Participation and performance in international business meetings

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

Participation and performance in international business meetings Pamela Rogerson-Revell * English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (ELTAL), School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RF, UK

Abstract This paper reports on an analysis of meetings data which forms part of a broader study investigating the use of English as a lingua franca in international business meetings. This discourse analytic stage of research builds on an initial survey which explored the use of English for International Business (EIB) in a particular European organisation. The survey uncovered a range of communication issues and frustrations raised by meeting participants as well as an awareness of some of the strategies that could be used to overcome them (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). This analysis of the meeting discourse attempts to relate these perceptions to the actual interactive characteristics of the meetings themselves. Initial findings suggest that there is some support for the issues raised in the survey, particularly with regard to levels of participation, for, although Native English Speakers (NSE) do not dominate talk in terms of talk time, there is a much higher proportion of inactive NonNative English Speakers (NNSE) in the meetings. However, despite concerns from some participants that communication in English can be problematic, the analysis illustrates the overall positive linguistic performance of speakers in the meetings themselves. It also reveals some of the ways active participants employ a variety of interactive resources and strategies to achieve substantive goals and to establish a sense of normality in situ despite generic and linguistic constraints. The study also suggests that the apparent paradox between the negative perceptions of some participants and the overall positive performance of speakers in the meetings themselves needs further investigation. Ó 2008 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

*

Tel.: +44 0116 252 5750 (office)/+44 0185 843 3867 (home). E-mail address: [email protected]

0889-4906/$34.00 Ó 2008 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.003

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

339

1. Introduction Despite socio-political concerns about the spread of English (Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson, 1992), its prevalence in international business is largely accepted as a pragmatic necessity by many business organisations and practitioners, for whom it is part of their everyday professional lives. Nevertheless, while English for International Business (EIB) has an essential function as a lingua franca in multilingual settings, it can also present challenges both linguistically and culturally, particularly as more and more interactions are between speakers whose first language is not English. Indeed there is now a growing body of research into the use of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) where the term is used to refer exclusively to the use of English between speakers whose mother tongue is not English (Firth, 1996; Seidlhofer, 2001). There has also been some research into the use of ELF in business contexts, or BELF, again between ‘non-native’ English speakers (LouhialaSalminen, Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005). However, this focus excludes a substantial body of business communication between ELF and English as a Mother Tongue (EMT) speakers. The term EIB is used here to refer to the use of English for International Business purposes in contexts where both EMT and ELF speakers may be present. In my own teaching and research experience, such international events are commonplace both in Europe and elsewhere around the world, although there seems to have been little investigation of authentic interactions in such contexts. This study investigates one such context, where English is used as a common language for international communication within a European business organisation. The study forms part of a larger scale research project to explore further the nature and role of EIB, focusing specifically on its use in international business meetings in Europe. The overall project has both a theoretical and practical goal, on the one hand aiming to build on earlier research in this field (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997; Firth, 1996; Planken, 2005; Poncini, 2004; Rogerson-Revell, 1998, 1999) and on a practical level, to relay the findings back to the European organisation involved, in order to help it improve communications in future international events. Ultimately, a further goal is to use the findings in the development of generic training materials to facilitate international professional communication (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Rogerson-Revell, 1999, 2003; St. John, 1996). The impetus for the research came from within the organisation itself, where there was some concern about what was seen as unequal participation by non-native speakers of English in meetings. This led to an initial survey-based study of meeting participants, which revealed a variety of frustrations and issues among respondents about international meetings but also their awareness of some of the strategies that could be used to overcome them (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). This led to a second stage of research involving a discursive analysis of meetings, which tries to relate the respondents’ perceptions to the actual interactive characteristics of the meetings themselves. The paper reports on this second discourse analytic stage of research. 2. English in European business The spread of English in Europe is commonly seen as a ‘language problem’, particularly at EU policy level, where English is often seen as threatening to engulf and replace other indigenous European languages (Phillipson, 2003). However, there is also an emerging view among researchers, such as Seidlhofer (2001), Spichtinger (2001) and Brutt-Griffler (2005),

340

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

that the use of English for international purposes does not need to have a negative impact on other native languages. As Spichtinger argues, ‘one can speak German as one’s national language and English as one’s European language’ (2001, p. 54). 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 posed by Phillipson (1992), Pennycook (1998) and Canagarajah (1999). This pragmatic view of the appropriation of English for international communication and trade is frequently reflected in European business organisations. 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 Germany, stated that ‘German companies are very pragmatic. . .. They value a single language for business, even if it is not their own’ (After Babel, a new common tongue, 2004, p. 33). Nevertheless, this is not to dismiss claims that the use of English as a business lingua franca can be seen as problematic. Indeed, one of the aims of this broader research project is to gain a clearer picture of how business practitioners themselves feel about using EIB. Over the last decade there has been growing interest among linguists in the role of language and culture in European business (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997; LouhialaSalminen et al., 2005; Nickerson, 2005; Planken, 2005; Poncini, 2003). However, despite the range of uses of English across Europe and its undisputable spread 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 about European business people’s perceptions of 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. The particular focus of this study is on international business meetings, which frequently play an important part in the lives of many European professionals. The discourse of business meetings has been researched from many angles, including for instance genre based analyses of their structure and procedural characteristics (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997; Koester, 2006), conversational accomplishment of tasks (Boden, 1994; Firth, 1995; Poncini, 2004; Sarangi & Roberts, 1999), the realisation of power and politeness in meetings (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003) and speaker styles (Clyne, 1994; Rogerson-Revell, 1999). Within this field, there has been a relatively limited amount of research looking at authentic interactions between native and non-native speakers in international business meetings (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997; Bilbow, 1997; Rogerson-Revell, 1999; Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 1998), despite the frequency of such events. 3. Background to the study 3.1. The organisation The research was carried out with the full co-operation and support of the Groupe Consultatif Actuariel Europeen (GCAE).1 The Groupe has a consultative and advisory func-

1

I express my thanks to the Groupe Consultatif Actuariel Europeen for their help in conducting this study and for their permission to publish the research findings.

