Working in English Chapter 4 U214B (Communicating in English)

Working in English

Chapter 4U214B (Communicating in English)

Why & How do people talk at work?

• Do you speak in the same way when you speak to your friends as when you speak to your boss, a doctor or someone at the bank?

• If not, what are some of the differences?• What are the reasons for the differences? Is it

because of your relationship with the person? Is it because of what you are trying to get done?

• What about the difference between interactions among professionals, and interactions between professionals and the public?

How do people talk at work?• English used in everyday situations can be distinguished from English used in the

workplace (which could be a physical or virtual space). • English spoken in the workplace has special characteristics of language and

interaction patterns. • People working together interact using structured and goal-oriented genres that

have evolved over time. • The professional practice, for example architecture, is distinguished by multimodal

literacy. • English has a special status as a work language, as it is an international language.• Business relationships are not all professional, technical and impersonal. There is a

role for humor and power in managing workplace interactions and the connection between language and power, for example in job interviews.

• Language is conceived to be more key for jobs involving paper work and the word, such as education, administration and courts of law for example, and less so for manual job which are perceived to use language less centrally. But these jobs do use language and other symbolic systems for exchange of instructions and information in linguistic form, and they also use language to interact socially , in so far as working conditions permit this , and in specific ways as appropriate to each job.

How does workplace talk differ from ordinary conversation?

• Chapter 1 contrasted everyday conversation with the sorts of talk that takes place in institutional settings such as places of work.

• Following Emanuel Schegloff, it was noted that turn-taking often has to follow institutional rules, and following Pierre Bourdieu, it was emphasized that certain speech acts can only be carried out by a holder of institutional authority.

Greg Myers agrees with this as he describes that in a meeting ‘[t]urns are typically assigned . . . by the chair . . . and the . .. chair but not others may interrupt (Myers, 2004,p.53)

However, it is important to recognize that much workplace talk is not structured in this way, … and is conversational and informal.

Discourse Analysis can help us understand the subtle differences between more and less formal kinds of workplace interactions.

See Allington and Mayor p.136 + Activity 4.1.

How does workplace talk differ from ordinary conversation? Discourse Analysis of two extracts

• Activity 4.1 shows examples (read them in the book pp.138-140) of two talk exchanges between co-workers.

One is messier, with speakers interrupting each other and overlapping with one another;

The vocabulary and intonation show speakers’ emotions and personal opinions.

In the second extract, the vocabulary seems more neutral, the speakers are clearly talking about things related to their work and they use special business vocabulary;

Typical of workplace interaction is that the participants are speaking with a clear purpose and are trying to arrive at a decision, rather than ‘just chatting’

How does workplace talk differ from ordinary conversation? Discourse Analysis of two extracts

According to Paul Drew and John Heritage, ‘institutional talk’ as they call workplace and professional talk, differs from everyday conversation in three ways:

It is goal-oriented: participants usually focus on some core goal, task or identity . . . Associated with the institution or workplace. For example, in Extract 2, Chris, the chair, goes over the goals by setting the agenda for the meeting. As a result, the meeting is structured, with one topic dealt with at a time.

There are constraints on what participants will treat as allowable contributions, i.e. on what participants may say.

In Extract 1, speakers interrupt each other, while in Extract 2, Chris, the chair, has the right to guide the discussion and where it is expected to restrict contributions and move to the next point. But these restrictions are not absolute, as Ann interrupts Chris, and they depend on the formality of the specific institutional context.

There are inferential frameworks and procedures that are particular to the specific institutional or workplace context. These inferential frameworks the participants in the meeting draw on include their assumptions about how such management meetings in their institutions are normally conducted, as well as background knowledge of the business and its procedures. Related to this is the fact that special professional or technical lexis is often used, such as the terms related to business or technology.

How does workplace talk differ from ordinary conversation? More on the three points of difference

Institutional talk is goal-oriented, it has its constraints & allowable contributions, and each institutional context has its own inferential framework and procedures.

In institutional talk, one common feature among all three categories is that the interactions are asymmetrical ,that is , some speakers often have more power and/or special knowledge than others. For example, in the example quoted in the chapter, Chris chairs the meeting and has a more powerful role than others; however the CEO has a more powerful position in the organization.

