Interpreting lingua franca conversational data

Care must be taken when assigning individual pragmatic characteristics of lingua franca talk-in-interaction to either cross-cultural interferences, the existence of a "third" culture or to learner language strategies. It has already been demonstrated (cf. Firth, 1990 and 1996, Gramkow, Andersen, 1993 and Meierkord, 1996 and 1998) that in lingua franca conversations speakers establish their own particular conversational style and that its characteristics can in most cases not simply be interpreted as the results of interferences with the individual speakers' mother tongues. This is also the case with the corpus analysed for the present paper.

Characteristics of successful lingua franca English conversation

On the level of pragmatics, the informal register of English as an international lingua franca differs from the native speaker varieties BrE and AmE regarding both discourse structure and what is usually referred to as politeness phenomena. The special characteristics have been shown (cf. Meierkord, 1996 und 1998) to comprise the following:

Regarding discourse structure, apparent differences can be observed on all levels of discourse with the informal variety of lingua franca English in this corpus. Unlike BrE or AmE native speakers, lingua franca speakers do not link opening and closing phases to the core phase of the conversations by using illocutions like extractors (e.g. 'I'd better be off now.'). Rather, pauses occur between conversational phases, especially at the end of a conversation, to mark the transition from one phase to the other. Participants also prefer safe topics such as talking about the meals and life in the hostel, about their jobs or university classes. They keep the individual topics very short and tend to deal with them rather superficially. Most topics in the corpus were changed after less than ten turns had been devoted to them.

The participants' speech displays frequent and long pauses both within and in-between turns. At the same time, simultaneous speech occurs. The instances of overlap, however, vary considerably. Some speakers do not overlap with their interlocutors at all, whereas others frequently talk simultaneously with other participants of the conversation. Those who do so are all very competent speakers. Altogether though, stretches of simultaneous speech in lingua franca English are shorter than those Oreström (1983) has observed with BrE native speakers, i.e. they are two words long as compared to the native speakers' three word overlaps.

There is also considerable use of politeness phenomena, i.e. routine formulae in opening and closing phases, back-channels and other gambits. Speakers hardly vary in the actual choice of the routine formulae they use. A lot of those expressions commonly found with native speakers' speech do not occur at all, and lingua franca English speakers mainly restrict themselves to stereotype phrases such as "How are you?", "Good Morning.", "Hello." and "Bye.".

The back-channeling behaviour of participants in the conversations is very similar to what has been observed with British English native speakers. Participants use the same amount of supportive back-channels (e.g. mhm, right, yeah), though verbal back-channels are frequently replaced by supportive laughter. At the same time, speakers employ a comparatively high amount of sentence completions and restatements. Non-back-channeling gambits were realized in a way that significantly differs from native BrE speakers (cf. Meierkord 1996). Of special interest is the very high amount of cajolers (verbal appeals for the listener's sympathy, e.g. you know, I mean, you see) that occurred in the corpus, and which expresses the speakers' desire to cooperate and involve her interlocutors.

If we are to interpret these characteristics, the first attempt may be to regard them as being interferences from the speakers' mother tongues. However, although "cultural transfer is evident in the types of communicative events that learners expect to occur in a given situation, the manner of their participation in them, the specific types of acts they perform and the ways they realize them, the ways topics are nominated and developed, and the way discourse is regulated" (Ellis, 1994), Ellis emphasises the importance of not overstating the role of the non-native speakers' mother tongue and culture. In the present corpus, most of the features that have been stated to characterise lingua franca English conversations could be shown not to be reflections of the participants' mother tongues' communicative norms (cf. Meierkord, 1996).

Lingua Franca Conversation as Learner Language Interaction

Kotthoff (1991) examines learner-language and inter-cultural reasons for communicative problems in native-/non-native interactions. She states that these conversations display structures which are not reflections of either culture, but which are determined by pragmatic deficits of the learners and compensatory accomodation by the native speakers. Thus, communicative problems that can be observed in native-/non-native interactions cannot be interpreted as solely being grounded in inappropriate transfer of mother tongue norms. Rather, communicative strategies typical of learner language must also be taken into consideration.

