english as a business lingua franca

http://job.sagepub.com/Communication

Journal of Business

http://job.sagepub.com/content/47/4/408The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0021943610377303 2010 47: 408Journal of Business Communication

Susanne EhrenreichCorporation : Meeting the Challenge

English as a Business Lingua Franca in a German Multinational

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Business Communication

can be found at:Journal of Business CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://job.sagepub.com/content/47/4/408.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 9, 2010Version of Record >> at Queens University on May 2, 2013job.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ENGLISH AS A BUSINESS LINGUA FRANCA IN A GERMAN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION

Meeting the Challenge

Susanne EhrenreichLudwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen, Germany

This article explores the role of English and other languages as perceived by members of upper man-agement in a family-owned German multinational corporation in the technology sector. The findings show that, in the 21st century, English has become an indispensable must in the company and that there is a general understanding that staff at all levels develop their language skills as they see appro-priate for their roles within the company. What needs to be learned, however, is not English as a native language but communicative effectiveness in English as a business lingua franca, whichas an international contact languagebrings together nonnative as well as native Englishes from vari-ous linguacultural backgrounds spoken with varying degrees of proficiency. Learning to cope with the challenges of such diversity, in the context of business communication, seems to happen most effec-tively in business communities of practice rather than in traditional English training. The study also shows that, despite the dominance of English, other languages are not disappearing from the scene but are, indeed, used as a pragmatic or strategic resource. In particular, German, as the head-quarters language, maintains an important role among individuals and within the organization.

Keywords: English as a business lingua franca; BELF; language diversity; multilingual communi-cative effectiveness

One decade into the 21st century, English has undoubtedly become the dominant language in international business. This fact will be readily acknowledged by those involved in global business operations today (see Charles, 2007; Du-Babcock & Babcock, 2007; Gerritsen & Nickerson, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006; Nickerson, 2005; Piekkari, 2009;

The author would like to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments on an earlier draft of this article. All errors and shortcomings are exclusively her own. Susanne Ehrenreich is a senior lecturer in Applied English Linguistics at LMU Munich, Germany. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Susanne Ehrenreich, Department for British and American Studies, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen, 80799 Munich, Germany; e-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Business Communication, Volume 47, Number 4, October 2010 408-431 DOI: 10.1177/0021943610377303 2010 by the Association for Business Communication

at Queens University on May 2, 2013job.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ehrenreich / ENGLISH AS A BUSINESS LINGUA FRANCA IN A GERMAN MNC 409

Rogerson-Revell, 2007, 2008; Welch, Welch, & Piekkari, 2005). However, to fully grasp the meaning of this seemingly straightforward introductory statement, a closer look at each of its individual components is necessary. What kind of English is it that is used in international business interactions? Also, what does the dominance of English imply? Does it imply exclusivity at the expense of other languages or, rather, a relative position in the linguis-tic repertoires of individuals and organizations? Finally, what exactly do we mean by international business? In concrete terms, what is the nature, struc-ture, and global scope of individual business contexts and who are the people in these contexts using English as a communicative tool?

What does the dominance of English imply? Does it imply exclusivity at the expense of other languages or, rather, a relative position in the linguistic reper-toires of individuals and organizations?

The aim of this article is to explore these and related issues on the basis of a qualitative study that investigates the use of English and its role as a business lingua franca alongside other languages as experienced by repre-sentatives of top and middle management of a German family-owned multinational corporation (MNC). The article thus aims to complement existing research into the use of English in other multinationals in Germany (e.g., Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, & Piekkari 2007) as well as in other countries and regions (e.g., Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005; Marschan, Welch, & Welch, 1997).

The article is structured as follows: First, the above-mentioned themes are explored against the backdrop of previous research. Then, the research methodology of this study as well as its conceptual framework is described, followed by a presentation of the findings and their discussion. The article concludes with a critical examination of the limitations of the study and some pointers to future research.

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The use of and the wider implications of English as a lingua franca (ELF) are studied from various perspectives and with different foci in


410 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

several disciplines. The two most important strands of research that need to be brought together for the purpose of the present article are linguistics, with its newly emerging field of ELF research (e.g., Mauranen & Ranta, 2009), and international business communication, in which the study of English as a business lingua franca (BELF) has also become a major focal point in recent years (e.g., Gerritsen & Nickerson, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005). In the following, the conceptual issues outlined in the intro-duction will be explored in more detail and linked to previous research.

The first set of questions concerns the English language. What kind of English is used by and is useful for the interactants? There is general agreement in both ELF and BELF research that English used for interna-tional communication purposes is not the same as the English used by its native speakers locally in their home countries. Thus, a conceptual dis-tinction has to be made between English as a native language (ENL) and ELF (see Seidlhofer, 2001). Building on the concept of ELF, BELF has been defined as a language that is nobodys own, but can be shared and is used in the business discourse community, that is, it is ELF usage in business situations (Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006, pp. 31, 34). This important distinction, however, between different concepts of English, with the major implications it has on several levels, is not always made explicit in the literature nor is it, despite the use of the terminology, always maintained in the line of reasoning in some work.

There is general agreement in both ELF and BELF research that English used for international communication purposes is not the same as the English used by its native speakers locally in their home countries.

