EIB in Europe

Within Europe, there is growing evidence that English has become the biggest business lingua franca. A study conducted by the Danish Council of Trade and Industry estimated that Danish companies conducted 80% of their international business in English (cited in Firth, 1996). Similarly, Crystal (1997) claims that according to a recent yearbook of international organizations 99% of European organizations use English as a working language (cited in Graddol, 2000). However, while English may well be the most widely used business language in Europe, a survey of language use in European businesses (Hagen, 1998) found, for instance, that German is increasingly being used in central and Eastern Europe, especially with the accession of new Eastern European states into the EU. Hagen also claims that in order to do cross-border business successfully, companies need to be able to communicate in all three of Europe’s ‘Big Languages’, namely English, German and French (Hagen, 1998). Although, as Graddol (2000) points out, this is a target which many British companies find hard to meet, as illustrated in a further survey of European executives’ language skills which found that while in the EU as a whole, 70% of businesses have executives with foreign language abilities (rising to over 90% in Sweden, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands), only 39% of UK businesses had executives proficient in more than one language. These figures also reflect the findings of similar surveys. For instance, Labrie and Quell’s study of foreign language knowledge across the EU showed that although British people’s knowledge of French and German is increasing, particularly in the younger generation (i.e., 15–24-year old), they still lag behind many European nations in that only 47% can speak any foreign language (Labrie & Quell, 1997).

The multifunctional role of English in Europe is not only restricted to its use within specific countries but can also be illustrated within international organizations where it may be used as a mother tongue (EMT) by native English speaking employees but also as a lingua franca (ELF) between non-native English speakers and as an international language between ELF and EMT speakers. In the current study, all three types of users are represented.

A European ‘language problem’

The spread of English is commonly seen as a ‘language problem’ threatening to engulf and replace indigenous European languages, as reflected in European policy statements such as: If democratic citizenship in Europe is to be internationally based, it is crucial to ensure diversification in language teaching so that citizens in Europe can interact in their own languages, rather than through English as a lingua franca.

At the same time, Seidlhofer and other researchers are questioning the belief that English is creating a ‘language problem’ in Europe and the assumption that Europeans have to choose between their own native language and English. As Spichtinger argues, ‘one can speak German as one’s national language and English as one’s European language’ (2001).

‘Linguistic imperialism’ vs. ‘functional realism’

Spichtinger (2001) suggests that we can learn from the countries of Kachru’s Outer Circle, i.e. former British colonies, to appropriate English for our own European purposes. He argues that the plurilingualism of the EU countries bears some similarities with former colonial countries such as India and Nigeria, where English was retained not because of postcolonial imperialism, as argued by Phillipson (1992) and others, but because it would fulfil a useful function. Seidlhofer elaborates on this pragmatic motivation for using English as an international language, seeing it both as utilitarian, i.e. important for international business, and idealistic, i.e. facilitating cross-border communication and mutual understanding (Seidlhofer, 2003). This view of the appropriation of English for international communication and trade, rather than as a symbol of national supremacy, is supported increasingly not only by European and North American scholars, such as Jenkins (2000), McKay (2002), Seidlhofer (2001) and Brutt-Griffler (2002) but also by researchers in Outer Circle countries, such as Chew in Singapore (1999) and Bisong (1995) in Nigeria. Seidlhofer argues that this shift represents a new era in studies of the global functions of English where the concept of ‘functional realism’ increasingly seems to be replacing the earlier era of ‘linguistic imperialism’ as posited by Phillipson (1992), Pennycook (1998) and Canagarajah (1999).

As Seidlhofer comments: ELF speakers are. . . not primarily concerned with emulating the way native speakers use their mother tongue within their own communities, nor with socio-psychological and ideological issues. Instead, the central concerns for this domain are efficiency, relevance and economy in language learning and language use.

The reasons why the linguistic imperialism school has had little impact on mainstream ELT are rather obvious: people need and want to learn English whatever the ideological baggage that comes with it, a fact acknowledged even in Canagarajah’s (1999) ‘Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching’ (Siedlhofer, 2000).