Learners produce an interlanguage pragmatics, which differs from both L1 and L2, and which in addition to intercultural inferences is characterized by learner language communication strategies, employed to compensate for deficits in English (cf. Ellis, 1986 and Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991), i.e. reduction and compensation. Research into pragmatic aspects of learner language, especially on the organization of discourse, is still very scarce, so that there is up to now no clear account of what is characteristic of learner language discourse. Based on the results single studies have yielded, the characteristics pointed out above may be commented on as follows.

The fact that pauses occur frequently between and also within turns may indicate that learners face production problems and pause to solve these. The long pauses between turns can be understood as resulting from their reliance on pauses as turn-taking signals, thus implying that they fail to sufficiently recognize and produce other turn-taking signals.

The small amount of simultaneous speech within this interpretative framework needs to be interpreted as being induced by classroom discourse which – being teacher-centered – discourages overlapping speech (cf. McCarthy, 1991). Pupils usually do not have much opportunity of taking a turn without having previously been selected to do so. On the other hand, as stated above, some speakers display a rather high amount of simultaneous speech. Within the 'learner language interpretation', these participants may be said to inappropriately interpret what they conceive as turn-yielding signals (cf. Götz 1977). However, if this were the case, simultaneous speech should be cut off, which in most instances it is not.

When participants choose 'safe' topics, they will – as learners – probably do so as a result of a reduction strategy, i.e. as due to vocabulary deficits they feel incapable of dealing with more complex, philosophical or political themes and therefore avoid these. This incapability furthermore explains the short length of the individual topics, as participants may only be able to discuss the individual topics superficially, again due to a lack of the necessary vocabulary items.

The low variation in ritual speech acts is a further classroom- or textbook-induced characteristic. At the same time, it reflects an economic language learning behaviour, i.e. only so many expressions are learned as are necessary to succeed in conversation. More competent speakers may still prefer to use 'standard' or 'stereotype' expressions as they want to make sure that they will be understood by their interlocutors and may even wish to avoid embarrassing them by using expressions these may not understand.

Altogether, the results reveal that participants attempt to create a variety which assures a maximum of intelligibility. This had previously been observed by Blum-Kulka (1982) and Koike (1989). At the same time they seem to be concerned not to intimidate their interlocutors by putting them in a situation they cannot cope with due to deficits in their knowledge of English. "As Varonis and Gass (1985) remark, in such interaction, the parties are likely to 'recognize their shared incompetence' or to 'admit a language deficit'. The risk of losing face is considerably lower, and meaning can thus be negotiated without too much embarrassment" (Meeuwis 1994). These remarks refer to informal conversation among peers. Data from more formal conversations which are characterized by a less close relation between the participants or by asymmetric power relations (cf. Bremer et al. (1996)) may reveal a different picture.

Lingua Franca Conversation as Reflection of an "Inter"-culture

If we regard the features mentioned above as being reflections of an established inter-culture, we may interpret them as resulting from the participants' appreciation of the intercultural situation and the insecurity all of them have to cope with. The norms operating on both opening and closing phases are much different across cultures. In some cultures, these phases are highly conventional and ritualized. There are also differences regarding the constraints on the choice of phrases that may be used during conversational openings and closings. As most participants in lingua franca conversations will be uncertain about the greeting and leaving behaviour acceptable in their interlocutors' mother tongues, they will prefer not to experiment during these phases. Using only those routine formulas they know to be acceptable in either BrE or AmE gives them certainty about not violating any rules (cf. Tannen and Öztek 1981).

Within the inter-culture interpretation the preference of 'safe topics' can easily be explained as being due to the participants' insecurity as to the acceptability of the topics they introduce. Even though they are aware that cultural differences regarding delicate topics may exist, they will hardly be able to exactly identify taboo subjects. Participants will therefore avoid any topics that may be taboo and select topics which are known or at least expected to be 'safe' in BrE and AmE. Topics about which this certainty does not exist are avoided. In case a topic is introduced which is not known to be safe, its acceptability needs to be negotiated with the interlocutors. If it turns out to be unacceptable, it is prone to be cut off after relatively few turns (cf. Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991). These cut offs occur frequently throughout the corpus and account for the average short length of the individual topics.

Apparent differences in the non-native speakers' pausing behaviour and simultaneous talking may provide further evidence of the existence of a linguistic inter-culture created by the interlocutors. Being aware of possibly existing cultural differences, speakers appreciate these and thus tolerate longer in-turn and in-between-turn pauses and avoid overlapping speech.