For example, as the primary purpose of language is to enable com-munication, the issue needs to be addressed as to what specific character-istics of BELF (or, more precisely, what specific skills exhibited by its speakers) actually make this communication work. Thus, the concept of language competence, which has traditionally been gauged against the yardstick of a native speakers skills, has to be reevaluated in the light of recent (B)ELF research. Several approaches can be identified. Somewhat



inconsistently, a couple of linguistic (B)ELF studies still use native speaker standards to evaluate the language performance of nonnative speaker busi-ness professionals (Firth, 1996; Rogerson-Revell, 2008). In contrast, the bulk of research into both ELF and BELF is pursuing an avenue more in line with its own conceptual underpinnings. In BELF research, Poncinis (2002, 2007) and Louhiala-Salminens (2002) context-sensitive analyses of business professionals discourse activities reveal the interactants ess-entially pragmatic approach to language issues as well as their skilful and strategic use of BELF together with other languages. These findings are very much in line with work done in general ELF research. With regard to the specific domain of language use, Poncinis (2002, 2007) and Louhiala-Salminens (2002) studies remind us of the fact that business discourse is governed by a range of business-related, extralinguistic contextual factors such as the participants professional roles, the extent of shared knowledge and differing expectations, as well as time constraints. Unfortunately, though probably because of the disciplines orientations, in international business and management studies, the conceptual question of what actually constitutes English language competence in international business today is generally not problematized (e.g., Blazejewski, 2006; Fredriksson et al., 2007; Piekkari, 2009; Tietze, 2004).

Although English is clearly the domi-nant language in international business, other languages do not disappear from the business scene but interact with English in many ways.

Another set of questions concerns the position of English in relation to other languages. Although English is clearly the dominant language in international business, other languages do not disappear from the business scene but interact with English in many ways. This interaction is played out on the individual, the social, as well as the organizational level. Although the multilingual nature of international (business) contact set-tings is generally acknowledged (e.g., Poncini, 2003), the way it is evalu-ated across the disciplines varies considerably. Contact linguistics, on the one hand, and international management studies, on the other, probably represent the two endpoints of an interdisciplinary continuum. In contact



linguistics, and more specifically in the study of Postcolonial Englishes, the interaction between English and other languages in multilingual set-tings as well as the resulting (socio)linguistic effects constitute the major focus of the fields (Schneider, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2009). In the area of international management studies with its focus on the notion of a com-mon corporate language, the parallel coexistence of one or several lan-guages alongside such a shared language (e.g., English) is considered to be potentially problematic from the perspective of corporate cohesion and integration (Fredriksson et al., 2007, p. 419).

Finally, the domain of international business is a vast one, encom-passing different industries, organized in companies of varying sizes and with widely differing organizational structures, located in highly diverse linguacultural regions across the globe, and involving represen-tatives on different hierarchical levels. These are just some of the con-textual business-related factors that recent research has shown to shape the individual speakers communicative realities (e.g., Fredriksson et al., 2007). Similarly, these factors are likely to influence the speakers atti-tudes toward BELF and their ability and willingness to deal with the communicative challenges associated with it. For example, recent research suggests that top management in large MNCs is not suffi-ciently aware of the existence of language-related problems on the lower hierarchical levels (e.g., Piekkari 2009). Also, the role that is assigned to the headquarters language seems to be a function of the relative size of the language in question. Thus, in contrast to Nordic businesses (Louhiala-Salminen, 2002; Marschan et al., 1997), in Germany-based multinationals, German tends to maintain a major role in the organization (Fredriksson et al., 2007). Empirical research focus-ing on the individual and his or her perceptions of the use of English in the globalized work environment is still limited to only a couple of landmark studies (e.g., Blazejewski, 2006; Fredriksson et al., 2007; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005; Marschan et al., 1997).

Based on qualitative interviews conducted with representatives of the upper management in a German MNC, the following research questions will be examined in this article to give additional empirical substance to the issues addressed above:

1. What is the role of English in a German global MNC? How do German business managers evaluate the communicative facets of (B)ELF and what are their perceptions of native speaker interlocutors?

2. What are the roles of languages other than English? In a Germany-based MNC, is the headquarters language privileged and if so in what way?



DATA AND CONCEPTS

Data and Analysis

The data for this study form part of an ongoing larger scale research project investigating (B)ELF discourse as well as (B)ELF users percep-tions of language and communication in MNCs and was gathered in 2006 and 2007 in two companies that are both global players in their fields. The company investigated in the present study is a supplier for transport sys-tems with an international workforce of 14,000 employees at 60 locations in 25 countries on all continents. Throughout the study, the acronym TechComp is used for this case company.

To capture the multidimensional realities of language and communica-tion as experienced by mid- to top-level business managers as compre-hensively as possibleultimately aiming to gain access to their conceptual worlds (Geertz, 1973, as cited in Smart, 1998)an ethnographic, multi-method approach was adopted (see Charles, 2007; Kvale, 1996; Louhiala-Salminen, 2002; Smart 1998). Data collection and analysis were governed by general principles of qualitative research in the social sciences (Flick, von Kardorff, & Steinke, 2000/2004; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) including the relevant quality criteria of intersubject comprehensibility and indi-cation of the research process as suggested by Steinke (2000/2004). The overall database collected in TechComp consists of 24 qualitative inter-views of an average length of 90 minutes, observation of various types of internal and external meetings as well as dinners (16 events), 2 days of shadowing, and nine recordings of phone conferences and meetings. All in all, more than 30 days were spent on-site at the company. Among the interviewees and observees in TechComp were board members, high-level executives, and project managers, as well as engineers and a few assistants. The majority of interview partners were German, and the nationalities of the observees included Italian, French, British, American, Chinese, and Spanish. However, at events such as the annual international executive meeting (which the author also observed), people from more than 20 nationalities gathered.

