2. Organizational

In a number of countries the future actuary is educated more or less exclusively at a university, and/or actuarial organizations are more loosely knit organizations compared to the Anglo-Saxon way.

A fair number of the IAA member associations are comparatively small and many of them are NNEs. On top of the language problem, the small associations have the problem of resources.

The limited resources explains why the small associations cannot participate so extensively in the IAA work as they might have wanted to, but must concentrate only on issues or committees etc., that are of higher importance to them. Sometimes a better understanding from the “big brothers” towards the small ones would also be helpful.

Some of these concerns correspond to issues raised in research into similar EIB contexts and it is hoped that the second stage of this research project will enable the further investigation of such cultural issues.

With regard to ‘organisational’ issues, reference was made to differences in the professional background of actuaries educated in the UK and elsewhere, with the comment that ‘In a number of countries the future actuary is educated more or less exclusively at a university, and/or actuarial organizations are more loosely knit organizations compared to the Anglo-Saxon way’.

A second issue related to the difference between large and small member associations and the relative lack of resources and therefore limited participation of members from smaller organisations, many of whom are non-native speakers of English.

This question of the relative isolation of smaller associations or subsidiaries, particularly if predominantly populated by non-native speakers of the organisational lingua franca has been documented elsewhere. For instance, Charles and Marschan-Piekkari’s (2002) study of horizontal communication in the Finnish-based multinational Kone elevators found that communication between the Finnish headquarters and Spanish subsidiaries was restricted because of limited language skills.

The significance of the language barrier is highlighted particularly with regard to oral communication. Also, while the value of the diversity of GCAE members is recognised, the difficulty of having a wide range of linguistic competence is also acknowledged.

Extract from GCAE internal report – ‘Language barrier’ Reasons why Non-Native English Speakers do not Play a More Active Part in the IAA

Language Barrier

This is an evident problem. The knowledge of the English language varies quite a lot from fluent to barely understandable.

To change some of these reasons/causes is, of course, if not impossible, but a very long term project and frankly we think that this diversity is important for the development of the IAA as an international organisation.

The language problem is an important one to solve because, if we cannot communicate, then how can we expect to work together?

At the same time, we would all like to improve the situation right now as much as is practically possible.

The questionnaire

The GCAE internal report provided a useful starting point for a more detailed data gathering exercise, based on a written questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to gather quantitative data about participants’ use of EIB (e.g., frequency of use, language skills needed, perceived proficiency level) and about participants’ first language, number of other languages spoken, etc.

Qualitative data were also gathered, through open-ended questions, regarding participants’ views about the use of English in GCAE business meetings and more generally about any perceived communication issues in such meetings.

The questionnaires, which were written in English, were distributed and returned during the two-day Annual GCAE Group Meeting held in Manchester, England, in October 2004.

Findings

Languages spoken: Of the 43 out of 47 participants who returned questionnaires, 34 were Non-Native English Speakers (NNES) and 9 were Native English Speakers (NES). The NESs came from different parts of the UK, including England, Scotland, the Channel Islands, and from Ireland, while the NNESs represented a range of 20 different nationalities. The largest contingent of NNESs was Spanish (5 participants), followed by German (3 participants) and Dutch (3 participants) and then several pairs or single participants from the remaining countries.

This widely multinational group included speakers of 17 different first languages, with the biggest group being the British and Irish (9 participants whose first language is English), followed by the Dutch (5), Spanish (4, plus 2 whose first language is Catalan), German (4), Italian (3), Czech (2), French (2), Greek (2), Portuguese (2), Swedish (2), Danish (1), Finnish (1) Hungarian (1), Lithuanian (1), Norwegian (1) and Urdu (1).

All participants shared a common working language of English and the vast majority had some (and varying degrees of) competence in at least one other foreign language. The most commonly spoken foreign language was French (23 participants), followed by German (15), Spanish (7), Russian (4), Italian (2), Catalan (1), Icelandic (1), Portuguese (1) and Swedish (1). The prevalence of French and German as commonly used foreign languages reflects the findings of other surveys of language use in Europe, although typically German is ranked in second position, after English, and French in third (Graddol, 2000; Labrie and Quell, 1994).

