By: Mary Anne Winslow
Language is the main vehicle for communicating between human beings. It seems, therefore, natural not only to associate it with exchanging ideas and points of view, but also to consider it a medium
Language is the main vehicle for communicating between human beings.
It seems, therefore, natural not only to associate it with exchanging ideas and
points of view, but also to consider it a medium for achieving goals
and getting a job done.
The main feature of language as a tool is its facilitative function:
the focus is on the goal to be achieved and on how the use of a particular set of language
conventions influences an outcome. Since language is a very adaptable
medium, it can change to reflect the needs of a particular context or
situation.
Another important factor is that for a communicative conversation to
be successful, a shared cultural knowledge and understanding is required from
speakers and listeners. This common background enables them to relate
to what is being said in a way that may not be intelligible to other
people, while very frequently the distinctive features of the language
may not be apparent to participants any longer, since they have become
part of a subconscious expressive process.
The concept of discourse community is very important for understanding
how English is used as a working language. It was developed principally by
the linguist John Swales who observed that particular types of
communities exist in which people do not necessarily live close
together or even has personal contact; nonetheless they use a common
spoken or written language to achieve a shared objective.
In the words of Neil Mercer the notion of this type of community Professional discourses are not static but change and develop naturally to adapt to the needs of people working in a specialized field of work. In fact, they have not been self-consciously designed for their purpose, but have evolved through the processes of natural selection and conventionalization within the
range of ways of using language that people have employed over the
years. Discourse can be defined as the ways in which language, either spoken or written, is used in the social practices of a community. The necessity for understanding other people
in a work environment can produce many varieties of discourse.
Quality of language: its format and function
The first aspect that comes to mind when considering the English
language in the context of a working environment is the use of a distinctive
vocabulary linked to a specific occupation.
Jargon
Most commonly represented by acronyms and technical terms can, in
fact, be found in virtually any industry and can seem obscure to
outsiders who are not familiar with conventions and peculiarities of
that business. However, becoming familiar with jargon is a normal
process when entering a profession and it is often only a matter of
time before the nuances are mastered. It is a necessity to be able to
communicate effectively with colleagues and this represents a great
incentive to learning it.
However the role of jargon as a useful linguistic element coexists
with jargon as a tool for defining social relations incorporating roles of authority
and submission.
This happens particularly within the private sector, where unnecessary
wordiness and sentence complexity are employed to prove superiority
and to influence the public sector, where the extreme use of jargon
can often be described as writing to impress, rather than writing to
inform. This latter case is well illustrated by Martin Cutts in his
contribution to English at work, for the Open University. In it he
quotes the following response by a British Local Government official
to a citizen request to put up posters in the local public library:
So far I have dealt with the format of the language itself; there are,
however, other considerations to be made with regard to the function of English in
the work place.
Indeed, other work-related quality of language may be more
distinctively represented in the structure of an interaction, rather
than the fact that technical English words are used. The process of working together towards a common goal involves consultation, deliberation, instruction, information, as well
as explanation, interpretation and negotiation.
The ideational function
Probably the main purpose of work-related language is to facilitate
carrying out a task or job and completing it successfully without introducing any
ambiguity or unnecessary risks. This can be achieved by means of
highly task-oriented communications, heavily based on content,
reference, dealing with concrete facts and problematic situations; the
ideational aspect of language works mainly by encoding two sorts of
reference, to entities (including things, people and abstract ideas)
and to processes, relations and actions. These referential needs are
realized in English roughly through noun phrases on the one hand and
verb phrases on the other.
The interpersonal function
Another important aspect is related to building, maintaining and
supporting relationships among members of a discourse community. All
individuals in the group of people involved represent distinctive
personalities, and the awareness of their status, authority, expertise
and dependence in relation to each other becomes the focus of the
interpersonal function.
Intertextuality
Like many other types of discourses, a work-related communication
makes extensive use of intertextual references, that is, implicit or explicit
references to another piece of discourse. Phrases like
”...as I was telling you yesterday...”
, and”...we could move this graphic to the right...”
1 contain the same semantic (and sometimes verbal) material of another
conversation carried out previously by the parties involved.
Intertextuality is of central importance in workplace discourse since
it connects all separate spoken and written communications into a
single network of ideas and contributions, as well as bringing together the diverse participants into a discourse community.