As a general rule, the linguistic behaviour of participants in lingua franca face-to-face conversations seems to be governed by the following two principles:

· Participants wish to save face. They avoid insulting behaviour and putting their partners into embarrassing situations by e.g. using expressions their interlocutors may not understand.

· As a result of the uncertainty regarding the cultural norms and standards that apply to lingua franca conversations, participants wish to assure each other of a benevolent attitude. The high amount of supportive back-channels – both verbal or in the form of laughter – as well as the excessive use of cajolers found in the corpus are discoursive manifestations of this intention.

Both interpretations rest on the assumption that participants are aware of both their status as learners of English as well as of their different cultural backgrounds, especially of differences in communicative norms and behaviour. Though it has been claimed that participants in intercultural communication situations are to a large extent not aware of these facts (Knapp, 1995), recent reseach (Meierkord and Sugita, in preparation) reveals that Japanese are to a certain extent aware of linguistic reasons for their communicative problems in intercultural situations.

Conclusion

This paper has approached lingua franca communication in English as a form of intercultural communication characterised by cooperation rather than misunderstanding, and the most salient features of lingua franca English were summed up. The statements made in this article are valid for small-talk conversations. Further data are needed from other non-small-talk types of lingua franca interaction, e.g. negotiations, discussions etc. to corroborate the findings on a more general level. The examples presented and discussed revealed that lingua franca English is highly heterogeneous. The heterogeneity of data was shown to cause problems for the application of traditional approaches to conversation, which were created for the analysis of Anglo-American native speaker discourse. In conclusion, suggestions were made for a multi-method analysis of data, which includes models designed for non-Anglo-American discourse.

Furthermore, a differentiated interpretation of data was proposed, which takes into account both the intercultural situation as well as the fact that speakers need to be regarded as learners of the language they use.

Instruction: Christiane Meierkord’s analysis of non-native/non-native interaction in English reveals individual pragmatic characteristics of successful English lingua franca conversation among which: the non-native speakers’ frequent and long pauses, the back-channeling behaviour similar to what has been observed with British English native speakers. Learners demonstrate an interlanguage pragmatics, which differs from both L1 and L2; reduction and compensation of utterances; small amount of simultaneous speech; reduced opportunity of taking turns. Non-native speakers prefer 'safe' topics and a short length of individual topics; a low variation in ritual speech acts and an economic language learning behaviour.

While preparing a summary of Christiane Meierkord’s study you will elaborate on these points highlighting her key observations.

And, you have had a good chance to learn that Christiane Meierkord is a brilliant science writer. It would be good if you borrow her expertise for your own graduation paper.

Writing a graduation paper.

The major myth in writing a graduation paper is that you start writing at Chapter One and then finish your writing at Chapter Three. This is seldom the case. The most productive approach in writing the graduation paper is to begin writing those parts of the graduation paper that you are most comfortable with.

Then move about in your writing by completing various sections as you think of them. At some point you will be able to spread out in front of you all of the sections that you have written. You will be able to sequence them in the best order and then see what is missing and should be added to the graduation paper. This way seems to make sense and builds on those aspects of your study that are of most interest to you at any particular time. Go with what interests you, start your writing there, and then keep building!

Review two or three well organized and presented graduation papers. Examine their use of headings, overall style, typeface and organization. Use them as a model for the preparation of your own graduation paper. In this way you will have an idea at the beginning of your writing what your finished dissertation will look like. A most helpful perspective!

A simple rule – if you are presenting information in the form of a table or graph make sure you introduce the table or graph in your text. And then, following the insertion of the table/graph, make sure you discuss it. If there is nothing to discuss then you may want to question even inserting it.

Another simple rule – if you have a whole series of very similar tables try to use similar words in describing each. Don't try and be creative and entertaining with your writing. If each introduction and discussion of the similar tables uses very similar wording then the reader can easily spot the differences in each table.

We are all familiar with how helpful the Table of Contents is to the reader. What we sometimes don't realize is that it is also invaluable to the writer.

Use the Table of Contents to help you improve your manuscript. Use it to see if you've left something out, if you are presenting your sections in the most logical order, or if you need to make your wording a bit more clear. Thanks to the miracle of computer technology, you can easily copy/paste each of your headings from throughout your writing into the Table of Contents.