Native English speaker (NES) data

The majority of the NES participants attend international meetings very often or quite regularly and two thirds of them speak at least some French as a foreign language. Again, this reflects the findings of larger surveys of British business executives’ language competence which show that French is still the most commonly spoken foreign language (British Chamber of Commerce, 2004; Labrie & Quell, 1997). One-third of the NES participants had experienced using a foreign language (French or Italian) in business contexts, such as meetings and presentations. When asked if they had any difficulties understanding other speakers (NESs and NNESs) in international meetings, most responses suggest that participants had some difficulties occasionally. One or two felt that ‘strong’ or ‘heavy’ accents of NNES could pose particular difficulties but the point was also made that over time these difficulties reduce as participants ‘acclimatise to English as spoken by different nationalities’ (NES1).

When asked if they thought it was necessary to modify their English in international business contexts, all of the NES respondents expressed concern to try to speak slowly and clearly. Several suggested the need to avoid, if possible, the use of jargon, idioms, metaphors, unusual words or ‘‘colloquialisms which might not be familiar to non-native speakers’’ (NES1). The point was made that it can be helpful to ‘‘repeat ideas more than once in different ways’’ (NES2) and ‘‘to relate what you are saying to other people’s culture and situation’’ (NES3).

Non-native English speaker (NNES) data

The majority of the NNES participants said they use English either very often or quite regularly and 67% confirmed that they attended meetings in English either very often or quite regularly.

When asked how comfortable they felt in business meetings held in English, there was some variation related to the size of the meetings. Responses suggest that fewer NNES participants felt ‘very comfortable’ in large business meetings than in small meetings and, in particular, than in one-to-one conversations. However, 56% claimed to feel ‘‘quite comfortable’’ in small meetings or one-to-one conversations, while only 26% felt equally comfortable in large meetings in English. As mentioned earlier, the size of international meetings held in GCAE varied from quite small subgroup meetings to large whole ‘Groupe’ meetings.

The average NNES participant had studied English for six years, usually at school and assessed his/her English proficiency as slightly lower in speaking skills than in listening, writing and, particularly, in reading.

When asked if they found it generally easier to communicate in English with native or non-native speakers of English, results were inconclusive, with 43% stating that they found NNES and NES equally easy to communicate with, 33% stating a preference for NES and 24% finding NNES easier. When asked to specify which if any accents (either native or non-native speaker) they found particularly easy or difficult when listening to English, there was quite a range of responses, particularly regarding the ‘difficult’ accents.

With regard to the ‘easy’ accents, there was an equal number of respondents who felt that either ‘UK English’ or ‘US English’ were easy to understand (six responses each) but also several references to other specific accents which individuals found easy to follow, such as Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French. There were also one or two general comments such as ‘‘when they (all speakers) don’t speak too fast’’ and ‘‘all ‘cultured’ native as ‘‘when they (all speakers) don’t speak too fast’’ and ‘‘all ‘cultured’ native accents’’.

With regard to the ‘difficult’ accents, 47% of the responses indicated difficulty in understanding some NES accents (with references to London English, Australian, African, Scottish, Irish, Tennessee and New Orleans American) and 36% suggesting some difficulties with NNES accents (including Catalan, French, Japanese, German, Southern European, Far Eastern).

There were also some general references to, for example, ‘‘heavy regional’’ or ‘‘uneducated’’ accents, and ‘‘non-articulated English’’. In response to the question, ‘Do you have any particular difficulties communicating in international meetings?’, several participants (7) 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). Others mentioned the problem of finding the right words at the right time, for instance ‘‘I have to think about the words to use’’ (Portuguese participant) and ‘‘Limitations of the knowledge of a wide vocabulary’’ (Italian participant).

