GERUNDS AND INFINITIVES

Communicating in EnglishWorking in EnglishChapter 4Dr. Tasneem

Introduction:This chapter follows on from ideas put forward in previous chapters about how spoken and written English varies according to its context and purpose. Here we look at the specific ways in which English is used as a tool for work. We also look at the use of English as an international business language.Think about the following questions:Do you speak in the same way when you speak to your friends as when you speak to your boss, or a doctor or someone at the bank?What are some of the differences?What are the reasons for the differences? Is it because of your relationship with the person? Or other reasons?By the end of this chapter, you will know how these questions have been approached and to some extent answered by applied linguistics.Main learning points include:How people communicate differently depending on whether their communication is in itself a form of work or whether they are just chatting sociably. The idea that communication at work plays a role in the establishment and maintenance of relationships and group identity.The fact that working language practices adapt to social and technological developments. The respect in which spoken and written English appears to diverge from Standard English during international business communication.How language in the workplace is closely tied up with power.

The chapter is started by looking at how English used in everyday situations can be distinguished from English used in the workplace.We will see how the forms and structures of English at work are influenced by context and purpose, and by sociocultural and technological development; and how English has evolved to become the language of international business communication.We shall see how people working together interact using structured and goal-oriented genres that have evolved over time. This leads to into a consideration of multimodal literacy in professional practice, using the example of architecture, and to a discussion of English as an international language. We will show the connection between language and power in job interviews. A theme that runs throughout the chapter is the importance of interpersonal communication in working environments.

To think about as you read chapter 4:Think about the different purposes for which English is used in the workplace, and how these purposes affect the way in which it is used. Think too about what it means for workers whose mother tongue is not English to have to use that language for working purposes.Put on your mind that the chapters general focus is on the language use of white collar workers (managers) rather than of the blue collar workers (manual workers). Why do you think so?How does workplace talk differ from ordinary conversation?This chapter explores the special characteristics of the language used at work. Chapter 1 contrasted everyday conversation with the sorts of talk that take place in institutional settings such as places of work.It was noted that turn taking often has to follow institutional rules. It was emphasised that certain speech acts can only be carried out by a holder of institutional authority. These two points are related.According to Drew and Heritage, institutional talk, as they call workplace and professional talk, differs from ordinary conversation in three ways:It is goal oriented: participants usually focus on some core goal, task or identity associated with the institution or workplace.There are constraints on what participants will treat as allowable contributions, i.e. on what participants may say.There are inferential frameworks and procedures that are particular to the specific institutional or workplace context.A further feature of workplace interactions linked to all three characteristics listed above is the fact that interactions are often asymmetrical; that is, some speakers often have more power and special knowledge than others.In interactions between professionals and lay people (a doctor and a patient), where the professional has knowledge of a specialist subject and of institutional procedures. This means that participants in workplace interactions have institutional identities (or professional roles) which interact with their personal and discursive identities.Another way of referring to the goal orientation of workplace interactions is to say that they are transactional, which means that participants focus on doing a particular workplace task. If the sentence doesnt involve transactional talk, it will be described as relational; that is, the purpose is more of a social one. This kind of talk allows the participants to bond socially, and thus contribute to build a good relationship.This shows that not all workplace talk is transactional and that relationship building at work is important.Frontstage and backstage:Many professionals or people working for organizations deal with lay members of the public in the course of their work. We can distinguish between two kinds of interaction in which English can be used as a working language:Interactions among co-workers, where people are working together in the same workplace, occupation or profession.Interactions between experts in an organisation or profession and members of the public; that is, between insiders in particular areas of work and outsiders. For example, interactions between health professionals and patients, or service encounters, where service providers interact with customers.These two general types of workplace interaction correspond to two sites in which social life can be studied: front regions (fronstage) and back regions (backstage).Front regions are areas where a particular performance is in progress, whereas back regions are where action occurs that is related to the performance but inconsistent with the appearance fostered by the performance.Goffman implies the presence of an audience in fronstage activity, as in interactions between lay people and professionals, and a setting in which best behaviour is expected. The backstage setting, on the other hand, is more relaxed and allows minor acts for others present.The same person often has to switch between frontstage and backstage interactions at work; and while workplace interactions are mainly goal oriented and transactional, relational language, which is quite similar to small talk outside the workplace, also occurs. This means that the distinction between workplace language and everyday language is not a hard or absolute one.Try to answer the following questions:Can you think of an example of when your interaction with another person has been constrained by its institutional context? For example, if you have a job that involves interacting both with co-workers and with customers or clients, are there things you would say to one group but not the other?Do you think it is important to have good relationships with the people you work with, and how do you use language for this purpose?Workplace genres:Discourse communities:Another aspect that is often used to talk about groups of people who use particular ways of communicating in order to pursue a common goal is that of discourse community. In discourse community the members do not necessarily work closely together or form relationships involving mutual engagement.However, their spoken and written interactions may still be characterised by a particular register: a set of conventions for language use, possibly including specialist vocabulary.A discourse community may be geographically dispersed, yet its members use language to pursue common goals in ways that distinguish them from other groups.Genres:According to Swales, genres are: classes of communicative events which share some set of communicative purposes. This is similar to the definition of genre in Chapter 2 and highlights two aspects of genres:Different texts or utterances can be said to belong to the same genre because they share the same communicative purpose.Genres follow particular patterns or schematic structures, which may involve participants playing specific roles, and using particular vocabulary or a particular style of speaking or writing.