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

341

tion facilitating discussion with European Union institutions on existing and proposed EU legislation which has an impact on the actuarial profession.2 The GCAE itself is part of a larger international actuarial body, the International Actuarial Association (IAA). The Groupe represents 33 actuarial associations from thirty European countries. It is common for Groupe members to meet regularly at various European venues to discuss current issues. Some members attend international meetings as frequently as twice a month and are in regular email and telephone contact with colleagues. Consequently, face-to-face meetings are an essential part of their professional lives. This pattern of communication seems typical in European business, based on my own business teaching experiences and the observations of other researchers, such as Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005), Hagen (1998) and Firth (1996). Inevitably, differences in the size, location, purpose and, indeed, mix of participants in such meetings can substantially affect meeting behaviours and outcomes (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997; Poncini, 2004; Rogerson-Revell, 1999). Such variables, for instance, could include whether a meeting is inter- or extra-organisational, whether a meeting has a primarily commercial, business focus or a professional, consultative focus, and whether a meeting is essentially collaborative and information-sharing in nature, or is fundamentally competitive and results-driven. Furthermore, in most meetings, beneath this public brief there are often several layers of organisational and individual agendas which contribute to the complexity of these interactions. 3.2. Initial survey The GCAE has for some time been concerned about what they referred to as unequal participation of members in meetings, as illustrated in this extract (Fig. 1) from an internal report of an IAA task force on ‘How to encourage more active participation of non-English speakers’: This extract highlights some of the concerns felt by members and illustrates some of the difficulties and frustrations encountered by non-native English speakers in meetings. The final paragraph suggests an underlying assumption that some of these difficulties result from the dominance of ‘Anglo Saxon’ views in the organisation, despite their minority status in terms of numbers of members. The task force had themselves come up with a list of recommendations (Fig. 2) to improve NNSE participation in meetings: This report formed the basis of an initial survey, conducted during an international GCAE event, aiming to provide factual background information about the meeting participants (such as demographic makeup, frequency of use of EIB) to support the second stage of the research. However it also aimed to provide data regarding participants’ perceptions of the use of EIB in such contexts: data which seems relatively scarce in current research. The questionnaire responses revealed a range of concerns and frustrations regarding the difficulties in communicating in international meetings. However, they also showed

2

Actuaries provide advice on the financial management of assets and liabilities, particularly for long-term financial planning such as for insurance purposes.

342

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360 Report of the Task force on “How to Encourage More Active Participation of Non-English Speakers Within the IAA” Members: French, Swedish, Portuguese, Finnish, Japanese, Spanish “I was sitting in one of the IAA Committee meetings and listening to the discussion. Suddenly I thought that the meeting was missing an essential point and I started to plan an intervention. It took a few minutes to prepare myself, especially to find the right English words etc., and suddenly I realised that the discussion had moved on to another subject.” “I was in the middle of an intervention talking about that interesting subject when in the middle of a sentence I realised that I had forgotten the correct English word to use.” These are just two of a number of situations a non-native English (NNE) speaker finds himself in every now and then. Of course, if you are an intrepid speaker you continue with a homemade translation, but we must admit that a fair number of us would more and more hesitate to speak publicly. Are there any remedies or solutions to this problem that most probably results in a predominance of the Anglo Saxon views being forwarded?

Fig. 1. Extract from an internal report of an IAA task force.

For native English speaker a short list could be as follows • • •

Speak slowly and loudly enough Use simple words When possible try to provide, at least beforehand, a written summary of what the speaker intends to say.

For the non-native English speaker a short list could be • • •

Try to rehearse if possible Bring a dictionary / write down keywords you anticipate will be used Do not hesitate to ask when you do not understand (you are probably not the only one who has not understood what it is all about).

For any meeting chairperson a short list could be • • • • • • •

Try to speak before the start of any meeting with the NNE present to establish whether there are any particular areas they would like to contribute to. Make sure that the seating arrangement is well adapted for the number of expected participants. Most meetings are on more or less technical subjects so an introduction by the chairperson on different technical terms/abbreviations that might be used would be very helpful (one solution is that they are written on a billboard for everyone to see) Remind all present (especially native-English speakers) about what to think of when making an oral contribution, i.e., speak slowly and loudly enough (without shouting). Give any NNE speaker ample time to speak. Be very active in encouraging especially the NNE to participate in the discussions. Give positive feedback (try to actively help the NNE find the right word and/or summarize the statement in a few words to give the NNE a second chance to be certain that the true meaning of what the speaker really wanted to say has been understood).

Fig. 2. Section from IAA task force report re recommendations to improve NNSE participation.

an awareness, particularly by some native speakers of English (NSE) of the need to modify their language use in order to accommodate the linguistic ability range of

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

343

non-native speakers of English (NNSE). Both NSE and NNSE3 respondents voiced some concerns about understanding quiet speakers and those with ‘strong regional accents’. Among the NNSE responses specifically, only 26% claimed to feel ‘very comfortable’ in large meetings and a spectrum of communication issues were raised. These range from comprehension difficulties, i.e. processing fast or quiet speech, which seems to be a problem shared by participants with both high and lower English language proficiency, through difficulties in both comprehension and production, due to vocabulary limitations, which seem to relate to speakers whose self-assessment of their language proficiency (particular in speaking) is relatively low, to difficulties in managing interactions appropriately. This last category appears to relate particularly to participants who rate their own language ability relatively highly but who nevertheless feel they have difficulty in high-speed discussions, particularly trying to interrupt or express a particular viewpoint.4 The rest of this paper reports on the second stage of this research project, presenting preliminary findings of an analysis of discourse within a set of GCAE international meetings. This analysis attempted specifically to relate the perceptions of EIB users to actual participation and performance in international business meetings. 4. The study 4.1. The data The data for this study were collected during an annual external GCAE event, the 27th meeting of the GCAE, held in Manchester, English in 2004. This annual whole GCAE event, held at different European venues each year, enables Groupe members to meet and discuss key topics and review the previous year’s business. The 2004 event consisted of a series of subgroup meetings (ranging from 21 to 38 participants) culminating in a whole GCAE Groupe meeting (44 participants) on the final afternoon. Three of the six meetings5 were audio and video recorded and later transcribed. These were (a) the Pensions meeting (b) the Insurance meeting and (c) the Groupe meeting. The data referred to here relate to these three meetings. In my role of researcher I also sat in on all three meetings and took field notes, after briefly introducing myself and the broad aims of the research.6

3

It is acknowledged that there is considerable debate over the use the of the terms Native and Non-Native English Speaker (e.g. Davies, 2003; McKay, 2002) but these terms are used here partly because they were used by GCAE members themselves and also because as yet no consensus on alternative terms seems to have been reached. 4 A full account of the findings of the survey is given in Rogerson-Revell (2007). 5 As some of the meetings coincided it was not possible to observe and record all of them. 6 It is recognised that the ‘observer paradox’ (Labov, 1972), i.e. the fact that the meetings were being recorded and observed, had some influence on the behaviour of the participants. Indeed, there are some references, particularly during the opening sequences of the meetings, to the fact that the meetings are ‘on tape’. One important caveat, relating to this issue is that all participants were informed of our presence in the meeting agendas which were circulated prior to the meetings. The names of all participants have been changed to maintain confidentiality.