Some participants seemed to have difficulties interrupting and finding the appropriate way to express an opinion or viewpoint. For instance, ‘‘explaining standpoints in free speech’’ (German participant), ‘‘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).

The frustrations caused by language difficulties is illustrated in responses such as ‘‘this limitation [of vocabulary] doesn’t prevent me from participating but I feel less efficacy in expressing my thoughts’’ (Italian participant) and ‘‘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).

Discussion

While it is difficult, and indeed unwise, to make generalisations from these findings, there are one or two issues that would benefit from some further discussion.

Understanding different accents

It is difficult to draw conclusions from the NNES responses regarding accents, With reference to the variety of accents exemplified as ‘easy’ and ‘difficult’ to understand, it is necessary to bear in mind the mix of regional and national languages and accents that the participants represent as well as those that they are familiar with.

For instance, there is some suggestion from the responses that when exemplifying ‘difficult’ accents, participants refer to accents of those whose language group is quite distant from their own. For example, a Czech participant referring to ‘Far-East and Spanish’ as difficult and northern Europeans referring to southern European accents as difficult. There may also be a tendency to relate specific difficulties experienced with one or two individual speakers, with a particular national or regional accent, to generalisations about the difficulty of whole language groups or accents.

NNES communication difficulties

Relating to the specific difficulties in communicating in international meetings outlined by NNES participants, there seems to be a spectrum of issues. 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.

NES comments

Many of the comments made by NSE respondents suggest an awareness of the difficulties of using a foreign language for business communication, in this case using English as a Foreign Language (EFL), and an appreciation of the effort involved (e.g., ‘‘They always speak better English than I speak their native language’’ (NES4) and ‘‘Since most meetings of international bodies are conducted in English, this almost gives native English speakers an ‘unfair advantage’’’ (NES6). Many also showed an intuitive sensitivity to the needs of NNESs and of how to modify their own NES language use in international contexts. There was also a degree of self-criticism in comments such as ‘‘Too many English speakers do not make allowances in international gatherings’’ (NES5). Indeed, this criticism was independently made by a NNES respondent: ‘‘Of course I think I should improve my English, especially in international business contexts but I also think that native English speakers should make greater efforts (actually, most of them do none) in order to be properly understood by non-native English speakers’’.

Conclusion

It must be remembered that this analysis is based on a small-scale questionnaire which was seen primarily as a secondary research tool to support further, and more detailed, analysis to be carried out at a later date. Consequently I do not wish to make generalisations beyond the confinements of the actual data analysed. Nevertheless, the data gathered explores, in perhaps more detail than elsewhere, how a particular group of European executives use English for International Business and their views on its use.

It is hoped that these limited findings will help shed light on some of the language issues that may be present in such international gatherings and the possible communications difficulties and frustrations that can result. A positive result is that as well as uncovering some of these communication issues, the analysis also shows an awareness by many participants of some of the strategies that can be used to overcome them. The second stage of the research will involve a discourse analysis of audio and video recordings of GCAE meetings held in Manchester in October 2004. The analysis will hopefully provide specific examples of some of the issues raised here regarding the use of EIB in such contexts.

Meetings are obviously an extremely important part of workplace interaction, both in terms of individual advancement and organisational achievement. There can be considerable scope in meetings not only for overtly legitimate interactions, such as exchanging information or promoting action, but also for the strategic negotiation of rapport and influence (Rogerson-Revell, 1998).

While people may well need to ‘speak the same language’ in such multilingual contexts, they may not necessarily ‘speak the same way’, for instance, because of underlying differences in socio-cultural conventions or differences in linguistic competence. In such meetings, different ways of speaking or interacting can lead one party to believe that the other is either intellectually incompetent or deliberately unco-operative or combative.

The difficulty of getting heard in workplace interactions, such as meetings, can severely frustrate an individual’s or an organisation’s representation. Such frustration can be experienced by any individuals who are less tenacious about standing their own ground, do not speak as ‘powerfully’ or do not begin with a high level of credibility, whether as a result of linguistic, ethnic, status, age or gender differences.