Then sit back and see if the Table of Contents is clear and will make good sense to the reader. You will be amazed at how easy it will be to see areas that may need some more attention. Don't wait until the end to do your Table of Contents. Do it early enough so you can benefit from the information it will provide to you.

When you are including a Conclusions section in your graduation paper make sure you really present conclusions and implications. Often the writer uses the conclusions/implications section to merely restate the research findings.

Potentially the silliest part of the graduation paper is the Suggestions for Further Research section. This section is usually written at the very end of your writing project and little energy is left to make it very meaningful. The biggest problem with this section is that the suggestions are often ones that could have been made prior to you conducting your research.

Now it's time to write the last chapter. But what chapter is the last one? Certainly you wrote Chapter One at the beginning of this whole process. Now, at the end, it's time to "rewrite" Chapter One. After you've had a chance to write your graduation paper all the way to the end, the last thing you should do is turn back to Chapter One.

Reread Chapter One carefully with the insight you now have from having completed Chapter Three. Does Chapter One clearly help the reader move in the direction of Chapter Three? Are important concepts that will be necessary for understanding Chapter Three presented in Chapter One?

Answer the following questions:

• Do you agree that writing a graduation paper in your field is similar to writing a scientific report?

• Do you know the accepted methodological approaches in writing graduation paper? If you do, where did you learn them?

• Are you taking all these steps in writing your graduation paper?

• What stages have you already passed?

• What stage are you in currently? What t steps are to be taken yet?

• Do you see any difference between the steps described here and the Ukrainian standards?

Prepare a 2 minute story about the framework of the format of your graduation paper.

Unit 2-24. THE USE OF ENGLISH IN EUROPE

Guidelines for extensive reading of ESP texts on the use of English in Europe

The final text of the Manual covers general issues of the use of English in European transnational companies whose headquaters are, for the most part, located in the states – members of the EU.

This is the continuation of Claude Truchot’s “Key aspects of the use of English in Europe”. Claude Truchot’s survey draws a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the spread of English in Europe.

The article sets the changes in the context of English in the workplace, the extent and limits of the use of English in transnational companies and international organisations, the introduction of English as a vehicular language, its special status in the international operations, and some of the problems of the internationalisation process alongside English and the languages of the countries where they established themselves.

Text 2-24. KEY ASPECTS OF THE USE OF ENGLISH IN EUROPE

(Continued from Text 1-13. After Claude Truchot, Marc Bloch University, Strasbourg)

English in the workplace

During the 19th century and the first part of the 20th the economic development of European countries took place within national frontiers and for certain of them in conjunction with, and with the aid of, their colonial empires. Development was assisted by their national languages. During that period the economic relations between countries were mainly commercial and some countries built their prosperity on this trade. However, no lingua franca emerged.

After the second world war the European countries' economies became progressively internationalised, in other words they became part of the growing worldwide flow of technical know-how, raw materials, capital, goods and services. The economies of the Scandinavian countries quickly adapted. The large firms in those countries were also the first in Europe to find that their national languages did not have sufficient "impact" to form part of this process.

Most of them turned towards English.

This practice was highlighted by the work of Hollqvist (1984), who described in detail the use of English in Swedish firms. In some of them, such as Ericsson (telephones) and S.A.S. (air transport), English enjoyed a status described by Hollqvist as that of "company language". This means that its use was required for all forms of written and oral communication involving persons of different linguistic origins, at least at the firms' head offices.

Hollqvist also mentions the Volvo group (private cars and industrial vehicles), which gave English official status as far back as January 1975. Other languages, particularly German, Spanish and French, are also used in those companies but mainly for outside contacts.

In other western European countries, the internationalisation of the economy has similarly led to an increased use of English, as can be seen from the expansion in language training for adults in the 1970s and 1980s. However, English was not the only language used. In addition, the assignment of official status to English for business purposes as in Sweden seems to have remained an exception.

Mention may be made of the Airbus Industries consortium founded in the 1980s by the main German, French, British and Spanish aircraft manufacturers. The group reports that English is used as the common working language for all its factories, the main ones of which are in Toulouse and Hamburg.

But no study has been performed and evidence suggests the existence of complex modes of communication between the different national groups involved. Coulmas (1992) also mentions the cases of the German tyre manufacturer Continental and the Dutch electronics company Philips but does not refer to any studies concerning them.

