Language is the main vehicle for communicating between human beings. It seems, therefore, natural not only to associate it with exchanging ideas and points of view, but also to consider it a medium for achieving goals and getting a job done.
The main feature of language as a tool is its facilitative function: the focus is on the goal to be achieved and on how the use of a particular set of language conventions influences an outcome. Since language is a very adaptable medium, it can change to reflect the needs of a particular context or situation. Another important factor is that for a communicative conversation to be successful, a shared cultural knowledge and understanding is required from speakers and listeners. This common background enables them to relate to what is being said in a way that may not be intelligible to other people, while very frequently the distinctive features of the language may not be apparent to participants any longer, since they have become part of a subconscious expressive process.
The concept of discourse community is very important for understanding how English is used as a working language. It was developed principally by the linguist John Swales who observed that particular types of communities exist in which people do not necessarily live close together or even has personal contact; nonetheless they use a common spoken or written language to achieve a shared objective.
In the words of Neil Mercer the notion of this type of community Professional discourses are not static but change and develop naturally to adapt to the needs of people working in a specialized field of work. In fact, they have not been self-consciously designed for their purpose, but have evolved through the processes of natural selection and conventionalization within the range of ways of using language that people have employed over the years. Discourse can be defined as the ways in which language, either spoken or written, is used in the social practices of a community. The necessity for understanding other people in a work environment can produce many varieties of discourse.
Quality of language: its format and function The first aspect that comes to mind when considering the English language in the context of a working environment is the use of a distinctive vocabulary linked to a specific occupation.
Jargon Most commonly represented by acronyms and technical terms can, in fact, be found in virtually any industry and can seem obscure to outsiders who are not familiar with conventions and peculiarities of that business. However, becoming familiar with jargon is a normal process when entering a profession and it is often only a matter of time before the nuances are mastered. It is a necessity to be able to communicate effectively with colleagues and this represents a great incentive to learning it. However the role of jargon as a useful linguistic element coexists with jargon as a tool for defining social relations incorporating roles of authority and submission.
This happens particularly within the private sector, where unnecessary wordiness and sentence complexity are employed to prove superiority and to influence the public sector, where the extreme use of jargon can often be described as writing to impress, rather than writing to inform. This latter case is well illustrated by Martin Cutts in his contribution to English at work, for the Open University. In it he quotes the following response by a British Local Government official to a citizen request to put up posters in the local public library: So far I have dealt with the format of the language itself; there are, however, other considerations to be made with regard to the function of English in the work place.
Indeed, other work-related quality of language may be more distinctively represented in the structure of an interaction, rather than the fact that technical English words are used. The process of working together towards a common goal involves consultation, deliberation, instruction, information, as well as explanation, interpretation and negotiation.
The ideational function Probably the main purpose of work-related language is to facilitate carrying out a task or job and completing it successfully without introducing any ambiguity or unnecessary risks. This can be achieved by means of highly task-oriented communications, heavily based on content, reference, dealing with concrete facts and problematic situations; the ideational aspect of language works mainly by encoding two sorts of reference, to entities (including things, people and abstract ideas) and to processes, relations and actions. These referential needs are realized in English roughly through noun phrases on the one hand and verb phrases on the other.
The interpersonal function Another important aspect is related to building, maintaining and supporting relationships among members of a discourse community. All individuals in the group of people involved represent distinctive personalities, and the awareness of their status, authority, expertise and dependence in relation to each other becomes the focus of the interpersonal function.
Intertextuality Like many other types of discourses, a work-related communication makes extensive use of intertextual references, that is, implicit or explicit references to another piece of discourse. Phrases like "...as I was telling you yesterday...", and"...we could move this graphic to the right..."
1 contain the same semantic (and sometimes verbal) material of another conversation carried out previously by the parties involved. Intertextuality is of central importance in workplace discourse since it connects all separate spoken and written communications into a single network of ideas and contributions, as well as bringing together the diverse participants into a discourse community.