Similarly, when decisions are made in groups, not everyone has equal access to the decision-making process: for example those who are linguistically less confident or those who are less comfortable with contention are more likely to comply with the demands of others.

What is important is to try and make such communicative events as equitable as possible. As one member of the GCAE puts it: The XXX is an international organization, i.e., everybody interested shall be able to participate under acceptable conditions. All delegates are representing their various organizations/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).

Instruction: These are guidelines for abstract writing which usually pose a big problem for young researchers who are analysing papers in their field and/or writing their first articles. This is an adaptation of several guidelines placed in the Internet without copyright limitations. You are sure to realize that the quantity of scholarly articles published daily in your field is so huge that the only way to limit your search is to feed key words into a search system. An abstract is the right format to help you not to get lost in the infinity of information. Therefore your purpose will be to acquire the standard guidelines along which an abstract is written. This will be your goal as an academic analyst and writer.

What is an abstract?

An abstract is a condensed version of a longer piece of writing that highlights the major points covered, concisely describes the content and scope of the writing, and reviews the writing's contents in abbreviated form. Abstracts are typically 100 to 250 words and follow set patterns.

Why is an abstract so important?

1. Help readers decide if they should read an entire article

2. Help readers and researchers remember key findings on a topic

3. Help readers understand the text by outlining key points prior to reading the full document

4. Index articles for quick recovery and cross-referencing

What are the key elements that should be included?

1. Background: A simple opening sentence or two placing the work in context.

2. Aims: One or two sentences giving the purpose of the work.

3. Method(s): One or two sentences explaining what was (or will) be done.

4. Results: One or two sentences indicating the main findings (or what you hope to accomplish with the project).

5. Conclusions: One sentence giving the most important consequence of the work – what do the results mean? How will they be used?

Questions an abstract should answer:

1. Why did you do this study or project? (Or why are you undertaking the project/study?)

2. What did you do, and how? (What will you do? How?)

3. What did you find? (What do you expect to find?)

4. What do the findings mean?

Helpful tips when writing an abstract:

Reread your article or proposal with the goal of abstracting in mind.

Look specifically for these main parts of the article or proposal: purpose, methods, scope, results, conclusions and recommendations.

Use the headings and table of contents as a guide to writing your abstract.

After you've finished rereading the article or proposal, write a rough draft without looking back at what you're abstracting.

Don't merely copy key sentences – you'll put in too much or too little information.

Don't rely on the way material was phrased – summarize information in a new way.

Revise your rough draft to:

Correct weaknesses in organization

Improve transitions from point to point

Drop unnecessary information

Make sure it is complete and accurate

Eliminate wordiness

Fix errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation

Unit 2-20. ENGLISH LINGUA FRANCA IN BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Guidelines for extensive reading of ESP texts on the use of English for European business

In modern business network interacion, individuals often speak different languages and illustrate diverse cultural realities. As the clash of civilizations has an effect on the costs of doing business in international contexts, intercultural business communication has attracted more and more interest as an academic domain. In the course of the past decade, communication between speakers of different languages has increased exponentially in the business world. More and more business organisations are now characterised by a multi-cultural, multi-lingual workforce, and numerous organisations now communicate with stakeholders in different countries. In such situations in international business communication, whenever person A with first language A, speaks to person B with first language B, then there are quite a few options available in terms of the language that they will prefer. Doing business in the global market depends on the ability to successfully communicate in an intercultural context. Due to the complexity of human beings, our cultural values are transferred to the communicative process; in other words, in cross-cultural encounters, each business partner filters the message through some layers of culture. Consequently, this circumstance determines the success of the business endeavour.

Anne Kankaanranta’s main research interests include the use of English as a business lingua franca and email genres in business communication. She serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Business Communication and has published in e.g., Business Communication Quarterly and English for Specific Purposes.

