
and other centres, voice recognition database
- basic corpus information for compiling specialized Maritime English dictionaries, glossaries
In the second stage, parts of the corpus could be transformed into a number of parallel or comparable
sub-corpora (English and translated texts, or similar texts on a topic, in other languages
As shown above, this is to be a multi-disciplinary project in the first place, thus merging the subject-
matter of Maritime English with that of other courses of study within the MET system and facilitating
collaborative teaching, i.e. twinning the work of the Maritime English teacher with that of the subject
teachers. The Bank of Maritime English is to be created, run, maintained, and principally used by
maritime teachers worldwide.

6. Conclusion
The modern Maritime English syllabus is expected to meet specific needs of (a) the modern seafarer
(taking into account the requirements of STCW Convention 1995 and the varied needs of deck
officers, engineering officers, dual purpose officers, GP ratings, VTS/VTMIS operators, port and
terminal operators etc.) and (b) holders of academic degrees in maritime studies (ship officers,
maritime administration officers, marine environmentalists, managers in shipping companies, officers
in port authorities/companies, port and terminal operators, forwarding companies and shipping
agencies, managers, etc.).
For this purpose, the role and share of General English, General Maritime English, and Maritime
English for Specific Purposes (i.e. various maritime registers and genres) within the Maritime English
syllabus will be tailored to the specific needs of each diploma/degree course. Designers of future
Maritime English syllabuses should therefore take a holistic approach, following the general
developments in maritime education and training as foreseen in the four modules or levels of the
METNET project (Essentials, Extension, Enrichment, Evolution) as well as the trends in
learning/teaching English as a foreign/second language.
 15

The creation of an internet-based Maritime English textual corpus (‘Bank of Maritime English’) is to
offer a valuable source for both theoretical and empirical studies into the changing nature of modern
Maritime English, syllabus design with respect to communicative competence of seafarers, and
Maritime English materials development.
With the prevalence of information technology, and with respect to the recent developments in the
maritime industry, Maritime English will be gradually losing on its specific character. This is why the
future ship and port officer will need a high command of General English and will at the same time
have to be equally competent in any subset of English language used in a particular maritime sub-
profession or setting.
Therefore, the answer to the question raised in the title is a holistic one rather than alternative
(either/or), i.e. the modern Maritime English syllabus should cover the needs of both specialist (mainly
STCW-based) and comprehensive courses (both sea and shore-based, with a growing role of General
English). In doing so it should make use of the underlying methodology and activities of the multiple
disciplines it serves.