As research into the use of and attitudes toward BELF at the level of top management is particularly scarce, four interviews with members representing the four top levels of TechComps organizational hierarchy have been singled out for an in-depth analysis in the present study: B is a member of the companys executive board and functions as head of one of the companys two divisions, C is chair of the management board of this division, D is vice president of a development centre in the same division,



and, finally, E is a member of middle management and director in another development centre (see the appendix for additional information on the interviewees and a graph representing TechComps organization).

The format of the episodic interview (Flick, 2000/2004, p. 179) was chosen, which combines a semistructured and a narrative approach and involves the use of different types of questions that help gain access to different types of knowledge and perspectives. The interview conversa-tions thus provided rich personal accounts full of thick descriptions. Strategies of communicative validation employed in the course of the inter-views (e.g., brief summaries, clarifying requests) fulfilled the function of within-method triangulation; the supplementary observational data con-tributed to between-method triangulation (Flick, 2000/2004, p. 179).

In light of the research questions of the present study, relevant text pas-sages of the four interviews, which had previously been coded thematically using the software package MAXQDA (Kelle, 2000/2004; VERBI Software, 2007), were retrieved and compared, followed by within-case and cross-case analyses. The main target was a detailed analysis of as many facets as possible of the themes under investigation, as viewed by a group of interviewees to whom access is notoriously difficult to gain (at least for a linguist). Contributing to theory building in the field of ELF, rather than generalization, is therefore the primary aim. However, through the pro-cesses of triangulation and the provision of the necessary contextual information, a certain degree of transferability is guaranteed, enabling a comparison with other dis/similar contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, as cited in Flick, 1995).

Analytical Concepts

As outlined above, English is conceptualized here as English as a lingua franca (ELF), which is used as an international contact language between speakers from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds to com-municate across languages. As such, it is characterized by a high degree of diversity in terms of regional linguacultural variation and levels of profi-ciency. The term BELF specifies the domain in which ELF is used and emphasizes the many ways in which language and business strategies interact in business discourse (Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006) The often debated issue of (non)inclusion of native speakers of English in res-earch into English-medium (business) communication (Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2007; Rogerson-Revell, 2007, 2008) is solved here on an empirical basis. As native speakers are an integral part of many business



interactions in TechComp, they are, naturally, included in the analysis. International interactions conducted via English as a contact language thus comprise a vast range of native speaker as well as nonnative speaker Englishes. Another theoretical controversy concerns the issue of how interna-tional (business) communicators can be conceptualized adequately. Are they primarily learners, or rather speakers in their own right? The answer hinges both on how learning is framed theoretically and on empirical evidence gained through self-reports and observation of language behavior in situ.

In previous research into BELF, the notion of discourse community has been fruitfully applied for analyses of BELF discourse focusing on the busi-ness interactants shared knowledge of the forms and purposes of their dis-course activities (Louhiala-Salminen, 2002). However, for an exploration of the perceptions and attitudes of (B)ELF speakers, the concept of community of practice (CofP) with its focus on the notion of practice (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 1999, p. 174) may open up a perspective more in line with the members own frames of reference (Ehrenreich, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Poncini, 2007; Wenger, 1998). Members of a CofP are brought together by a common task (joint enterprise), which they pursue and negotiate through regular interaction (mutual engagement) developing their own communicative resources (shared repertoire; see Wenger, 1998). In this process, [w]ays of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relationsin short, practicesemerge (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992, p. 464), which are passed on to and have to be learnt by new members joining a particular community.

At TechComp, members of individual international CofPs interact with each other face-to-face in various settings (in their offices, in corridors, during meetings, over lunch, dinner, or coffee) or via different channels of telecommunication (phone, email, Internet). Their joint enterprises are defined by the companys objective of profit making, which again trans-lates into each members individual contribution toward this goal. Finally, the shared repertoires that have been developed by TechComps top and middle managers include German, English, and many more languages, as well as documents such as drawings, charts, or PowerPoint presentations, as well as models of different parts of their products (see Smart, 1998).

FINDINGS

Over the past 20 years, TechComp has gradually but steadily developed from a national medium-sized enterprise into a highly globalized corporation whose multiple internal and external links around the world shape the



business activities of almost all employees at its headquarters in Germany. Judging from the overall ethnographic data gathered on-site, the compa-nys global makeup is not only seen as a major economic asset giving it its competitive edge but is also something that isdespite all the chal-lenges and potential frustrations such diversity brings with itvalued highly by most of its staff. The fact that TechComp has thus evolved in a continuous process of global expansion through acquisitions and new foundations as well as the fact that it is still family-owned may set it some-what apart from other larger public MNCs, which are often the result of cross-border mergers of two or more large companies. This general back-drop of a largely pro-international spirit and the relative solid grounding of the interviewees in the actual profit-loss business units provides the necessary context for the following analyses of the four interviews with members of TechComps upper management. First, the role of English in TechComp is discussed, exploring aspects such as its status as an indis-pensable must, the nature of the required language and communication skills, as well as other facets pertaining to English-based international communication. Then, the other languages, including German as the headquarters language, and their places in the organization are examined.

There is unanimous agreement between all interviewees about the fact that English is a must for managers and employees in all locations and at practi-cally all levels, all the way from top management down to regular office workers and, most importantly, secre-taries in top and middle management.