344

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360 Meeting

Chair total

Participants nse nnse

Duration f

m

Pensions Peter (nse)

21

6

15

5

16

3h 35m

Bengt (nnse)

38

10

28

2

36

1h 50m1

Paula (nnse)

44

9

5

39

3h 15m

Insurance Groupe 35

Fig. 3. Composition of 3 GCAE meetings.

4.2. Composition of the meetings The meetings are similar in composition, in that they are all intra-organisational meetings, with representatives from a variety of EU countries which are members of the GCAE. Also, in all meetings there was a mixture of native speakers of English (NSE) and non-native speakers of English (NNSE) and of men and women (although there were proportionally very few women at the event, which reflects the predominantly male membership of the organisation). The overall composition of the meeting participants is summarised in Fig. 3. In both the whole Groupe meeting and Insurance meetings, the Chair was a non-native speaker of English: in the former the chair was a female Portuguese member (the actual president of the GCAE) and in the latter, a male Dutch member. Some of the meeting participants knew each other well, particularly members of subgroups as these meet regularly throughout the year. However, some participants at this annual event either knew relatively few people or had little previous face-to-face contact with other GCAE members. This was particularly true of some members of the new EU accession countries (such as Latvia and Estonia) who had only recently joined the organisation. Such variables obviously have a potential impact on meeting interactions but inevitably it is the presence of such variables that both constitutes and complicates such authentic interactions. 4.3. Meeting structure The meetings are all formal in structure to the extent that each has a designated chair and a secretary taking minutes, and a scheduled time slot within the two-day GCAE event. All documents referred to during the meetings, including the agenda, previous minutes and reports, were circulated to all members before the meetings. Also, within each meeting, including the subgroup meetings, several designated members were pre-scheduled to speak to specific agenda items. All of the three meetings observed are what could be described as ‘large’, ranging from 26 to 50 participants. In the largest, the whole Groupe meetings, there is not enough space actually around the table7 to seat all the participants, so approximately 10 of them have to make a second tier behind the ‘front row’. This has obvious implications for participation

7

In fact, the ‘table’ is a series of small individual tables linked together to form a large, oval ring with the chair seated at one end.

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

345

by these members, especially as they do not have access to desk-top microphones, unlike those seated at the table itself. 4.4. Function of the meetings The purpose of the meetings is primarily information-sharing and discussion: updating on GCAE matters and events during the previous year and discussing issues of professional concern. Particularly in the subgroup meetings, these matters relate specifically to the interests of the subgroups, each focusing on a particular area of GCAE consultancy work, for instance pensions or insurance issues. However, the agenda for the whole Groupe meeting covers topics of more general concern to Groupe members. The purpose of the two-day event is described clearly by the chair and one of the guest speakers at the beginning of the whole Groupe meeting: Chair

so/.. at the ‘opening of the ‘twenty..‘twenty-seventh ‘annual meeting of the ‘Groupe Consultatif/..it’s a ‘pleasure for ‘me as chairmann to ‘welcome the president of IA’A/..’Luis Ferat/..and the ‘president of the ‘Institute of Actuaries Michael Smithn.. and I’d ‘also ‘like to ex’tend a ‘warm welcome/ to all the ‘membersn..’old and newn. who have ‘come from all/. ‘over Europe/.. to ‘join us todayn..I’m ‘sure this is a ‘forum ‘where we will debate/ ..in a ‘friendly though ‘lively way/ ‘all the ‘many issues that are ‘currently con’cerning our professionn

Guest speaker

I ‘think gatherings such as ‘this/ are..beneficial to ex’change views/ and.. learn from ‘each othern8

5. Data analysis This stage of the analysis has taken a deliberately ‘broad sweep’ of the data to try to get an overview of the most significant episodes and characteristics and to attempt to relate questionnaire respondents’ perceptions and concerns to the actual meeting interactions. At this preliminary stage, the analysis has attempted therefore to observe a wide range of linguistic and interactional features, with a view to narrowing and deepening the focus on specific features in later studies. The analysis has therefore taken an integrative approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods to provide different but complementary perspectives. For instance, a quantitative approach was used to analyse some aspects of participation relating to how much time speakers talk during meetings. This preliminary analysis was used as a basis for further qualitative analysis, to investigate further how speakers actually participate and perform linguistically in these meetings. In particular, the study employs conversation analytic tools to observe in detail the sequential and collaborative construction of meaning in such work-based talk. It also draws on genre analysis in order to take into account the procedural constraints and generic characteristics common to large business meetings.

8

A key to the transcription conventions used can be found in Appendix 1.

346

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

A key difference between discourse analytic approaches is in their treatment of context. The view taken here is that it is necessary to have a certain amount of information about the institution and its communicative procedures to make sense of professional discourse. However, the study starts from the premise that context is dynamic and adopts a talkintrinsic view of context, to the extent that the relevance of external context must be demonstrated by, rather than determine, what speakers say. 6. Preliminary findings 6.1. Participation One of the frustrations documented in the questionnaire was the perception by some that native speakers of English tend to dominate talk. In fact, the situation is not straightforward. 6.1.1. Turn allocation In terms of total amount of turn time,9 NSE do not dominate talk in any of the three meetings, as shown in Fig. 4, except if the NSE chair is taken into account in the Pensions meeting. However, it could be argued that the chair has legitimate speaking rights above and beyond other meeting participants. What is more notable is the difference in participation between NSE and NNSE in the meetings. In general, there is a much higher proportion of inactive (i.e. non-speaking) NNSEs in meetings than inactive NSEs (Fig. 5). This is particularly obvious in the Groupe meeting where only 11 of the 35 NNSEs are active as opposed to 8 of the 9 NSEs. While this quantitative information helps reveal who participates the most actively in these meetings, it does not take into account factors such as the proportion of turns invited by the chair or pre-allocated speaker turns. In fact, in all of the meetings there are instances of long reporting turns where individual GCAE members are scheduled to talk to a specific agenda item, often for several minutes. This is certainly the case to a large extent in the largest whole Groupe meeting and to a lesser extent in the smaller subgroup meetings. The high proportion of invited turns and long report turns, which seem typical of such large formal meetings (Boden, 1994), means the amount of time available for spontaneous, self-selected turns is relatively small. 6.1.2. Interruption and turn claims A further concern of some NNSE questionnaire respondents was difficulty interrupting in meetings. For instance: ‘interrupting speakers spontaneously; communicating difficult messages politely; finetuning statements diplomatically’ (German participant). ‘interrupting speakers sometimes difficult as is expressing small but important differences in opinion/feeling’ (Dutch participant).

