Posted by Jen Stouse on Fri, Oct 02, 2009 @ 01:28 PM
On a recent cruise throughout Greece and Turkey, I was surprised to find that the entire crew, from various parts of the world, used some form of English to a greater or lesser degree. Many of them had learned English in school, while others had taken classes before finding employment with the ship. All of the employees had varying levels of English. While I found it easy to communicate with them, my untrained traveling companions did not. This led me to ponder the use of English as an International Language (EIL) - a burgeoning field brought on by what I would say is the accelerated globalization of the 21st century.
At the corporate level, EIL is necessary for globalization and outsourcing. Countries like India and China are increasing their use of "global English" in order to do business - a tempting offer for many Fortune 500 companies. The concern here is whether or not companies stateside understand the importance of EIL and the difference between it and their version of American English
. To be sure, global English is not American, Canadian, Australian or even British English; it is a hybrid all its own. As transnational companies move into China, Africa and South America, the demand for English speaking skills is on the rise for non-native speakers, and they are learning as fast as they can. For our part, the key is to be aware of native speakers' use of idioms and the speed at which they speak; otherwise it is not conducive to successful ventures or well-formed intercultural relations.
Over the years, I have often been called upon to assist with pronunciation and English acquisition for non-native speaking employees at various corporations. In one instance, I distributed a twenty page handout of common business idioms in a feeble attempt to help these employees "get up to speed". In another case, most of the employees had been with the company for 25 years, and still their American coworkers claimed that they couldn't understand them. In the past, that would do because that was the norm.
Have you ever noticed, though, that it seems easier for German and Chinese coworkers to speak English together and to understand one another than it is for them to understand their American or British counterpart? Native speakers tend to use slang and reductions in speech because they are comfortable in their environment, and they "have the home court advantage". Comparatively, non-native speakers use much more ‘bookish' or formal language. Consider the amount of acronyms, abbreviations and idioms used in the office on a daily basis. They are all within a cultural context that is understood by most Americans, but completely foreign to international employees. For example: They "get a project off the ground." They don't call each other to discuss progress, they "touch base." Later, if the project is not going well, they don't end it, they "pull the plug." Such colloquialisms cause no end of confusion for multinational employees who are not well versed in that particular jargon.
It is time for native speakers to consider the idioms and slang they use and return to a more standard grammar, at least when interacting with non-native associates. If native speakers would only take the time to speak simply and directly, a lot of miscommunication could be avoided between native and non-native coworkers. This may sound inconvenient at first, but second language speakers moderate their speech and code switch without thinking. I believe this, too, will be the norm once a little attention is paid to how employees speak in certain situations.
Raising the awareness of native speakers can be a difficult problem. Native speakers tend to feel that if a person speaks their language, they automatically understand the native speaker's culture and expectations. This is sometimes referred to as "linguistic imperialism," and it can have very negative effects on meaningful communication between two speakers of English who come from different cultural backgrounds. This is not to validate imperialist notions that English is the better language. On the contrary, it is a call to be more aware of how we use English in conducting business and how it can make or break a deal, a global team, or successful negotiations.
I believe that spending money on ESL classes for employees is money well-spent. Spending money on native speaker sensitization is better spent. It will cut your bottom line, save money, guarantee a better ROI and, quite possibly, happier employees.
To read more on this topic visit:
Better Business English - A Proposal, by Kenneth Beare
http://esl.about.com/library/weekly/aa101899.htm