Instruction: Let us go through the basics of good summary writing once again.

The first thing in preparingto write a good summary is to thoroughly understand the material you are working with. Here are some preliminary steps in writing a summary.

Skim the text, noting in your mind the subheadings. If there are no subheadings, try to divide the text into sections. Consider why you have been assigned the text. Try to determine what type of text you are dealing with. This can help you identify important information.

· Read the text, highlighting important information and taking notes.

· In your own words, write down the main points of each section.

· Write down the key support points for the main topic, but do not include minor detail.

· Go through the process again, making changes as appropriate.

 

 

Make sure that:

1. Your summary begins with an introductory sentence that states the article's title and author.

2. Your summary must contain the main thesis or standpoint of the text, restated in your own words. (To do this, first find the thesis statement in the original text.)

3. Your summary is written in your own words. It contains few or no quotes.

4. Your summary is shorter than the original text, often about 1/3 as long as the original. It is the ultimate fat-free writing. An article or paper may be summarized in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs. A book may be summarized in an article or a short paper. A very large book may be summarized in a smaller book.

5. Your summary should contain all the major points of the original text, and should ignore most of the fine details, examples, illustrations or explanations.

6. The backbone of your summary is formed by crucial details (key names, dates, events, words and numbers). A summary must never rely on vague generalities.

7. If you quote anything from the original text, even an unusual word or a catchy phrase, you need to put whatever you quote in quotation marks.

8. Your summary must contain only the ideas of the original text. Do not insert any of your own opinions, interpretations, deductions or comments into a summary.

9. Your summary:

· Includes all of the author's main points and major supporting details.

· Deletes minor and irrelevant details.

· Combines/chunks similar ideas.

· Paraphrases accurately and preserves the author's meaning.

· Uses your own wording and sentence style.

· Reflects article's emphasis and purpose.

· Recognizes article's organization.

· Stays within appropriate length; is shorter than the original.

· Achieves transition through use of author's name and present-tense verb.

· Has few or no mechanical errors.

 

MODULE 2-4. ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA IN EVERYDAY INTERNATIONAL INTERACTION

Unit 2-19. THE USE OF ENGLISH IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

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

This is the continuation of P. Rogerson-Revell’s study of using English for European business communication. Rogerson-Revell reports on preliminary research which forms part of a larger scale study to explore further the nature and role of EIB, focusing specifically on its use in international business meetings in Europe.

The overall study has both a theoretical and practical goal, on the one hand, aiming to build on earlier research in this field and, on the other hand, aiming to relay the findings back to the European organization involved, in order to help it improve communications in future international events, and ultimately, to use the findings in the development of training materials to facilitate international professional communication.

The initial study aims to provide ‘hard’ data (i.e., factual, background information such as the demographic makeup of the participants, the frequency of their use of EIB) to support the second stage of the research. However, it also aims to provide ‘soft’ data regarding participants’ perceptions of the use of EIB in such contexts: data which seems relatively scarce in current research.

The rest of this paper, then, reports on this preliminary study which explores the use of EIB in business meetings within a particular European professional organisation, based on documentary evidence from an internal report together with the findings of an initial questionnaire.

Text 2-19. USING ENGLISH FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: A EUROPEAN CASE STUDY

(After P. Rogerson-Revell’s article in English for Specific Purposes, #26, 2007. Continued from Text 1-19)

The study

Within the field of business language training there have also been attempts, albeit limited, to describe and teach some form of ‘international English’ for business learners.

One example of this is ‘Offshore English’, a term coined by the Canning training company to describe the type of English which they suggest native English speakers need to use to be more readily understandable by non-native English users. Similarly, Hollqvist (1984) reports how the Swedish telecoms giant, Ericsson, tried to create its own version of international English, referred to as ‘Ericsson English’, which aimed to provide a restricted range of vocabulary and language structures without loss of accuracy.

There are, of course, other examples of restricted varieties of English which have been created for very specific international purposes, such as ‘Airspeak’ (for Air Traffic Control) and ‘Policespeak’ (for binational police and emergency service cooperation at the Channel Tunnel) but these were created to serve very limited communicative purposes unlike the breadth and flexibility of functions required of a business lingua franca or international language.