9

‘Turn time’ refers to the length of speaker turns in minutes and seconds.

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

347

Allocation of talk in meetings (proportion of time speakers talk during meetings) 100% NNSE

80% 60%

NNSE

chair

NNSE

chair

40%

chair

20%

NSE

NSE

NSE

Insurance

Pensions

Groupe

NNSE chair NSE

0% Fig. 4. Allocation of talk in meetings.

Participation in meetings 100% 80%

17

7 24

60% 40%

11

20%

2

NNSE active

8

NSE inactive 11

2

NNSE inactive

8

4

1 8

Insurance

Pensions

Groupe

NSE active

0% Fig. 5. Participation in meetings.

Interestingly, the respondents who made such comments tended to be speakers whose self-assessed language proficiency (particularly in speaking) is relatively high. Indeed, there are remarkably few instances of self-selected turns through interruptions, overlaps or smooth speaker switches,10 corresponding with the formality of the turn-taking structure, which is marked by the high occurrence of long turn final pauses, clearly signalling turn completion points. The orderliness of the topic and turn-taking procedures is also reflected in the formality of speaker invitations and acceptances. These are particularly formal in the whole Groupe meeting and especially at the beginning of the meeting, where two important guest speakers are invited to address the meeting. Chair (Portuguese)

‘thank you ‘very muchn..er..’then I would ‘like to.. ‘pass the ‘word to Michael ??. . . ‘president of the ‘Institute of Actuariesn..Michael pleasen. (Groupe meeting)

The two subgroup meetings are generally slightly less formal procedurally, with more cases of self-selected speaker turns; however, there is still evidence of formal speaker invi10

Smooth Speaker Switch refers to a change of speaker without any perceptual pause.

348

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

tations and turns are still predominantly directed through the chair. The level of procedural formality is also realised through the use of explicit metalinguistic signals to mark, for instance, turn claims: Horst (German) (Pensions meeting)

..I would ‘like to ‘make a ‘general remarkn..

Brian (Irish) (Insurance meeting)

er..’Mr Chairman/.. could I ‘briefly ‘come ‘back to ‘point eightn..er..’sorry.. sevenn.. ‘gender dis’criminationn..

6.1.3. Procedural strategies One of the ways in which the meetings appear meaningful and harmonious is that the turn allocation centres around those members who have something to say (particularly those who are scheduled to give a report or presentation) and those who are confident enough to speak. In other words, this leads to an overall smoothness and rigidity of topic and turn allocation and restricts the opportunity for informal exchanges and presumably for interventions by less linguistically (or professionally) confident or competent participants. In each meeting the chair appears to work hard to maintain order and momentum throughout the meetings, moving explicitly through the agenda, maintaining a careful pace, keeping items or speakers on track. However, there is little evidence of the uptake of the task force’s strategies for chairs to help NNSEs, for instance by summarising key points, introducing technical terms or by giving them ‘ample time to speak’. Nevertheless, as the task force report recommends, each chair does invite members to speak, as illustrated in these extracts: Chair Chair (Belgian)

okn. . ..’anybody with ‘any other ‘business/.. ..I ‘don’t ‘know if ‘anyone ‘here has a view on ‘that/. . . (Insurance meeting)

Chair (English) (Pensions meeting)

..do you .do you ‘happen to remember Harry/ [laughs]. ‘what we ‘thought the value would ‘be of en’hancing the survey/..

Chair Chair (Portuguese)

.’any comments on ‘pensions com’mittee report/ . . .yes/.. ..anyone/. . .(gestures Brian to talk).. (Groupe meeting)

Occasionally these invitations are to named individuals, as in the Pensions meeting where Peter, the NSE (English) chair, regularly invites specific members to speak (as in the extract above). In the examples below, Peter invites two relatively quiet female participants, one Portuguese and the other Finnish, to speak: Chair (English)

..Marie ‘is it the case/..’there is a dis’cussion on the Morris Re’view/ in the ‘main committee to’morrow/. er.or. in the freedoms com’mitteen..

Chair (Pensions meeting)

..but I..I ‘think in Finland ‘Helen/ there’s been a ‘lot of debate ‘hasn’t there/ a’bout . . ..’when. ‘when a de’fined contri’bution ‘scheme/.. is a de’fined benefit ‘scheme/ and ‘when it isn’tn. . ..for accounting ‘purposes/

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

349

Such strategies may help participants make sense of the meetings, by signalling clearly the meeting structure and progression. It could be argued that the rigid topic and turn-taking strategies are a necessary generic constraint of such large meetings. However, it could also be argued that this formality acts as a barrier to spontaneous, self-selected turns and makes some NNSE participants feel they lack the ability to use the appropriate formal register to claim turns or interrupt. It would appear that the low level of interruptions and turn claims by NNSE may be due partially to the formal procedural strategies but also to participants’ reluctance to interrupt because of concerns about linguistic or professional inadequacies. Indeed, in the task force report referred to earlier, there is some limited reference to cultural differences in ‘working styles’, which are listed as reasons why NNSE do not play a very active part in meetings:

Cultural There are differences in working styles and many of the members must be given enough time to consider the issues in question, perhaps to discuss them with colleagues and then to formulate their reply in an actual meeting. Sometimes you are even used to listening to the more senior ones and accept their proposals, etc.

