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?