Text 2-20. BUSINESS ENGLISH LINGUA FRANCA IN INTERCULTURAL (BUSINESS) COMMUNICATION

(After Anne Kankaanranta)

Anne Kankaanranta, Ph.D., MSc (Econ), is Senior Lecturer and Researcher of English Business Communication (undergraduate level) and International Business Communication (graduate level) at the Helsinki School of Economics.

Typically, the term intercultural is used as a synonym for international in the sense that it is used to refer to communication taking place between people with international backgrounds. Thus, a different cultural background equals to a different national background, which suggests that the communicators do not share the same mother tongue. In such situations the communicators basically have two options: first, one party can switch over to the other party’s mother tongue; and second, both can use a common language which is neither party’s native tongue. Both options call for intercultural communication.

Traditionally, speakers of smaller languages such as Finnish have had to resort to a number of foreign languages in order to do business with Spanish, French, German, and English speakers simply because in the international arena nobody speaks Finnish.

Previously, in the corporate sector, only a few employees such as export or import managers had contacts across borders. A special group of foreign language experts, usually secretaries, dealt with business correspondence with international clients. Since language is closely intertwined with culture, this choice of the other party’s native tongue meant that the non-native speakers had to adapt, for example, their discourse practices and non-verbal behavior to match those of the native speakers.

In today’s business environment, the first option of switching over to the other party’s native tongue in intercultural encounters is increasingly giving way to the second option: using a common language, a lingua franca. As we all know, the lingua franca of today’s business world is English, which enables communication among business practitioners coming from a variety of cultural backgrounds.

Recently, this phenomenon has also drawn attention in the popular press. For example, it was discussed at length in a Financial Times article of 11 Sept. 2007 called "Whose English?", which estimated that the number of native speakers of English is around 400 million, whereas one quarter of the world’s population can communicate reasonably well in English. It has also been estimated that around 80% of all interactions in English take place between non-native speakers. In the business context, the reasons for this increasing usage of English lingua franca (ELF) are connected with the globalization of both business operations and communication technology.

The recent wave of international mergers and acquisitions together with the emergence of new types of company networks and partnerships meant that a large proportion of members and employees of such entities had to be able to use ELF professionally, in other words, they needed to work in English. In multinational companies, English is typically the corporate language, which is used in such corporate functions as accounting, finance, management, and communications, whereas in the late 1980s ‘Business English’ was still mainly used with native English speakers in foreign trade transactions. (‘Business English’ can be defined as a subcategory of English, English for Specific Purposes or ESP, which was taught as the language used in business contexts.) Also, because of the huge advances in communication technology, it is easy to obtain personal contact across the globe via email, SMS messaging and the like in a matter of seconds.

Thus, there is no need and no time for English language experts. All in all, we could argue that English plays the same role in multinational corporations as the mother tongue does in domestically operating companies or other monolingual work environments: it is used to get the job done.

To emphasize the increasing use of English in these intercultural business situations, we have called this language variety Business English Lingua Franca, BELF (see Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005).

BELF is used in the global business community to conduct business: it is a ‘neutral’ code used by business practitioners to do their work. Thus, it is not used at emulating native-speaker discourse but simply to get the job done. Indeed, it could be argued that BELF is a new professional language, which has emerged and occupied its niche in the past two decades. It is clearly different from ‘Business English’, which is a language to be studied and learned with the native-speaker model in mind. Although BELF communication can also be studied and learned to some degree outside its context of use (see Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen 2007), it is primarily a variety which is created in actual use because of its sensitivity to contextual constraints.

The conception of BELF as a neutral professional language is not unproblematic, however (see e.g. Charles 2007). For example, some users will always be more proficient than others – not only because of their ‘superior’ English skills but also because of their highly effective business communication skills. Also, the relationship between culture and BELF is not a simple one. Meierkord (2002) has presented two opposing views of the relationship between culture and the lingua franca.