6.2. Performance Despite the complexity of the interactive mix of the participants and the constraints of the large meeting format, this exploratory discursive analysis suggests that the interactions in all three meetings appear generally meaningful, orderly and harmonious. Firth (1996, p. 22) describes his similar impressions of lingua franca business telephone calls whereby participants use ‘a range of conversational mechanisms and resources’ to make talk appear meaningful, orderly and normal, ‘in face of sometimes abnormal and extraordinary linguistic behaviour’. Firth concludes that ‘the orderly and normal character of the talk is an accomplished and contingent achievement sustained through locally managed interactive, interpretive and linguistic work’ (p. 242). An essential line of enquiry was to explore how this generally positive impression of speaker performances was created discursively, especially given the concerns and frustrations raised by some members in the questionnaire and task force report. 6.2.1. Range of linguistic competence The significance of linguistic difficulties is highlighted in questionnaire responses, where, as mentioned earlier, a variety of language comprehension and production issues are raised. The range of linguistic competence is also recognized as problematic in the organisation’s internal report: This is an evident problem. The knowledge of the English language varies quite a lot from fluent to barely understandable (GCAE Internal Report). This range of linguistic competence is illustrated in the NNSE extracts below from the meetings:

350

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

Example of very competent speaker Matt .. I’m wondering ‘whether/..it. it ‘makes sense to/.. ‘raise any spe’cific (Belgian) questions/ with re’gard to the accounting ‘treatmentnof the de’fined contribution ‘plansn.. be’cause indeed/. . . it ‘seems to me/ this is a genuine de’fined contri’bution ‘plannor ‘like in Belgium/. as ‘XX a’lready_alluded to it/..it ‘is.er..it ‘is similar to the de’fined contribution ‘plan/ but in reality/ .be’cause of the..’interest guarantee/.. it is a cash ‘balancen‘when it ‘has to be ‘treated as de’fined benefit [yeah]..

Example of a less competent speaker Bart (Belgian)

after/.. ‘let’s say/. a ‘number of..’er..hands/ ..er. votingsn.. to a’dopt..to re’ject..to be..abstain/..er..and ‘then.. ‘more..er..’let’s ‘say.. re’peated en’quiry by email/../there/ was/no unanimous ‘view/..

The competence of the speaker in the first extract is illustrated not only by his grammatical and phonological accuracy and sophisticated use of lexis but also by his overall fluency, signalled for instance by the lack of hesitations and the use of cohesive markers. In comparison, the speaker in the second extract, whose speech is marked by hesitations and reformulations, generally seems to lack many of these skills. However, despite obvious differences in degree of linguistic competence marked by disfluencies and a range of phonological, syntactic and lexical anomalies,11 the meetings appear to make sense linguistically as well as procedurally. In other words, just as participants seem to employ a variety of strategies and resources to make the meetings appear meaningful and orderly at a procedural level, they seem to do similar interactive work at a linguistic level. 6.2.2. Linguistic concerns As mentioned earlier, many of the NNSE questionnaire respondents mentioned concerns about various types of linguistic difficulties, including comprehension difficulties, for instance, processing fast or quiet speech, or understanding accents, through difficulties in both comprehension and production, due for instance, to vocabulary limitations. The frustrations caused by language difficulties are illustrated in responses to the general question ‘Do you have any particular difficulties communicating in international meetings?’ such as: ‘this limitation [of vocabulary] doesn’t prevent me from participating but I feel less efficacy in expressing my thoughts’ (Italian participant). ‘difficulties in finding adequate words for immediate reaction in a discussion. Then it is easy to be quiet. This is in comparison with discussions in my mother tongue’ (Swedish participant).

11 Obviously these observations are based on my own (NSE) assessment. However, there is evidence in the earlier questionnaire that some GCAE NNSE also recognise this range of competence and the need, by some, to improve.

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

351

6.2.3. Linguistic anomalies It is not possible in a paper of this scope to go into detail regarding the nature of the linguistic anomalies in the meeting interactions. However, the extracts below illustrate some of the common types of phonological, syntactic and lexical infelicities, such as inappropriate choice of vocabulary items or prepositions, inaccurate formulation of negative clauses, phonemic misrepresentations and misplaced word and sentence stress. Many of these have been described elsewhere as typical of NNSE usage in lingua franca contexts (Jenkins, 2000).12

Lexical anomalies Helen ..it ‘is ‘very important to ‘find the co’rrect saying/. in ‘that papern (Finnish) Jacques (French)

..’so in ‘any case.. I a’ttend you suggestion..and ‘we ‘will ‘have a ‘look at ‘what ‘should ‘be a ALM mo’del

Bengt (Belgian) ..and ‘next meeting/ will ‘be ‘planned in the ‘fall of 2004n. with the ‘new responsible for ‘this.’er. unitn Syntactic anomalies Helen ‘yes..and ‘so/ . . .. . ...’how to define/..’if.’if.. the benefit/.. ‘if the ‘plan (Finnish) is de’fined contribution/..’is ‘it/..of the ‘view of the ‘insurance company/ or ‘is it..of the ‘view of the employeen.. Agnes (Hungarian)

we ‘have a ‘lot of ‘foreign employees/..in ‘this momentnand ‘I ‘am ‘not sure/ ‘it.er. ‘is a ‘not ‘very im’portant question/ in ‘this momentn

Chair I ‘would ‘say that the ‘title of ‘our colloquium/.. ‘being a long ‘one/ (Portuguese) ‘does ..’not ‘risk ‘being ‘not ‘quite ‘well understood.. Phonolgical anomalies Chair I ‘cannot ‘go into details/.. the ‘names [nAimz] of speakersn. . .they (Portuguese) ‘will ‘be ‘mainly [mAinli:]‘people from consu [u:]ltancy ‘firmsn.. Jacques (French)

12

..we were lau[au]nching this qu [k]estionnaire/...con’erning the developments/in?? proj[S]ectn...it’s..er..be’coming a ‘mu[u;]lti section questionnairen..er. it ‘start with a ‘general questionnaire/ and ‘several..er..and ‘general questionnaire/.. and several ‘types of risk/ ..like ‘interest ‘rate risk/.. ‘credit risk..’market risk/..concentration?? risk/..’se’curity risk/..a’version risk/ and ‘’how is the organi’sation ‘dealing with ‘this ‘type of riskn.. [repetition of tonic stress on ‘risk’]

This is particularly the case with phonological features, including phonemic anomalies such as substitution of ‘difficult’ RP consonant phonemes, e.g. fricatives to stops (e.g. ‘these’ to ‘dese’) and of affricates to fricatives (e.g. ‘ch aired’ by XX to ‘shared’) and devoicing of final consonants (e.g. ‘five’ becomes ‘fife’) (Jenkins, 2000). This is an aspect of the analysis which deserves much fuller exploration in a further study.