Another kind of asymmetry is in differential knowledge for example in interactions between professionals and lay people (e.g. a doctor and a patient), where the professional has knowledge of the institutional procedures. This means that participants in workplace interactions have institutional identities which interact with their personal and discursive identities (the role they are playing at any particular time in the interaction).

Workplace Talk – type of discourse/ functions

• To go back to the goal orientation of workplace interaction is to say that they are transactional, which means that participants focus on doing a particular workplace task (compare to getting things done – Michael Halliday’s ideational function). An example of that is Extract 2, where the participants are trying to decide when to tell the new employee to join/sign his contract.

• Workplace interaction can also be relational; that is, the purpose is more of a social one (Compare to Michael Halliday’s interpersonal functions of language) – similar to informal talk between friends, but used as a small talk between colleagues at work, usually to build a good relationship and to bond socially.

Professionals talking – Front-stage & backstage

• Professionals, or people working for organizations interact with co-workers, but many also deal with lay members of the public in the course of their work.

o Interactions among co-workers, where people are working together in the same workplace, occupation or profession.

o Interactions between experts in an organization or profession and members of the public, that is, between ‘insiders’ in particular areas of work and ‘outsiders.’ (see Activity 4.2 p. 142 as example).That includes lay-professional encounters; for example interactions between doctors and patients, or service providers and customers.

According to Erving Goffman social life can be studied in two regions- frontstage & backstage; (Goffman, 159,p.135, in Mayor & Allington p.141)frontstage –areas ‘where a particular performance is or may be in progress’, whereas backstage --areas ‘where action occurs that is related to the performance, but inconsistent with the appearance fostered by the performance’

The metaphor by Goffman implies the presence of an ‘audience’ in frontstage activity, as in interactions between lay people and professionals, and a setting in which ‘best behavior’ is expected.

The backstage setting, on the other hand, is more relaxed and ‘allows minor acts which might easily be taken as symbolic of intimacy and disrespect for others present (Goffman, 1959, p.129) -- such as co-workers laughing, talking over each other and teasing; it may be quite informal; participants may interrupt each other & disagree fairly directly

Workplace genresDiscourse Communities:

A discourse community is a group of people who use particular ways of communicating in order to pursue a common goal. The members of a discourse community do not necessarily work closely together or form relations involving mutual engagement. However, their spoken and written interactions may still be characterized by a particular register. A register is a set of conventions for language use, possibly including specialist vocabulary.

The concept of discourse community was originally developed by the linguist John Swales (1990), who became interested in how professional groups, such as scientists, developed and used specific genres of speech and text (e.g. academic articles, conference papers and laboratory reports) as an integral part of their professional practice.

Workplace genres

• A genre, according to Swales, is a “class of communicative events . . . which share some set of communicative purposes . . .[The] rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains the choice of content and style’ (Swales, 1990,p.58). See definition of genre in Chapter 2.

• This definition highlights two key aspects of genres: Different texts and or utterances can be said to belong to the

same genre because they share the same communicative purpose.

Genres follow particular patterns or ‘schematic structures’, which may involve participants playing specific roles, and using particular vocabulary or a particular style of speaking or writing.

(See Activity 4.3 pp.144-5)

Genres in a changing world of work: the example of the business email

• The business email has to a great extent replaced the traditional business letter, as well as some kinds of telephone communication. Like the blog (examined in Chapter 2 & compared to the journal entry), the business email has features of both written and spoken language, and has been influenced by a variety of other genres. So genres are not fixed or immutable; they change over time (e.g. through the influence of technology).