Within linguistics, there has also been increasing interest in the role of language and culture in international business communication. However, despite the range of uses of English across Europe and its undisputable spread, in particular, for international business purposes, there seems, as Seidlhofer (2004) states, little corpus-based analysis of how English is actually used for international business communication in Europe. Nor is there much information on how business Europeans feel about its use. It is with these issues in mind that the current research study is framed, aiming to shed further light on the use of English as a common language of international business in Europe.

 

Background to the study

This study was conducted with the co-operation of the Groupe Consultatif Actuariel Europeen (GCAE). The GCAE has a consultative and advisory function facilitating discussion with European Union institutions on existing and proposed EU legislation which has an impact on the actuarial profession. Thirty-three actuarial associations from 30 European countries are represented in GCAE. Many GCAE members meet at various European venues at regular intervals to discuss current issues. Some members attend international meetings as frequently as twice a month and are in regular e-mail and telephone contact with colleagues. Consequently, face-to-face meetings are an essential part of their business life. This pattern of communication seems typical in European business, both in my own experiences and those of other researchers, such as Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005), Hagen (1998) and Firth (1996).

 

Meetings within GCAE

Like most such international organizations, GCAE has a variety of meeting types from small internal and informal gatherings of a few local staff to large formal meetings held externally at different venues across Europe. The questionnaire data for this study were collected during such an external event where the annual, whole GCAE met to discuss key topics and to review the previous year’s business. This event consisted of a series of formal, subgroup meetings (ranging from 8 to 20 participants) culminating in a whole group meeting (approximately 50 participants) on the final afternoon.

Obviously, differences in size, location, purpose and, indeed, interactive mix of participants can have a substantial effect on meeting behaviours and outcomes, as noted in my own and others’ research. Indeed, the genre of business meetings itself can be subdivided into several subgenres using various criteria: for instance, whether a meeting is inter- or extra-organizational, has a primarily commercial business focus or a professional, consultative brief; whether a meeting is essentially collaborative and information-sharing in nature, or is fundamentally competitive and results-driven.

In theory the meetings at GCAE are interorganisational, routine events performing an essentially consultative and advisory function within a professional body. Nevertheless, as with most meetings, beneath this public brief there are no doubt several layers of organizational and individual agendas which contribute to the complexity of these interactions. Some of these issues arose superficially in this study but they will be explored more fully in the second, discourse-analytic stage of the research.

 

Impetus for the study

The impetus for this research originated from concerns within the organisation itself rather than from my own hypothetical research questions. The GCAE has for some time been concerned about what they referred to as unequal participation of members in meetings.

Some of these concerns are outlined in an extract from an internal report to Groupe members on this issue.

Extract from GCAE internal report “How to Encourage More Active Participation of Non-English Speakers Within the IAA”

Members: French, Swedish, Portuguese, Finnish, Japanese, Spanish.

“I was sitting in one of the IAA Committee meetings and listening to the discussion. Suddenly I thought that the meeting was missing an essential point and I started to plan an intervention. It took a few minutes to prepare myself, especially to find the right English words etc., and suddenly I realised that the discussion had moved on to another subject.”

“I was in the middle of an intervention talking about that interesting subject when in the middle of a sentence I realised that I had forgotten the correct English word to use.”

These are just two of a number of situations a non-native English (NNE) speaker finds himself in every now and then.

Of course, if you are an intrepid speaker you continue with a homemade translation, but we must admit that a fair number of us would more and more hesitate to speak publicly.

Are there any remedies or solutions to this problem that most probably results in a predominance of the Anglo Saxon views being forwarded?

This report highlights some of the concerns felt by GCAE members and illustrates some of the difficulties and frustrations encountered by non-native English speakers in meetings.

The final paragraph suggests an underlying assumption that some of these difficulties result from the dominance of ‘Anglo Saxon’ views in the organization, despite their minority status in terms of numbers of members.

It is interesting to note that some members of the organization had thought about these issues in some depth and come up with their own reasons for such difficulties. These they divided into three subsections: (a) cultural; (b) organization; (c) language barrier. As can be seen from the extract relating to ‘cultural’ issues, reference was made to differences in working styles and the need to give participants an adequate amount of time to respond in meetings, as well as to the tendency to defer to more senior associates.