352

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

6.2.4. Linguistic strategies Despite different levels of linguistic competence and different sociocultural backgrounds, participants generally seem to try very hard to understand each other and to assume mutual understanding even if this is not always the case. Again, a similar finding was documented by Firth (1996) in his analysis of lingua franca business telephone calls. In fact, in the extract below is one of the very few cases of explicit signalling of misunderstanding in the meetings data: Joern (German)

Karl (Dutch) Joern (German) (Pensions meeting)

..per’haps the ‘site ‘might ‘have a ‘short comment on ‘that/ [yes]..and.er. ‘that ‘might help/ [yes] a preface or ‘something like thatn.. ..I ‘think.I ‘think...’sorry.. but you mean/.. . . ..you ‘may ‘have a ‘short comment/..at the beginning/ [yeah.so it is..]

This is not to suggest that participants are unaware of linguistic differences and difficulties. There are examples of explicit recognition of non-native status but these tend to be ignored by other participants, as in the extract below: Angel (Spanish) Jacques (French)

..be’cause to’day/ the ‘media is ‘very.. importantn.. . . .you have to ‘imagine you are..’selling to..to..others/.. I..I. don’t ‘know if I ex’press.. best ‘way/.. I’m guessingn.(laughs) ‘no.. but I ‘mean.’what do you ‘think we should don.. at the congressn? (Groupe meeting)

Conversely, the difficulties of non-native status may be diffused through humour, as in this extract, where the speaker is in fact from Ireland so although he is a NSE he is not British: Brian (Irish) (Insurance meeting)

..can you spell that/.. for ‘us ‘non-‘native speakersn[general laughter]

Ignoring linguistic anomalies seems to be a commonly used strategy whereby participants focus on message content rather than form. This ‘let it pass’ strategy is also documented by Firth (1996, p. 23) as a resource frequently deployed in lingua franca interactions, whereby linguistic anomalies and ambiguities are tolerated or ignored by participants, if the sense of the utterance is deemed recoverable in the context. This focus on message content rather than form is illustrated in the next extract. Eric (Belg)

..’maybe in Belgium..we have ‘something to notice.. it is ‘not officially ‘passed ‘yet but it is.. ‘going into ‘that direction Chair (Belg) (Insurance ..that’s great.. meeting) In the GCAE meetings this strategy seems, at the same time, to succeed in diverting attention from surface features of talk and giving the appearance of mutual understanding. This ‘let it pass’ strategy is illustrated in the extract below where the German speaker

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

353

is conscious of the abnormal lexical item ‘sense of behaviour’ and actually asks other participants for help. This request, however, is ignored and the following Dutch speaker appears conversely to focus on responding to message content, signalling both solidarity and understanding with his laughter and statement, ‘I can agree..I can agree’: Hans (German)

I.er.’sent..er. your email/..er. to the ‘board of the.. and.er. I ‘got the answer/ ..there was a dis’cussion with the IAA/ a’bout ‘setting ‘up ‘inter’national or practicenin Germanyn.er. ‘German members/.er. ‘well. had a..well ..’sense of behaviour/ per’haps.. you can help me ‘there/ Gert (Dutch) (Pensions I ‘can agreen.I ‘can agreen..[laughter] meeting) The related strategy illustrated in the above extract, i.e. ‘lack of other repair’ or one speaker avoiding correcting another speaker’s abnormal usage, is also commonly observed throughout the meetings. There is of course the possibility that such usage is not always recognised as abnormal by speakers. Nevertheless, the point remains that there are very few cases of other repair despite the frequent occurrence of linguistic infelicities. The data in fact suggests that NNSE do recognise at least some of these infelicities, employing a range of strategies such as direct calls for help, as in the extract above, by diminishing the seriousness of the linguistic difficulty, for example through laughter, thereby marking the anomaly as ‘non-fatal’, to use Firth (1996) term. This strategy is illustrated in an extract where the Spanish speaker tries, unsuccessfully to use an idiomatic expression, ‘on the horn’ which is unintelligible in the context: Angel (Spanish) (Groupe meeting)

..but I ‘think the ‘actuary has to ‘try to be..on the’horn’/ ‘not.. be’side (gestures ‘under’) the horn n[?]. . ..[laughs] it’s a ‘perspective questionn..

At other times, speakers may refer explicitly to their lack of linguistic competence, as in the verbal statements in this extract: Leo (Belgian) (Insurance meeting)

. . ...I”m ‘not ‘sure if I ‘make . . .what I’m ‘saying ‘makes sense/ ..but I ‘hope you ‘understand/. . .

Alternatively, the difficulty might be marked explicitly through code-switching, although examples of this are rare in this data. Cases where code-switching does occur are restricted to two speakers in the Groupe meeting, one of whom is a confident and generally fluent French participant: Jacques (French) (Groupe meeting)

. . . just re’mind me that I just forget/ to ‘tell you ‘something ‘very importantn. . .we ‘got.. the ‘full ‘patronat’/..as we ‘say..of the ‘French president /..of the republiquen [murmured approval]. . .. . ..we’ll ‘have a contribution from the chair’man of E.A.D.S/. . .’EADS’[in French]’[c’est ca’]..

354

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

And the other is an equally confident but much less fluent Spanish member: Angel (Spanish) (Insurance meeting)

..I ‘don’t know ‘how is in English/..’maybe.. ‘Ramon/.. Ramon/.. pa’tata caliente/ .how is it/.. pa’tata caliente/ ..[laughs]. ‘well..may’be ‘hot poto.. . . .??is i’gual. i’gual.. in ??......

It is difficult to know why such code-switching is so limited but one explanation could be that it is part of participants’ preference to deflect attention from abnormal linguistic usage by focusing on the ‘normality’ of the message content. All of the above are examples of strategies used to deal with NNSEs’ linguistic anomalies and infelicities but the questionnaire responses and task force report also revealed difficulties understanding speakers because of accent or delivery. For instance several respondents referred to the general problem of people speaking either too fast or too quietly, for example,

‘yes, if people speak too quickly or too low’ (French participant). ‘difficult to understand speakers who speak in low volume and/or too fast ‘ (Greek participant).