For example, in frontstage service encounters, such as the one in extract 3, the communicative purpose for the customer or service recipient is to obtain goods or services. The interaction usually begins with a greeting and request for service and ends with a service provision and a closing, and it is characterised by the use of politeness features. In the backstage workplace interaction in extract 2, the communicative purpose is to reach the decision.Genres have predictable structures and characteristics but can also vary; for example, in the range of language used for instruction giving. Genres in a changing world of work: the example of the business email:In the early twenty-first century, email has emerged as one of the most important means of communicating information in English for commercial purposes. The business email has now to a great extent replaced the traditional business letter, as well as some kinds of telephone communication. Like the blog, the business email has features of both written and spoken language, and has been influenced by a variety of other genres, but change over time (e.g. as a result of changing technology).According to Yates and Orlikowski the business email developed from the genre of written memos, which are companyinternal messages circulated between employees, and were once distributed in typed or handwritten form. Yates and Orlikowski said that email is also used for other kinds of messages; for example, very informal exchanges between individual colleagues. Therefore they see email as a medium, rather than a genre.Gimenez, on the other hand, claims that many features of email communication were carried over from telephone communication.While business letters use language that is typical of written language, business emails tend to use language that is more typical of spoken English.Email:As mentioned earlier, the example of the business email shows that genres change and evolve to adapt to changing demands in communication and technology in the workplace.Jensen shows that email is even being used for international business negotiations, which until a short time before were being conducted face-to face.Try to answer the following questions:Think of a discourse community of which you are a member. Does it have particular items of vocabulary that would not be understood by outsiders?In what ways have recent technological developments changed the way you communicate? English as an international language and intercultural communication:Another factor that distinguishes English used for work from English used in social encounters or family settings is that the speakers or writers are often not native speakers of English. This term is loosely used to describe a person who grew up using a language to communicate.For many years, people who are native speakers of different languages have used English as a lingua franca (or contact language) for purposes of trade.More recently, English has become the international language, not only for trade, but for all kinds of business and other forms of international communication. In fact, there are now many more people using English in this way than people who use it as a native language.There has been a growing interest in recent years in what the characteristics of English as a lingua franca (or ELF) are, and whether there are significant differences between the way lingua franca speakers and native speakers use English.Seidlhofer (2004) has identified a number of features of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar that seem to be common to lingua franca (such as the contrast between long and short vowels, the various sounds that correspond to the letters TH, and grammatical features such as dropping the third person, articles. Etc.)These would often be considered errors, but Seidlhofer argues that, as they dont cause any problems for comprehension among lingua franca speakers, they should be considered typical features of ELF, rather than mistakes. This point relates to wider argument made by researchers in EFL that as English is now used as an international language, native speakers of English no longer own English, and it is therefore not up to them to determine what is or is not acceptable- at least in international English usage.Another feature of lingua franca discourse identified in many interactions is the use of accommodation strategies. Accommodation involves adapting to the speech and behaviour of the person you are speaking to. Typical accommodation strategies in EFL interactions include repetition, paraphrasing, simplification and codeswitching ( switching to a native language of the other speaker).The reasons for codeswitching, according to Connor, were: in most cases for clarity, sometimes for fun or to create solidarity. Intercultural business communication:Connors discussion of the written communication between the Finnish broker and his international business partners mentions the role that culture can play in international business interactions. Her study shows that non-standard language usage causes very few problems. Interestingly, studies of intercultural communication have shown that misunderstandings can be caused by cultural differences, rather