Extent and limits

The extent and limits of the use of English at that time were brought out in studies carried out in Strasbourg in 1984 and 1986. The first study (Cox, in Truchot 1990) concerned a branch of General Motors (GM) in Strasbourg.

English was regularly used there by the management and its departments, i.e. by about 250 people out of a staff of 2250. Use fluctuated but was an everyday fact and could be estimated at an average of one or two hours per day, and much more in the case of senior executives. It was required by the company's head office in Detroit, which communicated with its branches throughout the world only in English. As a result, horizontal relations between branches were also conducted in English. At that time the Strasbourg factory had an American manager who spoke no French.

The second study (D. Cenki, in Truchot 1990) concerned France Telecom, which was then called Télécommunications françaises and constituted one of the two departments of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications. Its subsequent evolution into a multinational company illustrates the economic changes which occurred afterwards. Out of a staff of 150,000, about 5,000 worked in sectors which sold services and technology outside France and made everyday use of foreign languages, mainly English, but also others, including Spanish and Arabic.

These studies reveal the two main reasons why English was used for working purposes at the time: first, exports and the search for markets and, second, the establishment of large multinational foreign companies. It should be noted that not all American multinationals used English as much as General Motors and that multinationals of other origins used it too. It is also worth noting that the share of the major foreign companies in the French economy, on the one hand, and the degree of internationalisation of French companies, on the other, were markedly smaller than they would become 15 years later.

Company languages

It was quite common in the 1980s for German and French companies entering the international market to incorporate the use of their language of origin in the internationalisation process alongside English and the languages of the countries where they established themselves. In the study mentioned above France Telecom states that it used to use French together with Spanish for its contacts with Latin America. Another case known is that of Rhône Poulenc (chemicals, pharmaceutical) before its merger with Hoechst to form Aventis in 1999.

This company willingly admitted at the time that it was actively involved in the dissemination of French. Foreign executives of the firm in Italy, Germany, Spain and even in the United States (in its Rorer subsidiary) said they were accustomed to express themselves in French. It reported at the same time that it made substantial use of English, in France as well, but there is no study on the respective shares of the two languages in the company's operations. At the beginning of the 1990s its training policy included a dozen languages.

Siemens AG, with its head office in Munich, was known until the end of the 1990s for allocating an important role to German. Relations between head office and branches and among the latter were conducted partly in that language together with English, which was used in certain sectors. It had the reputation of being demanding as regards the knowledge of German possessed by the non-German-speakers whom it recruited and whom it trained in its language school, the Siemens Sprachenschule in Munich, or in the countries where its branches were established.

Transnational companies

The granting of special status to English and the advertising of that status spread throughout large firms during the 1990s, and particularly among those trying to achieve a global position through takeovers and mergers. Examples are ABB (Asean-Brown-Boveri), Alcatel, Aventis, Daimler-Chrysler, EADS (European Aerospace Defence and Space), Novartis and Vivendi. Until the early 1990s these companies were particularly solidly established in their countries of origin, had a highly organised head office in those countries and covered a whole network of branches.

Nowadays they regard themselves as transnational companies which are less identifiable with particular countries or which may even wish not to be identified with specific countries. They accordingly change their names and the location of their head offices and declare English to be their official language.

Aventis resulted in this way from the merger of Rhône-Poulenc and Hoechst, two companies previously identified very clearly with their countries of origin, France and Germany. Its head office has been located in Strasbourg, a city which has no links with the founder companies but instead probably has a practical advantage and symbolic importance. Its decision to confer a special status on English is deliberately flaunted by its top executives.

Alain Godard, President of Aventis Crop Science, formerly Rhône-Poulence Agro (recently sold to the Bader group), has declared: "Vice-President Gerhart Prante and I speak with the same voice in English, the company's official language." (Le Monde, 08.02.2000). Its Director of Human Resources was even more explicit: "We must build a common culture around English, which is establishing itself as our working language" (Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace, 12.04.2001). At the end of the 1990s Siemens AG decided that German was no longer appropriate to its global scale and replaced it with English, which was identified as a company language. English became the official language of Daimler-Chrysler from the moment when Daimler-Benz (Mercedes) and Chrysler merged. However, German is still very much in evidence in Mercedes plants outside Germany.

Questions arising

These remarks concern a part of what might be called the tip of the iceberg of linguistic practices in industry. The reality of these practices should be looked at.