Again the general impression of the meetings was the overall pace was very measured, largely because of the procedural formality characterised by features already mentioned such as lack of overlaps, clearly signalled TRPs13 and interruptions. Also, there were few examples of individual speakers speaking abnormally quickly. However, the importance of other aspects of delivery, such as volume, eye contact, controlled pauses and emphasis, is something that is perhaps underestimated in such large meeting formats where some participants are physically quite a distance apart. This point was reflected in the task force recommendation to ensure that there are adequate seating arrangements, particularly for large meetings. There were also some general references by both NNSE and NSE respondents to difficulties with, for example, ‘heavy regional’ or ‘uneducated’ accents’, and ‘non-articulated English’. In fact, there is some evidence of fairly strong regional accents by both NNSE and NSE in the meetings data which may relate to these concerns. However, it is not possible to consider how much impact accent has on understanding in the meetings at this stage. Overall, the analysis suggests that many speakers are sensitive to the need to modify their language to accommodate the international audience. Indeed many of the NSE respondents expressed concern to try to speak slowly and clearly and several suggested the need to avoid, if possible, the use of jargon, idioms, metaphors, unusual words or as one English respondent put it, ‘colloquialisms which might not be familiar to non-native speakers’. In fact, there is only one NSE who makes regular use,

13

Transition Relevance Points (Schegloff, 1972).

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

355

for instance, of colloquialisms, metaphors and idioms, as illustrated in the following extract: Brian (Irish) (Groupe meeting)

.. you ‘may be cre’ating a ‘rod for the ‘actuaries’ back/ ..in the situ’ation where the ‘actuary ‘actually has ‘no ‘influence.at all/ ..’over the situationn

Harry (Scottish) (Pensions meeting)

.an ‘interim report/.. on what ‘he ‘sees as his ‘findings from this consultation/..and.at ‘that stage.effectively/..we’ll ‘have a ‘second ‘bite at the cherryn..

There is occasional use of idioms by other, largely NSE speakers, but usually within the general frame of formality, as in extract below: Secretary (Scottish) (Groupe meeting)

Per’haps I can re’fer briefly/ that the ‘Groupe ‘pays a ‘fixed percentage/..of the ..’Groupe’s expendituren..’so ‘if their ex’penditure ‘goes ‘through the roof/I’m a’fraid ‘so also ‘does the Groupe’sn

Interestingly, there seems to be a very low incidence of ‘highly-contextualised’ language14 (i.e. language which depends on references to shared knowledge, through the use of linguistic devices such as ellipsis, jargon, idioms, metaphors, vague language) throughout the meetings. This seems to reflect the overall linguistic as well as procedural formality, as is apparent in the following extracts: Groupe meeting Chair (Portuguese)

Peter (English) (Insurance meeting)

Finally/..I ‘would ‘not for’get the ‘permanent availability of Michael Lanen.. wi’thout which my performance/..would have been ‘very poorn [applause] ..be’cause.. there is. a ‘high ‘level of ignorance/.. as to. as to the IA’A associ’ation itselfn . . .and its constructionn.and ‘what is going onn

The preference for linguistic formality, marked for instance by the frequent occurrence of nominalisation, passivisation, Latinate lexis and general avoidance of highly-contextualised language, may well be a strategy used by the most linguistically sensitive meeting members to help NNSEs understand meeting content. However, it could also pose challenges for language production. That is, the formality of speaker contributions may require a degree of linguistic and indeed pragmatic competence that some NNSE participants lack or struggle to produce. This point was again reflected in the task force’s recommendation to NSEs to use ‘simple words’. Indeed, there is some evidence that this is an issue, particularly with reference to opinion giving or disagreeing, as illustrated in the questionnaire responses below:

14

The concept of highly contextualized language is discussed in more depth in Rogerson-Revell (1999) in relation to its use as an interactive strategy in international business meetings in Hong Kong.

356

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

‘communicating difficult messages politely. . ..‘finetuning statements diplomatically’ (German participant). ‘expressing small but important differences in opinion/feeling’ (Dutch participant). ‘difficulties in finding adequate words for immediate reaction in a discussion. Then it is easy to be quiet. This is in comparison with discussions in my mother tongue’ (Swedish participant). Interestingly, the three respondents quoted above all rated themselves relatively highly in terms of linguistic competence. Nevertheless, as the last, Swedish, respondent explains, feeling unable to express oneself adequately may well result in some participants not contributing as much as they would like in such meetings. 7. Conclusion The difficulty of getting heard in workplace interactions, such as meetings, can severely frustrate an individual’s or an organisation’s representation. Such frustrations can be experienced by any individuals who feel reluctant or unable to participate actively whether due to linguistic, professional or sociocultural differences, or, as in the case of the largest meeting here, due to the physical constraints of the setting. The GCAE is rightly concerned to make communicative events, such as international meetings, as equitable as possible. As one member of the GCAE puts it: The IAA is an international organisation i.e., everybody interested shall be able to participate under acceptable conditions. All delegates are representing their various organisations/countries and must really feel that everything possible is done to ensure that their ideas will be listened to/commented on at its own merit, even if it is not delivered in flawless English (GCAE Internal Report, October 2004).

The aim of this second stage of research was to try to relate some of the GCAE members’ perceptions and concerns about such events to the actual participation and performance characteristics of the meetings themselves. The findings of this ‘broad sweep’ analysis are rather paradoxical. On one level the meetings appear ‘normal’ and ‘orderly’. They also appear effective in the sense that items on the agendas are covered and to time. The non-native English speakers who do participate actively in the meetings do so with varying degrees of linguistic competence but on the whole, seem to contribute meaningfully to the meetings. This leads to the question of why such meetings are considered problematic by some and what accounts for this anomaly between the apparently orderly, harmonious nature of the meetings and the frustrations felt by some participants. Regarding GCAE members’ perceptions of unequal participation in meetings, this initial analysis of the meeting interactions suggests that negative perceptions are to some extent borne out in that there is generally a larger proportion of inactive NNSE participants than NSE participants. What is less clear is why this is the case. The unequal participation may be due to a combination of linguistic difficulties and procedural constraints