Social factors
English is in a unique position in that it is, for a vast number of people, a language which is not their mother tongue, but which has to be employed at work. Many corporate and industries in the world are faced with a dilemma where there is a need to be competitive internationally, meaning that a comprehension of English is invariably required, but at the same time the majority of the workforce does not have the language as their mother tongue. It is obvious, then, that a compromise has to be found, so that both the financial viability of the firm and the satisfaction of the employees are secured. Although different approaches have been taken, the common idea is that English should be used for important internal communications and for conversations between managers and external business partners. On the other hand, the workers have the freedom of converse in their local language(s) when speaking between themselves (this was thought to be important for both retaining a social identity, and for reducing the psychological strain of having to constantly monitor themselves so as not to slip into the native language) as well as having the choice of talking to their managers through either languages. A significant issue relates to safety policies within organization: it seems sensible to produce multi-lingual signs and notifications to avoid misunderstandings and legal complications.
Carrying out a working conversation in a multilingual context can sometimes produce unsatisfactory results; difference in expectations and interpretations can be attributed to diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences of the participants involved. Helen Marriott, who researched what she called intercultural business negotiations, points out that explaining misunderstanding in terms of cultural experiences does not mean simply making generalized comparisons between the interlocutors ways of talking. In the international business world of today other cultural factors beside national origins might be important for shaping speakers ways of talking business in English, and for shaping their interpretation of events.
Gender and status Beside the influence of the work culture on speakers choice of language there is the important aspect of gender, which influences the way conversations take place. In her research, Janet Maybin discovered that men tend to exercise more influence over the choice of topics, to interrupt female partners and to dominate the interaction as well as control code switching in multilingual conversations. A similar pattern can be identified with regard to job status. The higher-ranking individual is the one who generally steer the conversation and selects the type of language. One interesting investigation carried out by Nicola Woods attempted to find out which one of the two factors has the greatest effect on speakers control of a verbal interaction. Her results showed that when the two power bases of gender and occupational status are at work, then the former gender tends to exert the greatest influence on floor apportionment.
Essentially, while the power base of occupational status did influence the way that both men and women organized conversation [...], nevertheless even when women held high-status occupational positions male subordinates still organized the interaction in a way that allowed them to dominate the floor.
Working with the public Until now I have concentrated on issues particularly related to the working language within certain communities of discourse. However, there are particular issues of interest concerning English used by professional individuals when talking to members of the public who do not belong to the same discourse community. The points should also be considered when analyzing discourses in the workplace.
Use of jargon and specialized language As illustrated above, the use of jargon and specialized language can sometimes cause misunderstandings and produce poor communication especially when the professional is not able to talk about relevant topics in a way that is clear to the uninitiated layman. Often the insider might genuinely find it hard to cover a work-related topic without using any language other than that of his or her discourse community. On the other hand, there are instances where the control and power over the non-specialist are deliberately exerted by ignoring any lack of understanding, thus monopolizing the knowledge required to steer the conversation in a given direction.
Difference in culture In a multicultural situation, a common problem arises when a speaker is not fluent in English and does not have the same shared understanding of the principles required for engaging in a specialized type of conversation. C. Roberts and P. Sayers carried out a study to address this particular issue in the context of interviews by British English speakers of, among others, Indian immigrants to Britain; they arrived at the conclusion that there is a tendency to use the language factor as a reason for not clarifying misunderstandings. The interviewers assume that any of the candidates talk which they did not understand was therefore meaningless, i.e. not meaningful for the candidate. Instead of clarifying such utterances, interviewers choose to ignore them. In this way they often fail to grasp where key points for the candidate are occurring, and the whole interaction starts to go wrong.
In this essay I have described in general terms the ways in which English is adapted to the needs of workers to achieve goals and communicate effectively in the workplace. I have looked at the quality of language in this context and the social factors which shape it. In the latter part of the paper I have presented some example of working English from the software industry, where English has become the dominating language.