The first one argues that the ‘neutrality’ of the lingua franca code suggests that it is also ‘culture-neutral’ because its speakers do not share a particular cultural background. And the other one, which Meierkord agrees with, argues that it carries culture like any other language because every speaker using a lingua franca has a cultural background.

Drawing on this, we could argue that BELF carries culture on two levels: BELF users share the international business culture but are separated by their personal, specific cultural background that is not typically identical to the cultural background of another BELF user.

In this article, I base my discussion on this latter view emphasizing BELF as a carrier of culture, which we have discussed thoroughly in the ESP journal article English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies (see Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005).

I thus argue that BELF communication is always intercultural: BELF speakers share the ‘B’, i.e. the context and culture of business, the ‘E’, i.e. English and its discourse practices, but are separated by the culture connected with their various native tongues, their discourse practices, and particularly their hidden, implicit rules of communication.

The focus of this article is the use of BELF in intercultural business communication in the globalizing environment. I briefly present two major research projects housed at the Helsinki School of Economics (HSE), which focus on language and cultural issues in multinational corporations. Finally, I describe how we at HSE have been inspired by these projects to develop our courses in English and International Business Communication to meet the challenges of the globalizing business.

Finnish, Swedish, or English? In-house communication in recently merged Finnish-Swedish corporations

The first research project carried out in 2000-2002 focused on company-internal communication and dealt with two corporate mergers over the Gulf of Bothnia. In both cases a Finnish company merged with a Swedish one in the late 1990s and two new corporations were formed (see Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005). One of them is a globally operating paper manufacturer and the other a banking group whose markets used to be in Scandinavia but have since expanded to the Baltic countries.

The paper company chose English as their corporate language and the bank initially opted for Swedish as the ‘reporting language and the language for management’. At this point, it is essential to remember that Swedish is the second official language of Finland with some 6% of the population speaking it as their mother tongue.

The starting point for our research was to find out how the employees of the new entities coped with the new linguistic and cultural challenges of the cross-border mergers. We started with a communication survey and interviews in both companies to find out about their communication practices and, in particular, how the Finnish and Swedish employees perceived their each other’s communication cultures. We then analyzed meetings and emails to see if, and how, the survey findings were reflected in authentic data. Here I primarily focus on some of the survey findings and on email messages written in English and exchanged between Finns and Swedes in the paper company.

The findings from the survey were based on around 400 responses from a randomly selected group of Finnish and Swedish employees in both companies (for the full report, see Louhiala-Salminen 2002). The respondents represented different organizational positions, units, and ages. The most interesting findings concerning intercultural issues are related to language choice on both the individual and corporate level and the perceptions about Finnish vs. Swedish communication.

On the individual level, language choice seemed to be a highly pragmatic one: English was used if the participants did not share a mother tongue. Around 20% of all internal communication took place in English and the rest in the respective mother tongue.

Swedish was used to some extent in social settings. On the corporate level, the bank’s decision to use Swedish as the ‘reporting language’ was considered problematic, especially by the Finns. They pointed out how the Swedes gained the upper hand since they were able to use their mother tongue, whereas most Finns had to resort to a foreign language, which they felt they did not master so well. Finns applauded the change of the ‘reporting’ language to English a few years later when the bank expanded into Denmark.

The survey findings related to the Finnish and Swedish respondents’ perceptions of each other’s communication cultures seemed to support the anecdotal evidence of issue-oriented, direct Finns who are economical with words and people-oriented Swedes who enjoy talking. When Finns and Swedes described their own communication, they used positive language such as ‘effective’ vs. ‘open discussion’, whereas the characterizations of their partner’s communication were more negative, such as ‘too direct’ vs. ‘endless talk’.

All in all, it was a question of how much talk was considered effective communication. Both Finns and Swedes considered their own communication effective and the other’s less so. Although the respondents found it difficult to separate the impact of national, corporate, and organizational cultures, it was evident that BELF communication carried such characteristics that were explained by the cultural background of the user. Here it must be noted, however, that the survey questions might have guided the respondents to emphasize nationality as an explanatory factor.