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

357

or indeed to other external factors such as lack of professional expertise or status, or physical factors such as room layout. At a procedural level, the impression of orderliness and understanding in the meetings seems to be sustained largely through adherence to formal topic and turn management strategies. It could be argued that these strategies impose order by reducing the incidence of interruptions, particularly given the relatively large size of all the meetings. Conversely, it could be argued that the same strategies may restrict opportunities for informal or spontaneous contributions. It would appear therefore that the low level of interruptions, particularly by NNSE, may relate to the procedural formality of the meetings. However, as evidenced in the questionnaire and task force report, it could also reflect participants’ concerns about linguistic, and possibly professional, inadequacies. Again at a linguistic level, despite a range of phonological, syntactic and lexical anomalies, the interactions also appear generally orderly and meaningful particularly through use of a range of strategies, by both NSE and NNSE, to facilitate or assume understanding, such as ‘let it pass’, focus on message content rather than form and avoidance of highly-contextualised language. Again the considerateness and carefulness inherent in such strategies may well help participants make sense of the meetings but the ability, for instance, to produce contributions with the appropriate degree of formality may also pose linguistic challenges for some members. This level of formality may also make it difficult for participants to take up the task force’s recommendation to say when they don’t understand something and for chairs to check NNSE understanding by informally trying ‘to actively help [them] find the right word’ Another issue relates to the participants’ strategic tolerance of linguistic anomalies. The fact that the overall focus is on substantive content rather than language infelicities means that it is therefore difficult to get evidence of problems. Participants may act as if they understand, even when they do not, to maintain the sense of ‘normality’ in the meeting. Also, in multi-party settings, unlike in one-to-one interactions, direct responses to individual contributions are not always required. Consequently it is difficult to read or find participants’ demonstrable reactions to individual speakers. This is not to suggest that because there is limited verbal evidence within the meetings that there are no communications issues; for instance, participants may well not speak because of lack of confidence or linguistic competence. Equally, the frustrations voiced by some participants may be at least partially due to the generic constraints of such large group meetings, including their format, composition and purpose. The point being made is that it is difficult to get at such issues in a single discourse analytic study. What there is evidence of, in all meetings and at both procedural and linguistic levels, is interactive accommodation by both NSE and NNSE, indicating an underlying awareness of some of the issues involved in such lingua franca communication. The analysis has also revealed to some extent some of the ways in which participants strive to ‘make sense’ despite the different linguistic competences and generic constraints of the large meeting format. Indeed, it would appear that the generic constraints of large meetings, especially their linguistic and procedural formality, may both help and hinder NNSE involvement in such events. The discrepancies between perceptions and the, albeit limited, discursive analysis of the meetings leads to the conclusion that further investigation is required. Firstly, a more detailed linguistic analysis is needed of the use of English as a lingua franca in these meetings, particularly by the non-native English speakers. Secondly, a follow-up survey may also be helpful to explore aspects of extrinsic context more fully, such as differences in

358

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

work culture and status which are alluded to in the task force report. It is hoped that such studies might help us understand whether lack of opportunity, confidence or competence relate to perceptions of inequality in such meetings. It must not be forgotten that the primary impetus for this research came from concerns about communications within the organisation itself. Consequently, an important outcome should be facilitating better international business communication in the future. To this end, it would also be useful to draw together instances of ‘best practice’ for lingua franca interactions, taking examples from such meetings of successful interactions by both native and non-native English speakers. Such examples of speech accommodation (for instance of clear delivery, careful speech, and supportive chairing) could be used as the basis of communications training resources, alongside language building and intercultural awareness-raising materials, to help business professionals acquire the interactive skills and communicative awareness required to participate effectively in such international settings. Appendix 1. Key to transcription conventions Prominence bold 0

Tone* n /

– focus or tonic syllable – prominent syllables – (tone-unit final) fall – (tone-unit final) rise

* For the purposes of this study, the choice between ‘simple’ tones, i.e. ‘ final fall (n) and final rise (/) is given priority over the detailing of compound (i.e. fall–rise and rise–fall) tones, while acknowledging their significance.

Pause* . .. .... ..... -er-

– – – – –

brief pause 1 unit 2 units 3 or more units filled pause

* Following Crystal (1979:35), pause length is measured perceptually rather than instrumentally i.e. a ‘unit’ is related to the perceived beat or pace of a person’s normal speech rhythm rather than absolute measurement of seconds. Thus a ‘brief’ pause (‘.’) is perceptably shorter than a unit pause (which seems to be on average approximate to 0.5 s) and a ‘2 unit pause’ (‘....’) is approximately twice as long as a unit pause. Pauses which are 3 units or longer are all considered ‘long’ and therefore pauses longer than a ‘3 unit pause’ (‘......’) are generally not distinguished.

Turn-taking { { – overlapping speech i.e. two speakers talking at the same time = = – ‘smooth speaker switch’ i.e. change of speaker without any perceptual pause Other features [??] – uncertain or inaudible transcription

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

359

References After Babel, a new common tongue (2004). The Economist. pp. 33–34. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bilbow, G. (1997). Cross-cultural impression management in the multicultural workplace: The special case of Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 461–487. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organisations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2005). Globalisation and applied linguistics: Post-imperial questions of identity and the construction of applied linguistics discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 113–115. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal communication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9–29. Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Firth, A. (1995). ‘Accounts’ in negotiation discourse: A single case analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 199–226. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On’lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259. Hagen, S. (Ed.). (1998). ELUCIDATE Report, Business communication across borders: A study of language use and practice in European companies. London: CILT. Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Pearson Education Ltd. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koester, A. (2006). Investigating workplace discourse. Abingdon: Routledge. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 401–421. McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 367–380. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge. Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 381–400. Poncini, G. (2003). Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 17–32. Poncini, G. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Rogerson-Revell, P. (1998). Interactive style and power at work: An analysis of discourse in intercultural business meetings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Birmingham, UK. Rogerson-Revell, P. (1999). Meeting talk: A stylistic approach to teaching meeting skills. In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 55–72). London: Longman. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2003). Developing a cultural syllabus for business language e-learning materials. ReCALL, 15(2), 155–169. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international business: A European case study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 103–120. Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (Eds.). (1999). Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing the conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 133–157. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239.

360

P. Rogerson-Revell / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 338–360

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Xing, J. (1998). Relational management in Chinese–British business meetings. In S. Hunston (Ed.). Language at work. British studies in applied linguistics (vol. 13, pp. 15–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Spichtinger, D. (2001). EIL: A global, a European and an Austrian perspective. VIEWS (Vienna English Working Papers), 10(1), 48–59. St. John, M. J. (1996). Business is booming: Business English in the 1990s. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 3–18. Dr Pamela Rogerson-Revell works in ELTAL (English Language Teacher Education and Applied Linguistics) within the School of Education, University of Leicester, UK, where she co-ordinates the distance MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL. Her doctorate involved an analysis of discourse in intercultural business meetings in Hong Kong. Other areas of professional interest include intercultural discourse, phonology and computerassisted language learning (CALL).