than linguistic difficulties.Spencer-Oatey has carried out research on intercultural communication between people from significantly different cultural backgrounds: British and Chinese. One instance of a cultural misunderstanding she describes arose during the visit of a group of Chinese business people to a British company. The visit ended badly with both the Chinese visitors and the British hosts feeling annoyed with each other. Many of the problems were due to the British company misjudging the status of the visitors, rather than to cultural differences as such. However, cultural differences also played a role, in particular the level of formality expected and what the respective rights and obligations of hosts and guests were assumed to be.In the U K. there is a preference for informality, whereas China is a culture with a large power distance, which means that status differences are recognized and respected. As a result, the British hosts were not aware that such things as seating arrangements or lack of formal protocol could be interpreted as a lack of respect for their status.Spencer-Oateys study shows that intercultural misunderstandings can arise, even when both sides act with the best of intentions. However, many international business interactions occur without any problems or misunderstandings.Poncinis study shows that national culture may not necessarily be an impediment to communication in intercultural business interactions. It also shows that, even in a situation where English is used as a lingua franca, language is used not only for transactional or utilitarian purposes, but also for relationship building.This illustrates the point made at the beginning of this chapter, that relational as well as transactional goals are achieved through workplace language use.The examples of spoken and written international business interactions given in this section show that the language used in such situations can differ in a number of ways from that of people interacting as native speakers of English.Furthermore, cultural factors may influence the interaction in a number of ways. Nevertheless, the examples also show that there is a great deal of variation in the level and function of the English used in such situations and that it fulfils both transactional and relational purposes. Try to answer the following questions:Do you regard yourself as a native speaker of English? Do you speak differently depending on whether you consider yourself to be talking to a native speaker or a non-native speaker?If two non-native speakers of English can understand one another, does it matter whether they are using the language in a way that native speakers would regard as correct?Have you ever seen misunderstandings arise between people of different national origins when thy communicate in English? Was this due mainly to language or to cultural differences?Do you think that English as a lingua franca should be recognised as a variety of English?Relationships at work:This section begins by looking at a highly influential theory of how people interact at work, and then looks at an important device used for relationship building in the workplace; the use of humour.Communities of practice;So far we have been trying to identify what makes workplace language distinctive. But of course, workplaces also differ from one another, and people working together share background knowledge, a set of procedures and a particular workplace culture. This is why it is sometimes difficult to make sense of transcripts of workplace conversations.Groups or teams of people who regularly interact for a particular purpose, for example at work, have been referred to as communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). The term practice indicates that people in such groups are trying to get things done and that they have developed routine procedures for this.According to Wenger, communities of practice are characterised by three criteria:1. mutual engagement 2. joint enterprise3. a shared repertoireMutual engagement means more than simply working together; it also indicates that people working together develop a relationship. Joint enterprise refers to working together for a common purpose to achieve particular goals, and shared repertoire refers to the means by which the members of a community of practice communicate with one another.This category is of particular interest to us, as it includes the language and jargon that are specific to a workplace. However, shared repertoire consists of more than just language; according to Wenger, it includes routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts.Think about a group of people with whom you interact regularly; for example, your co-workers, family or fellow students. Is it a community of practice? To decide whether or not it is, think about whether it confirms to the three criteria:1. mutual engagement: do you have a relationship with the other people in the group, based on the things you do together?2. joint enterprise: does the group have a common purpose or set of purposes?3. a shared repertoire: do you have special ways of communicating or doing things, or any specific words or abbreviations you use regularly?