Email messages in BELF

To find out how the perceptions about Finnish and Swedish communication were reflected in authentic data, 282 email messages written in BELF by the Finnish and Swedish employees of the paper company were investigated (for details, see Kankaanranta 2006). The analysis was based on the textualisations of 106 requests with a special focus on their directness to find out about the alleged ‘directness’ of the Finns and the nature of impositions to find out about the alleged ‘discussion-orientation’ of the Swedes.

In the data, every second request could be classified as direct, but the Finns were still somewhat more direct than the Swedes. Of all requests made by the Finns, 63% were classified as direct using either imperatives (e.g. Please comment.) or questions (e.g. What do you think?), whereas the Swedes used more indirect forms such as modal initials (e.g. Could you please comment on this?). More interesting than the relative directness of the requests was the fact that both groups used expressions that the other one never used or at any rate used less frequently.

One example of this difference is the use of kindly by the Finns to replace please; the Swedes never used it. Although the data was limited in size, it could be suggested that kindly is transference from the equivalent Finnish adverb ystävällisesti, which is an integral element in Finnish requests. For some Finnish speakers it may come more easily than please, which represents a functional equivalent for the adverb. What may confuse some Finnish speakers is the dictionary translation for please (olkaa hyvä), which is used when offering something, i.e. in the meaning of here you are.

Another example of different usage is that the Swedes clearly used modal initials more than the Finns. To put it simply, when the Finns wrote Please comment on this, the Swedes preferred Could you please comment on this. More research is needed to further explore this difference.

The nature of impositions in the requests did not generate any clear differences between Finns and Swedes. Most of the impositions (63%) called for communication-related activities: contacting people, informing them about something, and delivering something to them. Interestingly, one-fourth of all requests called for comments or opinions about other texts or business issues and was equally distributed among Finns and Swedes (see examples above).

This result seems to suggest that discussion and dialogue were ongoing and extensive in the company and both Finns and Swedes could be described as discussion-oriented. When this characteristic is combined with the fact that first names were frequent in salutations and complimentary closes of the emails, we gain an image of a people-oriented, democratic corporate culture reflected in the actual use of BELF.

To sum up, the authentic email data supported the survey findings only to some degree and the same applies to the authentic meeting data (see Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005).

Does business know how? The role of corporate communication in the operations of globalized companies

The second major research project run by the International Business Communication unit at HSE started in 2006 and will continue until 2009. Its starting point is the idea of communication know-how as an integral component of business know-how in corporate activities. On a concrete level, we aim to characterize ‘successful communication’ in situations where BELF is used in multinational companies. One of the five subprojects (for more details, see http://www.hse.fi/EN/research/t/p_10/liike2/) comprises a questionnaire survey targeted at companies operating globally, and related interviews.

The ongoing project is a spin-off from the first one, since it inspired us to focus on BELF-related issues. Here I narrow my discussion to only three areas: the nature of English needed in international operations, the role of culture, and the persuasion strategies of BELF communication. At this point, I must emphasize the fact that we are still collecting data and our present data have not been systematically analyzed. So, the findings I will be briefly discussing next are preliminary and should be treated as such.

First, respondents with different cultural backgrounds working in internationally operating companies considered the English proficiency important and felt that BELF communication usually works well in situations where both parties are familiar with the topic. On the whole, communication with other non-native speakers was considered easier than that with native speakers.

This finding is in line with the suggestion by Charles & Marschan-Piekkari (2002), who argue that multinational corporations should invest in training their native English speaker employees to better understand and communicate with their non-native colleagues. Also, it could be argued that BELF speakers might well benefit from training in each other’s specific discourse practices.