The Role of English

Although English is not officially the corporate language at TechComp, its status as the de facto lingua franca of international business is undis-puted. There is unanimous agreement between all interviewees about the fact that English is a must for managers and employees in all locations and at practically all levels, all the way from top management down to



regular office workers and, most importantly, secretaries in top and mid-dle management. Quite clearly, in 2006, English is no longer an asset on CVs (contra Piekkari, 2009) but has turned into a sine qua non, which means that job candidates without English will basically not be hired. The same requirements apply to career-minded employees. The comparisons and metaphors used by the interviewees to express the vital importance of English as a tool for TechComps international business operations speak for themselves: For E, there is no difference between English skills and basic literacy skills such as reading and writing, or general computer skills. D uses the following illustration:

Its like . . . well, were all swimming in water, and you either sink or swim. No English is not an option.

Das ist so, wie wenn er . . . also wir schwimmen dann einfach im Wasser und entweder schwimmst du und bleibst oder gehst unter. Ohne Englisch geht nicht. (D 14)

The metaphors underscore the fact that English has become virtually indispensible in the company. However, despite its undisputed importance, a managers or an employees professional managerial or technical exp ertise still comes first. In their business CofPs, English is a tool enabling international communication and is as such part of the communities shared repertoires. In contrast, the necessary pro fessional skills are directly related to the communities core activities, their joint enterprises, and this is what really counts to be successful in the business:

English . . . is a means to an end. For me, English is not an end in itself.Englisch . . . ist das Mittel zum Zweck. Englisch ist fr mich nicht

Selbstzweck. (D 11)

The fact that language skills without the necessary professional profile are not sufficient is something they said they had to learn the hard way. E relates how such an approach, that is, hiring employees on the basis of their English language proficiency rather than based on their technical expertise had initially been taken in China but had ended with TechComp getting a bloody nose.

With regard to what is perceived to be the required level of language competence, the operative quote is pragmatic attitude (C 11), and, indeed, this down-to-earth view is shared by all interviewees. Their answers concern-ing the importance they attribute to correct English further substantiate this perspective. Apart from what they call important written texts, which



include contracts or official texts geared toward a wider public (such as annual reports and websites), conformity with Standard English is seen as a fairly irrelevant concept. Interestingly, even with regard to these impor-tant written texts, it turns out that correctness is actually only a matter of prestige (Seidlhofer, Breiteneder, & Pitzl, 2006, p. 8). By presenting to the world English texts that conform to Standard English, the company demonstrates its professionalism and its global leadership.

After all, were not amateur players, which means we dont have to reveal to the world that this company manages to express itself on, well, lets say, only an amateur level.

Und wir sind ja hier kein Kreisligaverein, da muss man ja nicht der ganzen Welt dokumentieren, dass dieses Unternehmen, ich sage mal, amateurhaft versucht, sich auszudrcken. (C 10)

Other than that, what counts in the jungle of different varieties and proficiency levels of English is the languages function of transmitting information effectively and efficiently across language boundaries (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005, p. 418).

I must say Im confronted with so many levels of correctness that I dont actually care whether something is correct or incorrect. As long as the meaning is not distorted.

Ich bin mit so vielen Levels von Korrektheit konfrontiert, dass ich mir da eigentlich nichts daraus mache, ob das jetzt richtig oder falsch ist, muss ich sagen. Wenn es nicht sinnentstellend ist. (B 11)

The language of international business is BELF. Native speaker proficiency in English (ENL) is neither expected (see Charles, 2007) nor necessarily beneficial. The concept is dismissed as unrealistic (C 10) and also described as unnecessary from a cost-benefit point of view. E puts it as follows:

A manager must speak English, its not a matter of how well or badly, he must simply speak.

Ein Manager muss sprechen, nicht gut oder schlecht, er muss sprechen. (E 20)

However, there is no reason to underestimate the concept of proficiency in BELF. Although native speaker competence is not expected, general, or rather, well-developed communicative skills (in any language) and the abil-ity to make oneself understood are regarded as essential. E points out that,



above all, managers and employees at TechComp need to be able to com-municate, which for him includes both communicating facts as well as com-municating with people and this, if need be, in English.

Developing the necessary BELF skills happens in two ways, either through exposure and interaction in the course of mutual engagement in their CofPs with international colleagues and business partners (see Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002, p. 25, on encouraging staff to understand and negotiate global Englishes) or through language training, which is offered through TechComps HR department. It needs to be added, though, that all four interviewees expressed a certain dissatisfaction with conven-tional formats of English training. Essentially, they felt that the CofP-based approach through learning by doing was a much more efficient way of acquiring the language and communication skills they actually needed in their daily routines. In any way, the interviewees leave no doubt about the fact that a willingness to develop ones English skills further, one way or the other, is, in fact, expected of all managers and employees at TechComp.

Instructive differences in perspective between the interviewer, a lin-guist, and the interviewees, the business managers, became apparent in the course of the interviews. The interviewees pointed out the fact that a number of interview questions concerning the use and their perceptions of English were too narrowly language-focused and could, in fact, only be answered in more global terms of business communication in general. Along the same lines, the overall importance of business-related contex-tual parameters and the ways in which these tend to govern communica-tion processes at TechComp were also revealed, more indirectly, through an analysis of the narrative passages of the interviews. Such parameters include, for example, general or specific business goals or topics, the posi-tion of interlocutors in an organizations hierarchy and their personali-ties, organizational and time constraints in general, and so on (see also Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010).