The main feature of language as a tool is its facilitative function: the focus is on the goal to be achieved and on how the use of a particular set of language conventions influences an outcome. Since language is a very adaptable medium, it can change to reflect the needs of a particular context or situation. Another important factor is that for a communicative conversation to be successful, a shared cultural knowledge and understanding is required from speakers and listeners. This common background enables them to relate to what is being said in a way that may not be intelligible to other people, while very frequently the distinctive features of the language may not be apparent to participants any longer, since they have become part of a subconscious expressive process.
The concept of discourse community is very important for understanding how English is used as a working language. It was developed principally by the linguist John Swales who observed that particular types of communities exist in which people do not necessarily live close together or even has personal contact; nonetheless they use a common spoken or written language to achieve a shared objective.
In the words of Neil Mercer the notion of this type of community Professional discourses are not static but change and develop naturally to adapt to the needs of people working in a specialized field of work. In fact, they have not been self-consciously designed for their purpose, but have evolved through the processes of natural selection and conventionalization within the range of ways of using language that people have employed over the years. Discourse can be defined as the ways in which language, either spoken or written, is used in the social practices of a community. The necessity for understanding other people in a work environment can produce many varieties of discourse.
Quality of language: its format and function The first aspect that comes to mind when considering the English language in the context of a working environment is the use of a distinctive vocabulary linked to a specific occupation.
Jargon Most commonly represented by acronyms and technical terms can, in fact, be found in virtually any industry and can seem obscure to outsiders who are not familiar with conventions and peculiarities of that business. However, becoming familiar with jargon is a normal process when entering a profession and it is often only a matter of time before the nuances are mastered. It is a necessity to be able to communicate effectively with colleagues and this represents a great incentive to learning it. However the role of jargon as a useful linguistic element coexists with jargon as a tool for defining social relations incorporating roles of authority and submission.
This happens particularly within the private sector, where unnecessary wordiness and sentence complexity are employed to prove superiority and to influence the public sector, where the extreme use of jargon can often be described as writing to impress, rather than writing to inform. This latter case is well illustrated by Martin Cutts in his contribution to English at work, for the Open University. In it he quotes the following response by a British Local Government official to a citizen request to put up posters in the local public library: So far I have dealt with the format of the language itself; there are, however, other considerations to be made with regard to the function of English in the work place.
Indeed, other work-related quality of language may be more distinctively represented in the structure of an interaction, rather than the fact that technical English words are used. The process of working together towards a common goal involves consultation, deliberation, instruction, information, as well as explanation, interpretation and negotiation.
The ideational function Probably the main purpose of work-related language is to facilitate carrying out a task or job and completing it successfully without introducing any ambiguity or unnecessary risks. This can be achieved by means of highly task-oriented communications, heavily based on content, reference, dealing with concrete facts and problematic situations; the ideational aspect of language works mainly by encoding two sorts of reference, to entities (including things, people and abstract ideas) and to processes, relations and actions. These referential needs are realized in English roughly through noun phrases on the one hand and verb phrases on the other.
The interpersonal function Another important aspect is related to building, maintaining and supporting relationships among members of a discourse community. All individuals in the group of people involved represent distinctive personalities, and the awareness of their status, authority, expertise and dependence in relation to each other becomes the focus of the interpersonal function.
Intertextuality Like many other types of discourses, a work-related communication makes extensive use of intertextual references, that is, implicit or explicit references to another piece of discourse. Phrases like "...as I was telling you yesterday...", and"...we could move this graphic to the right..."
1 contain the same semantic (and sometimes verbal) material of another conversation carried out previously by the parties involved. Intertextuality is of central importance in workplace discourse since it connects all separate spoken and written communications into a single network of ideas and contributions, as well as bringing together the diverse participants into a discourse community.