Second, it seems that in BELF communication culture plays an important role. However, although it is important to know both the organizational and national culture of the communicator, they are not considered as relevant as the knowledge of the other party’s role in the organization. Comments supporting this finding were also obtained from email writers, who were not able to tell the nationality of some of their frequent communication partners (see Kankaanranta 2006). This finding is in agreement with Jameson’s (2007) conception of individual cultural identity, in which nationality is but one component of many. Other such components are, for example, profession, education, religion, gender, and language.

Third, the respondents strongly agreed with the claim that such persuasion strategies as directness, explicitness, and politeness are important in BELF interactions; in particular, clarity was emphasized. They also stressed the importance of stepping into the other party’s shoes and of making him/her feel good. Thus, successful BELF communication seems to remind us of Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals and their importance in international business communication as discussed by Campbell (1998).

In particular, logos appeals are considered crucial: facts must be presented clearly, explicitly, and directly. Pathos appeals, i.e. appealing to the emotions of the audience, on the other hand, can be exploited to ease the possible cultural hiccups, since the attempts to be polite and to make the other party feel good are bound to pave the way for successful communication. And as mentioned earlier, the fact that knowing the role of the communicator was regarded as essential can be interpreted as emphasizing the ethos appeal.

To sum up, these and other emerging findings will be subject to further analyses and will be complemented with interview data. Finally, we aim at characterizing the prerequisites of successful international communication.

The future of intercultural business communication

Practitioners and trainers alike should approach intercultural business communication from a new perspective, the BELF one, which would make the specific aspects related to the use of English in intercultural business encounters explicit.

First, the BELF perspective would emphasize the fact that BELF is used for doing business among people who are members of the global business community. In other words, all BELF users share the ‘B’, i.e. the context and culture of business. Because business is a highly goal-oriented activity, communication skills become crucial in order to achieve the goal.

Second, it would emphasize the fact that BELF is nobody’s mother tongue. This feature will naturally emphasize not only the need for appreciating different types of English, accents and pronunciation in particular, but also the need for appreciating different discourse practices.

Third, it would emphasize the need to learn and appreciate basic pragmatic phenomena, such as the use of politeness, and rhetorical appeals.

In particular, emotional appeals (pathos) and attempts to make the other party feel good can effectively bridge the gap between speakers coming from different cultural backgrounds. Plus, closely related to the previous point, the BELF perspective would also emphasize the need for cultural sensitivity: understanding one’s own cultural identity is a prerequisite for understanding that of others.

Inspired by the two research projects, we have modified our courses aimed at all B.Sc. (Econ.) students at the Helsinki School of Economics to meet the challenges of the globalizing business world more efficiently. Over the past ten years, we have changed our focus from ‘Business English’ to ‘English business communication’ with BELF as a natural starting point. In all our courses we aim to enhance our students’ communication skills in an intercultural environment, which naturally calls for a strong emphasis on communication strategy including, in particular, the in-depth analysis of the audience (see Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen 2007).

In 2005, the European university degree reform resulting from the Bologna process gave us an exceptional opportunity to start a new Master’s program in International Business Communication (see http://hse.fi/ibc/msc). The two-year Master’s Program focuses on the strategic role of communication in the global operations of multinational corporations. Among other things, we aim to train communication professionals with an understanding of the role of BELF in corporate strategy implementation in intercultural environments.

As we all know, communication is challenging. It is challenging for people who have worked together for years and who share the same national, organizational and professional culture. It is bound to be even more so between people who, for example, become colleagues overnight because of a cross-border merger. Assuming the BELF perspective in such situations, and in other international encounters, it should pave the way for successful intercultural business communication.

Instruction: While writing an effective abstract of Anne Kankaanranta’s article you will: use one or more well-developed paragraphs: these are unified, coherent, concise, and able to stand alone; use an introduction/body/conclusion structure which presents the article's purpose, results, conclusions, and recommendations in that order; follow strictly the organization and chronology of the article; provide logical connections (or transitions) between the information included; add no new information, but simply summarize the article; make it understandable to a wide audience; use passive verbs to downplay the author and emphasize the information.