It is these and a whole range of other business-related parameters that determine to a large extent how English is perceived. In the literature, English has variously been described not only as a facilitator alleviating communication problems but also as a challenge, and even barrier, imped-ing communication for those who do not or only insufficiently speak it (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari 2002; Marschan et al., 1997). According to the interviewees in the present study, English can be many things ranging from facilitator through to barrier. Above all, however, they mentioned repeatedly that it is not something they give much thought to outside an



interview with a linguist. Nevertheless, their characterizations of English are varied and full of perceptive insights. Its role as facilitator is appreci-ated in situations in which it is only through English that conducting busi-ness is made possible in the first place. This is illustrated by B as follows:

Its role as facilitator is appreciated in situations in which it is only through English that conducting business is made possible in the first place.

This morning I talked to a Japanese partner on the phone. It was awful English, but we sort of understood each other.

Ich habe heute Morgen ein Telefonat mit einem Japaner gehabt in einem furchtbaren Englisch, aber wir haben uns einigermaen verstanden. (B 3)

And later on in the interview, he adds:

There is simply no better solution, I dont speak Chinese, I dont speak Indian, I dont speak Japanese.

Es gibt ja keine bessere Lsung, ich kann kein Chinesisch, ich kann kein Indisch, ich kann kein Japanisch. (B 15)

As a result of the increasingly global reach of TechComp, English has, over the years, become a fact of life for these managers. And though this may have been a real challenge initially, the interviews reveal how they have learned to master this challenge through extended experience. Of course, situations, in which old problems resurface or new ones emerge, still occur and once in a while this causes frustration and annoyance. In general, however, being part of a highly diverse English-speaking global network is seen by all four interviewees as a rich and rewarding experi-ence. B takes real pride in his truly global task of managing the companys business in 35 to 40 countries. D even uses the words gift (Geschenk) or enrichment of his life (Bereicherung fr mein Leben) to express his appreciation of his international tasks.

This positive attitude, however, by no means implies that communica-tion always flows smoothly. The managers perceptions of what it means to be involved in international business are therefore multifaceted. Many



of the challenges and problems mentioned in the interviews are similar to the problem areas that have been uncovered in previous research across industries and regions (see Blazejewski, 2006; Charles, 2007; Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005; Rogerson-Revell, 2007, 2008; Welch et al., 2005). For example, problems are caused by business partners who have only very rudimentary or no knowl-edge of English at all and with whom communication is therefore only possible via interpreters (who, in turn, in some cases may not be suffi-ciently familiar with the subject matter). In terms of regions, this is mainly the case in countries such as China and Russia, and, in terms of age, it is reported to happen with more senior business partners as well as internally at the lower levels of TechComp. Also, coping with different levels of proficiency as well as with native speakers is reported as challenging. Partly because of these challenges, English-medium interactions are described as being more tiring and also taking longer than those in ones mother tongue, German. Interactions in English are also reported to be more prone to what occasionally proves to be a substantial loss of detail, potentially causing delays in a process or extra costs. Whereas communi-cating about technical matters is reported to be mastered with relative ease (also because in the communities shared repertoires additional communi-cative aids are available such as documents, drawings, parts, etc.), talking about personal or more emotional issues and dealing with conflict are areas where the linguistic handicap is felt most (see Fredriksson et al., 2007, p. 418).

Perhaps not surprisingly, in their answers to the question as to which English they understand best, intelligibility is portrayed as an individual and experience-based category, as indicated by B:

I dont want to generalize, I can only talk about my own experience, or how I feel about it.

Ich mchte nicht pauschalisieren, ich kann immer nur von meiner Erfahrung sprechen oder von meinem Empfinden. (B 5)

It seems that in the course of the mutual engagement with their interna-tional business partners, they gradually got used to those varieties they have been most exposed to. Hence, there is no clear overlap between the Englishes each manager identifies as easy or difficult to understand. Nevertheless, two general trends become visible. Native speaker English is generally said to be among the difficult candidates mostly because of the speed with which it is spoken and because of its sophisticated vocabulary (see Rogerson-Revell, 2008) and Indian English also seems to pose a major challenge. In general,



however, intelligibility is not seen as an inherent quality of a certain variety of English (see Nelson, 2008) but is rather something that is coconstructed by interlocutors who make an effort (B, C, E). This is a quality they see in most nonnative speakers of English. Although all interviewees have, in the course of their international careers, acquired a large repertoire of coping strategies such as comprehension checks, asking for clarification and repeti-tion, attention to facial expression, and so on, when and where to apply these depends on more than just linguistic considerations. Situation-specific and task-specific factors as well as issues of face may sometimes rule out making use of these strategies as is exemplified below.

Finally, if native English is reported as difficult to understand, what are the interviewees perceptions of native speaker interlocutors? Of the four interviewees, only B said he did not experience any particular problems in interactions with native speakers, a diplomatic answer that is arguably closely related to his position as head of the division. The other three agree that native speakers frequently use their native competence as an instrument of power, a fact they find extremely irritating. In addition, native speakers are described (and have, in fact, been observed by the author) as fairly inconsiderate interlocutors with apparently little accom-modation skills (see Du-Babcock & Babcock, 2007; Rogerson-Revell, 2008). Asked how he tries to deal with native speakers, C replied,

Of course, you can ask them to talk less, and to slow down. And all they do, is raise their voices. . . It [accommodating] seems to be difficult for them.

