Language matters in global communication: article based on ORA lecture, October 2006.

In the past few decades, it has become widely accepted that the lingua franca of international business is English; witness the way companies increasingly choose English as their official corporate language. Although this would seem to facilitate communication, this article argues that the choice of language(s) used is a delicate issue, highlighting the complexities of any split into native/nonnative speakers, and thus requiring considerable people management skills. This article discusses research from the Helsinki School of Economics on language and communication in multinational corporations based in non-English speaking countries. It suggests a reconceptualization of English lingua franca as business English lingua franca (BELF), and argues that BELF is a mostly oral language through which power is wielded in multinationals, and perceptions of self and others created. Moreover, it is not a "cultureless" language, but rather creates new operational cultures. Language choice thus has implications for management, HR, and employee satisfaction.

Keywords: lingua franca; business communication; globalization; language; multinational corporations

**********

Friedman (2006, p. 10) aptly divides globalization into three stages, which he characterizes as follows:

While the dynamic force in Globalization 1.0 was countries [italics

added] globalizing and the dynamic force in Globalization 2.0 was

companies [italics added] globalizing, the dynamic force in

Globalization 3.0--the force that gives it its unique character--is

the newfound power for individuals to collaborate and compete

globally.

With globalization proceeding from Friedman's stage 1.0 through stage 2.0 to stage 3.0 (where we are now), the dynamics of communication processes are undergoing inevitable change. Communication potential is driving dramatic changes in organizations and their environments. As Friedman (2006) points out, globalization is fuelled by technology. Yet technology alone could not have achieved globalization. What is needed is a sharing of language facility. Only language can enable individuals and companies (and countries) to communicate. To understand globalization, it is therefore crucial to examine developments in the language and communication through which it occurs.

It is this linguistic perspective that inspires research in my unit--the International Business Communication Unit in the Department of Languages and Communication, at the Helsinki School of Economics (for more information on my institution, see www.hse.fi). We see language and communication dynamics as the driving force in global business. We therefore examine language specifically as an enabler, but also increasingly as a troublemaker in communication and globalization. In all our work, we have an applied focus: We want to do research that can be used for the teaching of future global managers in a business school environment. We also want to help existing companies to globalize and to operate successfully. Our focus is on Finnish and Scandinavian companies, which--like companies in other non-English speaking countries--face formidable challenges as they attempt to operate globally in a language that is not their mother tongue.

Language and communication challenges, however, are not the sole concern of non-English speaking countries. When multinationals from English-speaking countries go local in different parts of the world, they are faced with the problem of how best to communicate in their new environments, both within and outside the company. In these situations, the question arises: Is English always the answer, or is there a place for local languages as well? Language issues concern everyone.

In this article, I argue that the choice of language(s) used, particularly in intracorporate communication, is a delicate and complex issue requiring more management attention than is frequently given. Language and language skills tend frequently to be viewed as a challenge for the individual. However, as employees' language skills crucially affect interorganizational and intraorganizational communication, language is also a managerial issue not to be ignored. To increase awareness of language issues in companies, and encourage research in the area, this article discusses the research my colleagues and I have done in multinational companies based in Scandinavia. First, I will explain the reconceptualization of English as a shared language--a lingua franca--which we felt was a necessary starting point. I will then briefly discuss our theoretical framework and methodology. Finally, I will summarize our main findings and conclusions, in the form of five sweeping statements.

FROM ENGLISH LINGUA FRANCA (ELF) TO BUSINESS ENGLISH LINGUA FRANCA (BELF)

From the global perspective, the position of English as the universal lingua franca--shared language--of today is beyond dispute (see, e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Crystal, 1997; Dovring, 1997). The number of people who speak English as a foreign language (nonnative speakers, or NNSs) far outnumbers those who speak it as their mother tongue (native speakers, or NSs). Back in the '90s, Crystal (1997) estimated that 80% of speakers of English were NNSs. An updated estimate would be that the current figure is closer to 90%. The literature speaks of ELF communication (e.g., Knapp & Meierkord, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2004), which involves nonnative speakers of English. Arguably, more international business is actually done in English between NNSs than between NSs.

Scholars have tried valiantly to pinpoint the characteristics of ELF discourse. The focus in that work has been to identify core linguistic elements that have to conform with native speaker expectations to not cause intelligibility problems, and distinguish them from noncore elements, which are recognized (by native speakers) as anomalies, but which do not affect intelligibility. Based on speech collected from a wide range of NNSs, Jenkins (1998, 2000, 2002, 2004), for example, has defined a particular lingua franca core, to which she assigns such elements as maintenance of the contrast between long and short vowels, such as the /i/ and /i:/ sounds in the words live and leave. She also lists features that do not seem to cause misunderstanding in lingua franca communication (noncore). These include the mastery of the phonetic qualities of sounds or pitch direction to signal attitude or grammatical meaning. Along the same lines, Seidlhofer (2004) presents some preliminary findings in the lexicogrammatical area which, in authentic lingua franca communication, were found to be unproblematic, forming no obstacles to communicative success. Examples of these are dropping the third person present tense -s, and confusing the relative pronouns who and which. (See also Bartlett & Johnson, 1998.)

Although this research has proved useful in many ways, the manner in which ELF researchers' thinking revolves around native speakers would seem too partial a view for globalized business. The concept of a common core is instinctively useful; yet questions like the following arise: Why should NNS ELF communicators shape their mutual communication around a fictitious NS (particularly in the absence of one)? Why could they not shape it around their own, shared, communicational needs?

Seidlhofer (2004) points out that that reshaping might be difficult. She suggests that there is a conceptual gap in our minds, resulting from the way language seems to be so closely tied with its native speakers and their cultural backgrounds that it is difficult to open up conceptual space for a "language" which is "nobody's," yet "everybody's," as ELF is claimed to be. She argues that NS norms tend to operate as a point of reference not only in scholarly thinking but also in ELF speakers' minds. Bamgbose (1998) also points out that the "success" of NNS discourse tends to be judged not according to how well that discourse functions and "gets the job done," but rather according to how well the speakers are able to emulate the language use of native speakers. Because they are mostly doomed to (relative) failure in this respect, NNSs are frequently seen to be a source of trouble. Their less than adequate language skills are usually deemed to cause misunderstandings (Bamgbose, 1998), and, at the very least, result in discourse that is "hard work" for the NS. What does not often come into the equation, however, is that communicating in a foreign language is more often than not extremely "hard work" for the NNS as well; understanding the NS is hard work--to say nothing of the hard work involved in the sheer production of English discourse. Besides, there is the communicational angle: Like the NNS, the NS may also have somewhat less than adequate communication skills, and thus may not be able to take situational factors fully into account in interactions. Neither party alone can therefore take the blame for possible shortcomings. There is serious space for communication teaching to address the problem.