Some people have suggested that business emails have developed from the genre of written memos, which are company-internal messages, while others remark that email is also used for other kinds of messages, for example, very informal exchanges between individual colleagues, such as a two-line invitation and that may be the source . (See comparison and analysis of business email on pp.147-8)

Genres : the business email/ the letterTypical characteristics of :

Written English and Spoken English

Written English Elaborate syntactic

structures

Explicit constructions

Complete information units

Formal language

Simple syntactic structures or simple clauses linked with ‘and’

Reliance on context: reference to shared background or knowledge

Elliptical forms: words ‘left out’

Informal language

Spoken English

The Business Email Compare to: the letter/ spoken language

Business emails may have the following features: simple syntactic structures Reliance on context: reference to people and things that both the sender and

the recipient know Elliptical forms: [It’s] Not urgent/ [I] Had a chat with Informal language: such as contractions, he’d, you’re, can’t; abbreviations: Pls

(please); colloquial , everyday vocabulary: chat, get together Use of emoticon: which, unlike the characteristics above, is not part of spoken

language. Not having to sign the name, necessarily, at the end of the text of the letter;

the name already appears at the bottom of the message in his ‘signature file’, which is a regular feature of emails at work.

Level of formality of a business email differs based on the level of acquaintance between the people communicating, and although informal features are present, some emails may be more similar in formality to a business letter than to spoken English and would use features typical of written English.

English as an International Language used in intercultural communication

• Another distinguishing factor of English used for work, as opposed to English used in social encounters or family settings is that the speakers or writers are often not native speakers of English.

• Native speakers is a term used loosely to describe a person who grew up using a language to communicate (as opposed to a person who learnt it as an adult or studied it as a so-called ‘foreign language’).

• For many years, people who are native speakers of different languages have used English as a lingua franca (or ‘contact language’) for purposes of trade. More recently, English has become the international language, not only for trade, but for all kinds of business and other forms of international communication. In fact, there are now many more people using English in this way than people who use it as a native language.

• Much research is interested in the features of ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), for example the work of Barbara Seidlfhofer (2004) and her team of researchers.

Common features of lingua franca interactions

• Seidlhofer (2004) and others have identified a number of features of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar, as well as discourse features that seem common to lingua franca interactions and deviate from native speaker English. Jennifer Jenkins (2000) suggests that there is , in spite of the differences, a ‘lingua franca core’.

• It has some pronunciation features, grammatical features, and discourse features (first described by Alan Firth, and Giles et al.)

• The view of these ‘non-standard’ features and linguistic behavior specific to ELF context is discussed.

English as an International Language Common features of lingua franca interactions

a) Pronunciation features that are used in ELF are sometimes thought of as essential for mutual comprehension among ELF speakers, such as the contrast between long and short vowels , which is lost in ELF.

/I/ (live) and /i:/ (leave) -- core ELF featuresSome other sound distinctions that native speakers make do not seem to be

considered essential by ELF speakers, such as the various sound that correspond to the letters TH

/ϴ/ (think) and / ∂ / (the)b) Grammatical features that occur frequently in lingua franca interactions

and deviate from standard English include (Seidlhofer) dropping the third person – s (e.g. she say) Invariant question tags (e.g. general use of isn’t it? Instead of forms such

as doesn’t she? aren’t you? ) ‘non standard’ use articles (e.g. omitting or inserting a or the) ‘non standard’ use of prepositional patterns(e.g. study about... )

Common features of/ approaches towards English as a lingua franca interactions

These would be considered errors in grammar, but Seidlhofer and other researchers in ELF argue that, as they do not cause any problems in comprehension among lingua franca speakers (and may even aid understanding in some cases), they should be considered typical features of ELF, rather than ‘mistakes’.

The point above – considering ‘non’ standard’ usages as features of ELF , rather than ‘mistakes’ -- relates to a wider argument made by researchers of ELF that as English is now used as an international language, native speakers of English no longer ‘own’ English and it is therefore not up to them to determine what is acceptable – at least in international English usage.

Common features of/ approaches towards English as a lingua franca interactions

As far as discourse features are concerned Alan Firth (1996), who was one of the first researchers to analyze ELF business interactions, identified something referred to as the ‘“let it pass” strategy.’ He found that in telephone conversations between international clients,…. the speakers would regularly ‘let pass’ things that were said that could potentially cause misunderstanding. Speakers would be tolerant and would not focus on language ‘errors’ and there was rarely a breakdown in communication.

Another feature of lingua franca discourse identified in many interactions is the use of accommodation strategies. ‘Accommodation’ involves adapting to the speech and behavior of the person you are speaking to (Giles et al, 1990). Typical accommodation strategies in ELF interactions include repetition, paraphrasing, simplification and code-switching (switching to a native language of the other speaker).