Sie knnen halt sagen: Erzhl weniger, erzhl es langsamer. Und er wird lauter. . . . Das fllt denen offensichtlich sehr schwer. (C 8.4)

Again, face is an issue, and, as asking for clarification is seen as a dis-play of weakness by all three interviewees (Charles, 2007), clarification requests are not always an option. C explains why interactions with native speakers are considered particularly challenging, especially in a situation of conflict:

And you cant really attack him [the native speaker] because there is always this residual risk, did I just get him wrong, or is he actually talking rubbish?

Und Sie knnen ihn nicht so massiv angreifen, weil Sie immer ein Restrisiko haben, haben Sie das jetzt nur falsch verstanden, oder redet der einfach Unsinn? (C 8)

On the other hand, in noncompetitive situations, native speaker interlocu-tors are generally seen as much less of a problem.



The Role of Other Languages and the Status of German

As sites of language contact (Harris & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003), BELF interactions are rarely ever monolingual events. Languages other than English are involved in different roles and, indeed, put to use as a valuable resource in a range of contexts. In some instances, the parallel use of several languages is situationally motivated. For example, B exp-lained how for an audience in Russia a presentation held in English was supported by slides that contained an abridged Russian version of the presentations content to assist comprehension. If, in meetings or phone conferences, a quick exchange between compatriots is necessary, this is done in their mother tongues, though as the interviewees pointed out, never without first apologizing for this code switch into another language.

From a corporate perspective, the importance of other languages as valuable strategic resources is clearly recognized by all interviewees. English may be the necessary tool facilitating international communica-tion, but to accomplish a range of specific business tasks successfully, other languages are indispensable, a fact that is also reflected in TechComps global organization. In particular, this concerns issues involved in establishing and maintaining relations with customers. For example, native competence in a countrys national language as well as cultural expertise is considered necessary to be successful in the bidding for and winning of contracts in a region. This is one of the reasons why, as a rule, local subsidiaries are run by local managing directors.

Well, its our explicit strategy to have a national representative in each country in the world, whose job it is to look after our customers there. And, indeed, we have been very successful in the past because of the combined strengths of these different nationalities.

Es ist ja unsere gewollte Aufstellung, dass wir in jedem Land auf dieser Welt einen nationalen Menschen haben, der halt auch wirklich da diese Kunden bearbeiten kann. Und wir machen schon haufenweise Joker ber die verschiedenen Fhigkeiten dieser Nationalitten. (C 15)

Similarly, at the headquarters in Germany, the positions of key account managers are generally filled with national representatives of the custom-ers home countries.

In general, being able to communicate with a business partner in his or her national language is considered a definite advantage, particularly with respect to customer relations in countries in which English cannot be expected to be spoken by the customers upper management levels (e.g., China,



Japan, Russia). Thus, additional foreign languages are, indeed, an asset. Yet as much as B and D would like to extend their foreign language rep-ertoires (see the appendix), there is, of course, a downside to the compa-nys global makeup: Which of the many relevant languages to single out for learning?

But the fact that I travel to so many countries makes it a bit difficult [to decide which language to learn].

Aber ich bin halt auch in sehr vielen Lndern unterwegs und das macht es [die Entscheidung fr eine Sprache] dann schon ein bisschen schwer. (B 17)

Last but not least, among the many languages, is German as the language of the parent company in any way privileged? Although a large European language with more than 100 million native speakers, German is, as the interviewees say, simply not an option for international interactions.

German is out of the question.Deutsch steht nicht zur Debatte. (C 9)

Thats just the way it is, whether they like it or not, and indeed sometimes they do not, mainly because, as indicated above, the interviewees are fully aware of the extra power that comes with being a native speaker of the language used for conducting business.

With respect to the issue of language choice, in their linguistically mixed work environment, the tacit rule applies that whenever non-German-speaking interactants are involved in spoken interactions or in an e-mail exchange, the language choice is English. Now and again this can lead to fairly ironic constellations. D related how, in several top level meetings, German managers had to speak English because there was one single non-German-speaking British participant involved (who would, according to D, if necessary, not stop short of using his native competence in English as a competitive edge).

The tacit rule applies that whenever non-German-speaking interactants are involved in spoken interactions or in an e-mail exchange, the language choice is English.



Unlike what has been reported to be occasionally the case in Finnish, Dutchor even Germanbusiness contexts (Fredriksson et al., 2007; Louhiala-Salminen, 2002), at TechComp, English is practically never used within Germans-only groups. This means that as soon as everybody realizes that there is no need to speak English, they switch back to German. Yet at times, realizing at a dinner or during a coffee break that the last non-German-speaking person had actually left the scene or, in a meeting, that all participants were in fact speakers of German may take a little while. B describes a typical reaction in such situations:

Ooops, it would actually be much easier, if in this circle, in which every-one speaks German, we continued the conversation in German.

Hoppla, es ist ja eigentlich viel leichter, wenn wir uns jetzt in dem Kreis, wo wir alle Deutsch sprechen, in Deutsch weiter unterhalten. (B 10)

Continuing to communicate in English in such contexts, that is, without a reason is therefore labeled by D quite frankly as dumb (dmlich, D 13).