Social factors
English is in a unique position in that it is, for a vast number of people, a language which is not their mother tongue, but which has to be employed at work. Many corporate and industries in the world are faced with a dilemma where there is a need to be competitive internationally, meaning that a comprehension of English is invariably required, but at the same time the majority of the workforce does not have the language as their mother tongue. It is obvious, then, that a compromise has to be found, so that both the financial viability of the firm and the satisfaction of the employees are secured. Although different approaches have been taken, the common idea is that English should be used for important internal communications and for conversations between managers and external business partners. On the other hand, the workers have the freedom of converse in their local language(s) when speaking between themselves (this was thought to be important for both retaining a social identity, and for reducing the psychological strain of having to constantly monitor themselves so as not to slip into the native language) as well as having the choice of talking to their managers through either languages. A significant issue relates to safety policies within organization: it seems sensible to produce multi-lingual signs and notifications to avoid misunderstandings and legal complications.
Carrying out a working conversation in a multilingual context can sometimes produce unsatisfactory results; difference in expectations and interpretations can be attributed to diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences of the participants involved. Helen Marriott, who researched what she called intercultural business negotiations, points out that explaining misunderstanding in terms of cultural experiences does not mean simply making generalized comparisons between the interlocutors ways of talking. In the international business world of today other cultural factors beside national origins might be important for shaping speakers ways of talking business in English, and for shaping their interpretation of events.
Gender and status Beside the influence of the work culture on speakers choice of language there is the important aspect of gender, which influences the way conversations take place. In her research, Janet Maybin discovered that men tend to exercise more influence over the choice of topics, to interrupt female partners and to dominate the interaction as well as control code switching in multilingual conversations. A similar pattern can be identified with regard to job status. The higher-ranking individual is the one who generally steer the conversation and selects the type of language. One interesting investigation carried out by Nicola Woods attempted to find out which one of the two factors has the greatest effect on speakers control of a verbal interaction. Her results showed that when the two power bases of gender and occupational status are at work, then the former gender tends to exert the greatest influence on floor apportionment.
Essentially, while the power base of occupational status did influence the way that both men and women organized conversation [...], nevertheless even when women held high-status occupational positions male subordinates still organized the interaction in a way that allowed them to dominate the floor.
Working with the public Until now I have concentrated on issues particularly related to the working language within certain communities of discourse. However, there are particular issues of interest concerning English used by professional individuals when talking to members of the public who do not belong to the same discourse community. The points should also be considered when analyzing discourses in the workplace.
Use of jargon and specialized language As illustrated above, the use of jargon and specialized language can sometimes cause misunderstandings and produce poor communication especially when the professional is not able to talk about relevant topics in a way that is clear to the uninitiated layman. Often the insider might genuinely find it hard to cover a work-related topic without using any language other than that of his or her discourse community. On the other hand, there are instances where the control and power over the non-specialist are deliberately exerted by ignoring any lack of understanding, thus monopolizing the knowledge required to steer the conversation in a given direction.
Difference in culture In a multicultural situation, a common problem arises when a speaker is not fluent in English and does not have the same shared understanding of the principles required for engaging in a specialized type of conversation. C. Roberts and P. Sayers carried out a study to address this particular issue in the context of interviews by British English speakers of, among others, Indian immigrants to Britain; they arrived at the conclusion that there is a tendency to use the language factor as a reason for not clarifying misunderstandings. The interviewers assume that any of the candidates talk which they did not understand was therefore meaningless, i.e. not meaningful for the candidate. Instead of clarifying such utterances, interviewers choose to ignore them. In this way they often fail to grasp where key points for the candidate are occurring, and the whole interaction starts to go wrong.
In this essay I have described in general terms the ways in which English is adapted to the needs of workers to achieve goals and communicate effectively in the workplace. I have looked at the quality of language in this context and the social factors which shape it. In the latter part of the paper I have presented some example of working English from the software industry, where English has become the dominating language.