See examples in Activity 4.7 – the different forms of English used in different business faxes to ‘accommodate ‘ to the speech of different customers.

English as an International Language Intercultural business communication

• Inspired by the discussion and interpretation of using different styles of discourse by the author of faxes (Danish) when sending them to international clients (Estonian or Japanese) (Conor discussed pp.154,155, Activity 4.7), it has been noticed that in English as a lingua franca interactions, non-standard language usage causes very few problems. Increasingly studies of intercultural communication have shown that misunderstandings can be caused by cultural differences, rather than by linguistic difficulties.

(See examples of British and Chinese – Helen Spencer-Oatey’s (2000)case study & Italian company with international distributors case -- Gina Poncini (2002)pp. 156-8)

Some sources of problems (Oatey) can be attributed to:o The need for group face (not individual face; see chapter 1) by both parties. o Misunderstanding of the relative status of the representative team (resulting in an

inappropriate welcome, and a morning starting badly)o Cultural differences such as in level of formality expected, what the respective rights and

obligations of hosts and guests that was expected may create misunderstanding (preferred informality and minimizing hierarchal differences in the UK as opposed to ‘large power distance’ in Chinese culture).

But many intercultural, international encounters happened without misunderstanding, and certain features such as technical terms, personal pronouns and evaluative language helped create a sense of group identity and build a positive relationship. (Poncini)

Relationships at work• Communities of practice are groups or teams of people who regularly

interact for a particular purpose, for example at work (Wegner, 1998; in Allington and Mayor p.158).

• The term ‘practice’ indicates that people in such groups are trying to get things done and that they have developed routine procedures for this. According to Etienne Wegner, ‘communities of practice’ are characterized by:

1. mutual engagement: means more than simply working together; it also indicates that people working together develop a relationship.;

2. joint enterprise: refers to working together for a common purpose to achieve particular goals.;

3. a shared repertoire: refers to the means by which the members of a community of practice communicate with one another. This category includes the language and jargon that are specific to a workplace (specific words, abbreviations that are used regularly). However, shared repertoire consists of more than just language; according to Wegner, it includes ‘routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts.’

A good example describing relationships at work through language is Reading B, with focus on Humor and workplace culture (Janet Holmes)

Language and power• In outlining the distinctive characteristics of workplace language, the

chapter has pointed out one key feature which is asymmetry & power difference in many workplace interactions.

• Such asymmetry is particularly apparent in ‘front stage’ encounters between ‘professionals’ and ‘lay’ people; for example doctors and patients.

• One critical aspect of many communications between professionals and lay people is the extent to which the professional is willing and able to talk about relevant topics in away that is clear to the uninitiated outsider.

o There are cases of professionals trying to maintain control and power by ‘blinding with science’.

o But failure to make professional talk accessible to the non-professional is not necessarily deliberate (on purpose).

Professionals often simply find it very hard to speak of their work in any language other than that of their discourse community.

Language and powerExplanations for lack of common knowledge and

understanding• Research on intercultural business communication, such as that by Spencer-Oatey,

showed that lack of common knowledge and understanding between professionals and a client may not be a result of technical matters only, but may be related to differences in cultural and linguistic experiences of the people involved as well.

Celia Roberts and Sarah Campbell(2006), aimed to discover whether ethnic minorities were disadvantaged in gate-keeping encounters that favored or advantaged British candidates in job interviews.

They found that ‘ethnicity itself was not the major indicator of success’ since ‘[candidates who were born abroad were much less likely to be successful than British candidates, whether white British or …members of minority ethnic (communities within Britain] (Allington and Mayor p.161).

The problems for candidates born outside the UK was not their general competence in speaking English, but their lack of what Pierre Boudieu calls linguistic capital: the ability to produce utterances that will considered appropriate in a range of specific social and institutional situations, for example using the right level of formality to make a good impression

(Bourdieu, 1986 [1983], Bourdieu and Passerson, 1990[1970] in Allington and Mayor 161). One example is the response concerning benefits of ‘teamwork’ where an interviewee talks about benefits to himself, whereas what is expected is to discuss benefits to the ‘institution’ he will be

working with. See Activity 4.10 pp.161-162