In one respect, German does enjoy a certain corporate privilege. Because all board members are German, the language of board meetings is German. Occasionally, a deliberate choice of German is also made in other top-level meetings, which would otherwise, because of their international makeup, be held in English. This is done, for example, if an extremely delicate stra-tegic issue needs to be sorted out. The rationale behind this unusual lan-guage choicewhich may come at the price of excluding international executives who do not speak Germanis, of course, to ensure maximum communicative effectiveness and avoid any BELF-induced loss of infor-mation. Thus, in these rare cases, not knowing the headquarters language actually constitutes a concrete language barrier. As a general rule, however, English is the language used internationally and German skills are not a requirement for international managers and employees in the subsidiaries.

Another area influenced by German is the international company jar-gon, which, as typical contact phenomena, includes several German loan words as well as loan translations. Other contact features which were iden-tified at TechComp and which are regularly observed in English-based contact varieties include culturally hybrid discourse rules and terms of address (Schneider, 2007; see also Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

If members of management have been described elsewhere as often see[ing] language differences in simplistic terms, so that language is not



viewed as an important managerial issue (Welch et al., 2005, p. 11) the interviews studied here convincingly demonstrate that in top management at TechComp, a family-owned Germany-based MNC, this is not the case. The four managers have a clear awareness of the complex linguistic envi-ronment in which they need to get their jobs done, and they have, at the same time, developed sophisticated strategies for dealing with this complexityas is appropriate in their global business contexts in each particular situa-tion. Though forming an integral part of their communication practices, this kind of experience-based expertise is not necessarily part of their declarative knowledge, and hence it is sometimes difficult for them to articulate (see Wenger, 1998). With the methodical help of the interview, though, this tacit knowledge was elicited or rather prompted by questions the interviewees had never really asked themselves before and transformed into explicit knowledge together with the interviewer (Kvale, 1996).

Notwithstanding some minor context-specific differences, key empiri-cal findings of BELF research are supported by the present study. Similarly to what has been reported for Scandinavian multinational companies by Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005), at TechComp, a pragmatic and flexible approach to language use is adopted by the interactants. This means that pragmatic reality decide[s] language choice on a day to day basis, and effectiveness and efficiency in communication govern [. . .] language use rather than linguistic correctness as such (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005, p. 418). The managers linguistic and communicative performance as observed by the author at an international executive meeting supports another important observation as put forward by Nickerson (2007): expe-rienced business people are strategically competent despite the fact that they may not have high levels of proficiency (p. 353). In the case of the four managers discussed in this study, this meant excellent communication skills despite a range of linguistic innovations in their English. Also, with regard to BELF as a contact language, the ubiquity of other languages that have to be dealt with competently is confirmed: the realities of the business context are often considerably more complex than the simple label of English as a lingua franca would imply (Nickerson, 2007, p. 354).

With regard to a number of conceptual issues, however, the findings of this study suggest a slight reorientation. Although, indeed, BELF has no native speakers, in some contexts, native speakers of English are, in fact, part of international business operations, occasionally causing consider-able communicative trouble (Charles, 2007). As much as transcending the native speaker-nonnative speaker dichotomy may be a desirable theoreti-cal aim, it is ultimately the empirical reality of a specific international business setting that decides whether or not native speakers of English are



included in a particular research activity (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, 2008). In a similar vein, how to conceptualize BELF speakers adequately has been referred to as an open question. In the interviews analyzed in this study, the managers characterized themselves as being, quite evidently, users of English but also in some ways lifelong learners. Interestingly, adopting the CofP approach helps to go beyond the controversial learner-user distinc-tion (see Charles, 2007; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005). More specifically, the concept of CofP as an integral part of a social theory of learning criti-cizes traditional models of learning in which learners are abstracted from their normal interactional contexts. Instead, it defines learning as a funda-mentally social process through which we learn to perform appropriately in a CofP as befits our membership status (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 1999, p. 174). Researchers are therefore invited to rethink their own notions of learner and ask novice as well as expert members of different (B)ELF-speaking business CofPs what it is they had to learn about languages, and English in particular, in order to become fully functional members in their communities (see also Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005, p. 419). Finally, with regard to BELF as a research paradigm, it is deemed important not to see the two approaches of ELF and BELF as mutually exclusive or in opposition (see Charles, 2007) but, rather, as complementing each other. Combining the research efforts into ELF by charting the general linguistic developments on the one hand (Seidlhofer, 2009) and uncovering the domain-specific operational rules governing its use in international busi-ness, on the other hand, will eventually contribute to a better understanding of the overall lingua franca phenomenon.

A final point concerns the tacit nature of the business interactants knowledge of the operational rules of BELF communication. Again, the CofP approach with its three dimensions of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire helps explain a widely observable gap between business communicators on the one hand and business com-munication scholars as well as linguists on the other hand, with regard to the specific significance attributed to language. In international business communities, accomplishing and communicating about a business task forms part of the members joint enterprise, whereas English (as well as other languages) is no more than a resource in the interactants shared repertoires,albeit a highly functional one. Countless instances of inter-national business representatives referring to English as a tool support this conceptualization. By contrast, in the academic communities of busi-ness communication or (B)ELF scholars, English, or language in general, is a key element of the joint (research) enterprise and is, legitimately,



assigned paramount significance (see Livesey, 2002, p. 7). Bringing the two perspectives togetherthe practitioners lived communicative reali-ties and the scholars analyses thereofin a productive way is probably one of the most challenging tasks of the field(s).

