Should English be the lingua franca in international companies?

Research FellowKarsten Jonsen: No!

Non-native English speakers and companies should not be language-submissive. Linguistic diversity is worth fighting for. English as a common business language is an easy choice, and much like most doctrines celebrating homogeneity, the one-company/one-people/one-language-fits-all cultural mentality is deceptively easy. Economical reasoning predicts that this will happen increasingly in multinational companies. While a common language facilitates socialization processes, communication and team building, social identity theory speaks to how language barriers set boundaries with many people.

To give you an idea of what some people think about BELF, here are some recent quotes from researchers who are active in the field.

“BELF refers to English used as a neutral and shared communication code. BELF is neutral in the sense that none of the speakers can claim it as her/his mother tongue; it is shared in the sense that it is used for conducting business within the global business discourse community, whose members are BELF users and communicators in their own right – not non-native speakers or learners.” (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles & Kanraanranta, 2005)

“Rather than focusing on language proficiency … the findings of such research could then drive teaching and training materials to focus more efficiently on those areas that are likely to cause a problem.” (Gerritsen and Nickerson, 2009)

“BELF … implies a starting point where the code of communication is investigated in its own right, not as “English” in the traditional sense of the word.” (Rogerson-Revell and Salminon, 2010)

“Our findings suggest that English in today’s global business environment is “simply work” and its use is highly contextual. Thus, knowledge of the specific business context, the particular genres used in the particular business area, and overall business communication strategies are tightly intertwined with proficiency in English, which impacts upon teaching." (Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen, 2010)

"For our conceptualization of BELF, the “B” is of utmost importance." (Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen, 2010)

“ … the concept of language competence, which has traditionally been gauged against the yardstick of a native speaker’s skills, has to be reevaluated in the light of recent (B)ELF research.” (Ehrenreich, 2010)

"BELF competence calls for clarity and accuracy of content(rather than linguistic correctness) and knowledge of business-specific vocabulary and genre conventions (rather than only “general” English). In addition, because BELF interactions take place with nonnative speakers (NNSs) from a variety of cultural backgrounds, the relational orientation is perceived as integral for BELF competence." (Kankaanranta and Planken, 2010)

It seems that BELF is very much about adapting English to specific contexts and specific users so that the business is successful. If we look at business English an a continuum, then at one end we have what might be called “General Business English”, where we do not know very much about the target context, or where learners have less defined aims, and at the other end we have BELF, which is a quite specific use of language which depends on the context and the speakers. The key is that this specific use of English can only be measured against its own rules for successful communication, not against a “norm” imposed by outsiders. As Hanford (2010) argues, “the most important issue in business is not language ability, but the experience and ability to dynamically manoeuvre within the communities of practice which business people inhabit.”

Читайте також:

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
And what about BELF?	\|	What does it mean to us as trainers?

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.003 сек.