Humour and workplace culture:Holmes in her project (the language in the workplace project) has looked at the role of humour in the workplace and how its use can be linked to workplace culture.Holmes and Stubbes discussion of two case studies shows that humour can be a distinctive feature of workplace culture and can form an integral part of community of practice. Humour can be supportive and collaborative, or it can be contestive and competitive, involving jocular abuse. Both types of humour are used to maintain good relationships, but they show that humour can also be used to deal with conflict and to exercise power in a mutually acceptable way.This section will illustrate how things can go wrong when the participants in the interaction do not manage to establish a relationship.

Language and power:This chapter began by outlining some of the distinctive characteristics of workplace language, one of which is the asymmetry and power difference in many workplace interactions. Such asymmetry is particularly apparent in fornstage encounters between professionals and lay people; for example, doctors and patients. One obvious but nevertheless critical aspect of many communications between professionals and lay people is the extent to which the professional is willing and able to talk about relevant topics in a way that is clear to the uninitiated outsider.As in intercultural encounters, the lack of common knowledge and understanding between a professional and a client may not be confined to technical matters, but may be related to differences in the cultural and linguistic experiences of the people involved.Roberts and Campbell (2006) have directly addressed this issue by recording and analysing interviews for low-paid jobs in the UK. They aimed to discover whether ethnic minority candidates were disadvantages in gate-keeping encounters of this kind.They found that ethnicity itself was not the major indicator of success, since candidates who were born abroad were much less likely to be successful like British candidates.They argue that the problem for candidates born outside the UK was not their general competence in speaking English, but their lack of what Pierre Bourdieu calls linguistic capital: the ability to produce utterances that will be considered appropriate in a range of specific social and institutional situations; for example, using just the right level of formality to make a good impression when interacting with people in authority.In order to make a good impression, candidates need to achieve the right balance between institutional discourse, which deals with the candidates qualifications, and personal discourse, which is more informal and allows the interviewers to judge the candidates personality. This analysis shows that job interviews place a very high demand on candidates in terms of the linguistic skills required. They not only need to demonstrate their qualifications and relevant experience for the job, but they also need to align themselves to expectations, use the right level of formality and establish a good relationship with the interviewer. Roberts and Campbell found this to be the case even in interviews for routine manual jobs involving low levels of verbal interaction.This highlights the structural difficulties that outsiders or novices can face in trying to enter a professional or workplace community and access the economic opportunities that it would provide. Try to answer the following questions:From your own experience, can you think of an instance where humour has been used in a workplace situation? Was this humour collaborative or competitive? What do you think was the purpose of this humour, and what effect did it have on relationships?Have you ever had a job interview? Do you agree with Roberts and Campbell that being successful in an interview may come down to putting on a good linguistic performance?

Conclusion:One of the main points made in this chapter is that when people are working through the medium of English, the language and discourse they use take on a range of distinctive forms as a result of the different workplace and professional settings in which they occur and the different purposes for which they are used.We can see the specialised nature of English at work in a variety of spoken and written genres, which fulfil particular communicative purposes and have characteristic linguistic and interactive structures. We can also see that language used at work performs not only the transactional function of getting things done, but also the relational function of developing and maintaining working relationships. Conclusion:When people work in English both within and between organisations, language fulfils not only the more obvious needs of effective information exchange, but also the social and emotive functions of relationship building. Moreover, it enacts power relationships between participants, possibly embedding inequality and lack of access.THANK YOU