This pragmatic view is frequently reflected in business and management. For instance, commenting on the choice of English, as corporate language in the multinational engineering and telecoms firm Siemens AG of Germany, Bernhard Welschke, head of European policy at the Federation of German, stated that ‘‘German companies are very pragmatic. . . They value a single language for business, even if it is not their own’’.

Similarly, supporting the view that the use of English by businesses is generally pragmatic rather than ideological, Professor Rangan of Insead suggests that the corporate use of English represents ‘‘only shallow integration’’ while providing an essential communication tool, ‘‘much the way we use mathematics and numbers’’.

The significance of English in European and indeed in international business has long been recognized in the business world and is evidenced in the quantity and expenditure on business English language and culture training. The importance of effective international communication is highlighted in much of the international management literature. As Victor (1992) suggests: It is probably better to have mediocre technical skills and excellent international business communication skills than to have excellent technical skills and poor international business communication skills (Victor, 1992).

Underpinning this concern is a realisation that communication and information flow are central features of organisations and businesses and that there is a fundamental relationship between effective communication and business outcomes: Good communication creates good relationships, high morale, increased productivity and profit. Bad communication, on the other hand, can lead to inefficiency, waste and loss of profit (Mead, 1990).

There has also been some recognition that EIB represents an emerging form or variety of English which is distinct from standard British or American varieties. For instance, Jussi Itavuori, the Finnish group vice president for human resources at EADS, describes it as: ‘‘... neither English nor American ... It is some sort of operating language. It loses quite a lot of nuance’’.

Within the field of business language training there have also been attempts, albeit limited, to describe and teach some form of ‘international English’ for business learners. One example of this is ‘Offshore English’, a term coined by the Canning training company to describe the type of English which they suggest native English speakers need to use to be more readily understandable by non-native English users. Similarly, Hollqvist (1984) reports how the Swedish telecoms giant, Ericsson, tried to create its own version of international English, referred to as ‘Ericsson English’, which aimed to provide a restricted range of vocabulary and language structures without loss of accuracy. There are of course other examples of restricted varieties of English which have been created for very specific international purposes, such as ‘Airspeak’ (for Air Traffic Control) and ‘Policespeak’ (for binational police and emergency service cooperation at the Channel Tunnel) but these were created to serve very limited communicative purposes unlike the breadth and flexibility of functions required of a business lingua franca or international language.

Within linguistics, there has also been increasing interest in the role of language and culture in international business communication and specifically in European business. However, despite the range of uses of English across Europe and its undisputable spread in particular for international business purposes, there seems, as Seidlhofer (2004) states, little corpus-based analysis of how English is actually used for international business communication in Europe. Nor is there much information on how business Europeans feel about its use. It is with these issues in mind that the current research study is framed, aiming to shed further light on the use of English as a common language of international business in Europe. (To be continued in Unit 2-19)

READING STRATEGIES FOR EXPLICATION OF KEY FACTS AND IDEAS GIVEN IN THE TEXT, SELECTING KEY WORDS, SUMMARY WRITING, ABSTRACT WRITING

Instruction:You have already invested much time and effort into mastering skills for intensive reading and ESP text analysis. While skimming, surveying and scanning the fourth module texts, you are expected to deploy skills acquired in Units 1-12. You will have to start with understanding the text organization, identifying the topic, the purpose, the tone and attitude of the author, the main idea of the text, making inferences, discovering context clues and circumstancial evidence for specific information given in the text. All these facts and details will help you write a good summary following effective summary rules given in Units 13-18.

Preparing to write a good summary make sure you understand the material you are working with perfectly well. Go through indispensable preliminary steps:

· Skim the text, noting in your mind the subheadings dividing the text into sections. Try to determine what problems P. Rogerson-Revell’s paper is dealing with. This can help you identify important information.

· Read the text, highlighting important information and taking notes.

· In your own words, write down the main points of each section.

· Write down the key support points for the main topic, but do not include minor detail.

Go through the process again, making changes as appropriate.

One more stage in the ESP text analysis will be learning how to write a valid abstract of the text.

Читайте також:

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
The use of English in Europe	\|	Abstract writing

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.008 сек.