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study has uncovered and analyzed in some detail the individual and shared ways in which four German top managers perceive and deal with BELF in their particular international corporate environment. Although embedded in rich observational data, this interview study suf-fers from the well-known limitations of a qualitative case study approach, and generalizations extending beyond its context are therefore not possi-ble (nor are they intended). Naturally, a more detailed discussion of the many facets addressed in the interviews is not possible within the limited space of an article. Nevertheless, several pointers to future research have become visible. First, to gain a better understanding of the differences and similarities between different groups of business professionals concerning their perceptions of and communicative practices in BELF, future research activities need to be extended to include not only other countries and busi-ness areas but also different types of MNCs, that is, MNCs that are global-ized to different extents. Second, the role and perceptions of native speakers of English and, most importantly, their actual communicative behavior in BELF settings deserve further scholarly attention. Why is it that, in the present study, accommodation on the part of the native speak-ers (Du-Babcock & Babcock, 2007) seems to be the exception and not the rule? Third, how does age or time as a factor influence the perceptions of BELF? More specifically, how are the challenges that BELF brings with it met by a younger generation who grew up in the knowledge that in a globalized world, English is a must?

APPENDIX

Additional Information on Interviewees (Correct at the Time of Data Collection)

B: German; age: 52 years; languages: German (first language), English, Latin, French

C: German; age: 45 years; languages: German (first language), English

(continued)



D: German; age: 45 years; languages: German (first language), English, French

E: Romanian-German; age: 61 years; languages: German (second language, nativelike), English, French, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian (first language)

APPENDIX (continued)

TechComps Organizational Structure

REFERENCES

Blazejewski, S. (2006). Transferring value-infused organisational practices in multina-tional companies: A conflict perspective. In M. Geppert & M. Mayer (Eds.), Global, national and local practices in multinational corporations (pp. 63-104). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Charles, M. L. (2007). Language matters in global communication: Article based on ORA lecture, October 2006. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 260-282.

Charles, M. L., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal communication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9-29.

Du-Babcock, B., & Babcock, R. D. (2007). Genre patterns in language-based communica-tion zones. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 340-373.

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461-490.



Ehrenreich, S. (2009) English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations. Exploring business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca. Studies and findings (pp. 126-151). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars.

Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On lingua franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.

Flick, U. (1995). Qualitative Forschung. Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, &

I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (B. Jenner, Trans., pp. 178-183). London, England: Sage. (Original work published 2000.)

Flick, U., von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (Eds.). (2004). A companion to qualitative research (B. Jenner, Trans.). London, England: Sage. (Original work published 2000.)

Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. (2007). The multinational corpora-tion as a multilingual organisation: The notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Communications, 11, 406-423.

Gerritsen, M., & Nickerson, C. (2009). BELF: Business English as a lingua franca. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 180-192). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Harris, S., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Business as a site of language contact. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 155-169.

Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The community of practice: Theories and method-ologies in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28, 173-183.

Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). English?Oh, its just work! A study of ELF users perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204-209.

Kelle, U. (2004). Computer-assisted analysis of qualitative data. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (B. Jenner, Trans., pp. 276-283). London, England: Sage. (Original work published 2000.)

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Livesey, S. M. (2002). Interpretive acts: New vistas in qualitative research in business communication [Guest Editorial]. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 6-12.

Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). The flys perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a business manager. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 211-231.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Charles, M. L. (2006). English as the lingua franca of interna-tional business communication: Whose English? What English? In J. C. Palmer-Silveira, M. F., Ruiz-Garrido, & I. Fortanet-Gomez (Eds.), Intercultural and international busi-ness communication (pp. 27-54). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M. L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 401-421.

Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multina-tional management. European Management Journal, 15, 591-598.



Mauranen, A., &. Ranta, E. (Eds.). (2009). English as a lingua franca. Studies and find-ings. Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars.

Nelson, C. L. (2008). Intelligibility since 1969. World Englishes, 27, 297-308.Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English

for Specific Purposes, 24, 367-380.Nickerson, C. (2007). English as a lingua franca in business contexts: Strategy or hege-

mony? In G. Garzone & C. Ilie (Eds.), The use of English in institutional and business settings. An intercultural perspective (pp. 351-363). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

Piekkari, R. (2009). International management. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The hand-book of business discourse (pp. 269-278). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Poncini, G. (2002). Investigating discourse at business meetings with multicultural par-ticipation. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 345-373.

Poncini, G. (2003). Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 17-32.

Poncini, G. (2007). Communicating within and across professional worlds in an intercultural setting. In G. Garzone & C. Ilie (Eds.), The use of English in institutional and business settings. An intercultural perspective (pp. 283-312). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international business: A European case study. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 103-120.

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2008). Participation and performance in international business meet-ings. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 338-360.

Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial English. Varieties around the world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133-158.

Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28, 236-245.

Seidlhofer, B., Breiteneder, A. & Pitzl, M. L. (2006). English as a lingua franca in Europe. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 1-34.

Smart, G. (1998). Mapping conceptual worlds: Using interpretive ethnography to explore knowledge-making in a professional community. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 111-127.

Steinke, I. (2004). Quality criteria in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (B. Jenner, Trans., pp. 184-190). London, England: Sage. (Original work published 2000.)

Tietze, S. (2004). Spreading the management gospelin English. Language and Intercul-tural Communication, 4, 175-189.

VERBI Software. (2007). Maxqda. The art of text analysis. Retrieved from http://www .maxqda.com/download/mx2007intro_eng.pdf

Welch, D., Welch, L., & Piekkari, R. (2005). Speaking in tongues: The importance of language in international management processes. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35, 10-27.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.


english as a business lingua franca

Documents