Social factors
English is in a unique position in that it is, for a vast number of
people, a language which is not their mother tongue, but which has to be employed at
work. Many corporate and industries in the world are faced with a
dilemma where there is a need to be competitive internationally,
meaning that a comprehension of English is invariably required, but at the same time the majority of the workforce does not have the language as their mother tongue. It is
obvious, then, that a compromise has to be found, so that both the
financial viability of the firm and the satisfaction of the employees
are secured. Although different approaches have been taken, the common
idea is that English should be used for important internal
communications and for conversations between managers and external
business partners. On the other hand, the workers have the freedom of
converse in their local language(s) when speaking between themselves
(this was thought to be important for both retaining a social
identity, and for reducing the psychological strain of having to
constantly monitor themselves so as not to slip into the native
language) as well as having the choice of talking to their managers
through either languages. A significant issue relates to safety
policies within organization: it seems sensible to produce
multi-lingual signs and notifications to avoid misunderstandings and
legal complications.
Carrying out a working conversation in a multilingual context can
sometimes produce unsatisfactory results; difference in expectations and interpretations
can be attributed to diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences of the participants
involved. Helen Marriott, who researched what she called intercultural business
negotiations, points out that explaining misunderstanding in terms of cultural experiences
does not mean simply making generalized comparisons between the interlocutors ways
of talking. In the international business world of today other
cultural factors beside national origins might be important for
shaping speakers ways of talking business in English, and for shaping
their interpretation of events.
Gender and status
Beside the influence of the work culture on speakers choice of
language there is the important aspect of gender, which influences the way conversations
take place. In her research, Janet Maybin discovered that men tend to exercise
more influence over the choice of topics, to interrupt female partners
and to dominate the interaction as well as control code switching in
multilingual conversations. A similar pattern can be identified with
regard to job status. The higher-ranking individual is the one who
generally steer the conversation and selects the type of language. One
interesting investigation carried out by Nicola Woods attempted to
find out which one of the two factors has the greatest effect on
speakers control of a verbal interaction. Her results showed that when
the two power bases of gender and occupational status are at work,
then the former gender tends to exert the greatest influence on floor
apportionment.
Essentially, while the power base of occupational status did influence
the way that both men and women organized conversation [...], nevertheless
even when women held high-status occupational positions male subordinates still
organized the interaction in a way that allowed them to dominate the
floor.
Working with the public
Until now I have concentrated on issues particularly related to the
working language within certain communities of discourse. However, there are particular
issues of interest concerning English used by professional individuals
when talking to members of the public who do not belong to the same
discourse community. The points should also be considered when analyzing discourses in the workplace.
Use of jargon and specialized language
As illustrated above, the use of jargon and specialized language can
sometimes cause misunderstandings and produce poor communication especially when the
professional is not able to talk about relevant topics in a way that
is clear to the uninitiated layman.
Often the insider might genuinely find it hard to cover a work-related
topic without using any language other than that of his or her
discourse community. On the other hand, there are instances where the control and power over the non-specialist are deliberately exerted by ignoring any lack of
understanding, thus monopolizing the knowledge required to steer the
conversation in a given direction.
Difference in culture
In a multicultural situation, a common problem arises when a speaker
is not fluent in English and does not have the same shared understanding of the
principles required for engaging in a specialized type of
conversation. C. Roberts and P. Sayers carried out a study to address
this particular issue in the context of interviews by British English
speakers of, among others, Indian immigrants to Britain; they arrived
at the conclusion that there is a tendency to use the language factor
as a reason for not clarifying misunderstandings. The interviewers
assume that any of the candidates talk which they did not understand
was therefore meaningless, i.e. not meaningful for the candidate.
Instead of clarifying such utterances, interviewers choose to ignore
them. In this way they often fail to grasp where key points for the
candidate are occurring, and the whole interaction starts to go wrong.
In this essay I have described in general terms the ways in which
English is adapted to the needs of workers to achieve goals and communicate effectively
in the workplace. I have looked at the quality of language in this
context and the social factors which shape it. In the latter part of
the paper I have presented some example of working English from the
software industry, where English has become the dominating language.
Mary Anne has been writing for custom essay writing service for 5 years.You can ask her about college esays or dissertation writing service.