Does the ostentatious adoption of English reflect the genuine use of English or the need to display an image (international or global)?

If it is found that English is actually used, is this the result of a communication problem?

What other reasons might there be? To establish a power relationship based on that language? To create a business culture?

What are the place and relative functions of English and the other languages, particularly the languages of the host countries?

Is allowance made for the concept of a national language? Does such a concept mean anything?

What about languages other than the national language?

When a national or other language is taken into account, what are the motives for such a step: organisational or productivity requirements, relations with staff?

Do the staff have the capacity to impose linguistic practices, to assert an identity? Or do they feel it necessary to abandon the field to a dominant language and to accept the power relationships imposed by management?

Do those who use it feel more highly valued? Different?

What happens to the language of the country from which the company originates?

What is the situation in SMEs?

The studies in this sector have been carried out with a view to providing guidance to companies. They provide information about the use of foreign languages for export (Hagen, 1999). What is the situation regarding practices at work, for example in companies which have gone international?

In principle there are two abundant sources of data regarding languages in the workplace: language-knowledge requirements in job vacancies, and demand for language training. However, these data are themselves subjects of research.

Does, for example, the requirement to know English in a job vacancy represent an economic need?

Are the linguistic requirements for posts based on a study of the practices relating to the posts in question? Or are they simply social or cultural requirements designed to show that the applicant's educational background matches the responsibility involved, to guarantee that the applicant has been in contact with economic or business-management models regarded as references or to prove that the persons concerned are mobile and adaptable and not too deeply rooted in their national culture or attached to their specific identity?

When there is a demand for English training, does this correspond to a practice in the job, to the desire of part of the staff not to be sidelined in relations with a management which expresses itself in that language, or to a fear of being sacked when the next merger occurs?

The use of English as a supranational language in European institutions

As Europe is made up of independent nation states, it is normally at that level that the official language policies governing public life are defined. In fact, other entities compete with them. We have seen the situation in the multinational companies. International organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, NATO, the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) and the European Union have been set up since the second world war.

The powers and resources conferred on the EU give it a real supranational power. We must therefore examine the extent to which this supranational power is also exercised in linguistic matters.

Languages of the European Union

The EU Treaties are relatively silent about linguistic matters. The 1957 Treaty of Rome confines itself to delegating to the Council of Ministers the task of drafting rules governing the languages of the institutions. These rules, which were adopted in 1958, state that when a new country joins, its official language shall become an official and working language of the Community institutions.

These rules have been applied automatically upon each new accession. The linguistic arrangements apply in their entirety to the circulation of official documents, i.e. those adopted by the decision-making bodies, which are translated into the official language of each of the Member States prior to being circulated within them. They also apply, albeit in a variable way, to political representation on the Council (representatives of national governments) and to the Parliament.

Substantial resources are allocated to the language service. However, the linguistic rules do not apply to in-house communications, which are governed by rules of procedure that give preference to two chief vehicular languages, English and French. German is generally designated as a third language but is little used.

French continued to dominate in the internal communications of the institutions from their foundation in the 1950s until the mid-1970s. English was introduced as a vehicular language in the 1970s. However, French remained the main language until the early 1990s. Several studies carried out at that time stressed this French predominance (Fosty, 1985; Gehnen, 1991; Schlossmacher, 1994). The most commonly advanced reasons are that French was the language most common to the six founding countries (the official language in three of them, a widely taught foreign language in the others), that the United Kingdom was not a member of the Six and that the main institutions were situated in Brussels and Luxembourg. Factors such as the strong representation of French-speakers (Belgian, French and Luxembourger) in the administration and French investment in ensuring the continued use of French should not be overlooked. Within the institutions they like to speak of an "organisation culture" but no study has been done to analyse its nature. The organisation of the administration along French lines and the existence of a hierarchical authority partly based on the use of French may explain this continued dominance, but this is only theory.

The introduction of English as a vehicular language coincides more with the increasing influence it has exerted on international communication in Europe than with the accession of the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1973. English was initially used in sectors such as the economy, technology and science. Its share expanded gradually, slowly at first and then faster and faster from the end of the 1980s. The chief data available for assessing the trend are the proportions of primary texts (languages in which documents sent for translation were originally drafted) produced in each of the vehicular languages.

