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.