The case of the European Commission, the main producer of documents out of all the institutions (over a million pages per year), is the most revealing.

Languages of primary texts produced by the European Commission in % (Truchot 2001)

	French	English	German	Other
1986	58	26	11	5
1989	49	30	9	12
1991	48	35	6	11
1996	38.5	44.7	5.1	11.7
1997	40.4	45.3	5.4	8.9
1998	37	48	5	10
1999	35	52	5	8

This table shows the rise of English and the relative fall of French in written use over a 14-year period. In fact, during the 1980s and 1990s the factors favouring English continued to accumulate. Among them were the effects of internationalisation of the economy and of globalisation resulting in the use of English in the chief fields falling within EU competence, the spread of English teaching and the expansion in knowledge of the language, the training of new generations of diplomats and officials in American and British universities or in English-language faculties in Europe and the enlargement of the EU in 1995 to embrace countries where English is in common use.

It is conceivable that diplomats and officials who have a much better mastery of English than French have difficulty in accepting a power system where French occupies a substantial place and would prefer to replace it with another based on the preponderance of English. However, French is still very present, with a certain form of bilingualism appearing to be the rule in the institutions (Wright, 2000).

Supranational uses

A 1991 study (Labrie, 1993) showed that for communication among themselves 63% of Commission officials used French and 33% English. However, for contacts with officials or experts from the Member States, the figures were 22% French and 31% English for oral communication and 6% French and 59% English for written communication.

Vast areas of semi-internal and external communication have opened up and are continuing to grow with the implementation of the Single Act in 1993, the extension of responsibilities as a result of the Treaties of Maastricht in 1992 and Amsterdam in 1997, the enlargement of 1995 and that anticipated over the next few years.

The European Commission wields an increasing number of administrative and managerial responsibilities: single market, common agricultural policy, programmes. These areas of communication usually fall outside the official linguistic arrangements and even the internal arrangements. The actual linguistic practices in those areas are not very well known but English is believed to be very widely used. This happens with the increasingly numerous working meetings attended by representatives of the Member States. It also happens in the case of meetings of experts: the institutions organise some 4,000 meetings every year, 75% of which do not have simultaneous interpretation.

Many reports are commissioned from consultants, who are generally asked to work in English. Programmes, too, tend to be administered in English. For relations with non-member countries, French is used with French-speaking Africa, Spanish with Latin America and English with large parts of the rest of the world. Relations with the institutions of individual states are normally conducted in the languages of those states. Because of the time needed for translation, however, the primary texts are often circulated just as they were drafted, in French and English. Reports by experts and consultants circulate in the language in which they were drafted.

English is not a mandatory supranational language. But there is a tendency to make it so. This is very clearly the case in the EU institutions despite genuine efforts to encourage plurilingualis m. In the many other institutional co-operation bodies which are appearing in Europe it is found that use of that language is regarded as automatic, even though no other mode of communication has been investigated. Thus, in Eurocorps (the intergovernmental body for military co-operation) in Strasbourg, communications not involving the command of troops tend to be conducted in English although the question has never actually been discussed. Generally speaking, it is English that is used in administering the aid and assistance programmes for the central and eastern European countries.

Observers have also remarked that English enjoys a special status in the international operations in the former Yugoslavia. As Gret Haller, the ambassador and mediator in Bosnia, has pointed out on the strength of her experience there, no one listens to what you say if you do not speak English because English is the language of power and, by speaking another language, you show you have no power (Council of Europe, 2001). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the tendency to use English as a lingua franca is not motivated by practical considerations alone.

Suggested questions for the round-table discussion:

􀂃 What do you think are the main problems of lecturing in a foreign language?

􀂃 What kind of problems do students encounter when communicating with each other through a lingua franca?

􀂃 Are the problems lingua franca speakers face generally problems of grammar (syntax), vocabulary or pronunciation?

􀂃 Do you think speakers in lingua franca settings get irritated by issues that do not interfere with communication?

􀂃 Do you think people in lingua franca settings have prejudices against any aspects of each other’s English?

􀂃 Do students’ language backgrounds matter when they are assigned group-work projects? Is this relevant and should it be taken into consideration?

􀂃 How can we ensure that teachers’ and students’ language skills are adequate for English-medium education?

􀂃 What type of remedial work can be carried out for lecturers and students who operate in lingua franca settings?