National Agendas and the English Divide

79

Sponsored by the ABC Research Committee

Priscilla

S.

_Rogers,

Editor Former ABC Research Committee Chair

National

_Agendas

and the

_English

Divide

Priscilla

S.

_Rogers

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

THE ABC CONTINUES TO EXPAND its role as an

interna-tional

_{organization,}

one committed to

_{&dquo;fostering}

excellence in

busi-ness communication

_scholarship,

_research,

_education,

and

_{practice&dquo;}

(ABC

Mission

Statement,

1992;

Locker,

1998).

The addition of new

regions

in

_~996-Asia

and the

Pacific, Caribbean,

Central and South

America,

Europe-has only

accelerated _{the pace} of international activities.

While as of

_{February 1998}

non-US members

_{comprised only}

16%

of ABC’s total

_membership,

internationalism is evident on all

fronts,

including

the

_composition

of ABC committees and

_journal

editorial

boards;

the roster of ABC award

_recipients,

conference

_{presentations,}

and

_journal

_{publications;}

and the introduction of new

communica-tion vehicles that invite

_global

_networking,

for

_example,

_BCQ

on the

Web. One ABC

_journal

devoted an entire issue to international

con-cerns _{in 1997}

_{(The Journal}

_of

Business

_{Comtszunication,}

_July),

and ABC members have contributed to other

_special

international issues of the

Journal

of

Business andtechnical Commllnieatioll

_{(July, 1997)}

and Techni-cal Communication

_Quarterly

_(Summer,

_1998).

Other recent ABC researchers’ works we

_might

cite include

_Hagen’s

&dquo;Teaching

Ameri-can Business

_Writing

in Russia:

_{Cross-Cultures/Cross-Purposes&dquo;}

_{(a ’}

reflective _gem on

_teaching)

and Andrews’s Technicul Communieation in the Global

_Community,

a new text written from an international

per-spective.

At _{the 1997} ABC International Conference in

_Washington,

DC,

some 60 sessions were dedicated to international/intercultural

topics,

a

_{&dquo;Distinguished}

Member Award&dquo; was

_given

to Hilkka

Yli-Jokipii,

ABC Vice President for

_Europe,

and the &dquo;ABC

Distin-guished

Publication on Business Communication&dquo; award went to

Japanese

scholar Naoki Kameda.

This

_burgeoning

interest

_prompted

me to ask several ABC

col-leagues

to describe issues and

_priorities

in business communication from their

_perspective,

in their

parts

of the world. The six responses that follow _{may be} considered brief

_reports

from the field. The authors

_represent

three of the ABC’s four

_regions

outside the

_US;

a

bibliography

of sources from the fourth

_region

_{(Caribbean/Central}

and South

_{America), prepared by}

Leticia

_Rodriguez

_Talavera,

is

avail-able at

_BCQ

on the Web.

Several shared

_propositions

about research in business communi-cation _emerge from these articles:

. Teaching

and research go hand-in-hand.

. To enhance business

_practice,

research must center on authentic

texts.

. Research must be

_{multidisciplinary.}

.

Cross-cultural communications and intercultural

_negotiations

comprise important

research areas.

. Language

learning, linguistic analyses,

and discourse

_patterns

are

central areas of

_{investigation.}

These

_propositions

match those in other definitions of the

_discipline

in,

for

_example,

The

_{Journal of}

Business Communication

_(Locker,

_1998);

Business Commul1ieatiol1

_Quarterly

_(June,

_1996);

and

_Managemerzt

Commu-nication

_{Quarterly (August, 1996).}

That match _suggests some consensus.

The six articles in this

Forum, however,

also _{suggest issues} that are

highly significant

in some international contexts but which have not

been

_{systematically}

discussed. These

issues,

I

_believe,

merit our

atten-tion as

_they

_impact

our work and

_growth

as a

_global

research

commu-nity :

One involves the connection between research and national

agendas;

the other involves our divided

_perspective

on

_English.

National

Agendas

Every

author associates business communication research activities

with the achievement of national

_goals

and

_public

service. This

asso-ciation is

_explicit,

for

_example,

in Nakasako’s

_recounting

of business communication’s historical

_development

in

_Japan,

which he traces to

the _{1934 formation} of The

_Japan

Business

_English

Association. This

Association,

Nakasako

_explains,

was created in an effort &dquo;to _promote

more

effective,

efficient,

productive,

and safe ways to further

_Japan’s

export/import

interests

_{by presenting}

research related to

_trading

transactions

and

_by

_appraising

the

_Japanese

_public

of the theoretical and

_practical

uses of Business

_{English.&dquo; Taking}

a

_{regional perspective,}

Tan _reports that &dquo;business communication research in

_Malaysia

and

Singapore emerged

in

_part

from a felt need to serve the

_dynamic

eco-nomic

_growth

in the Pacific Rim

_{region.&dquo;}

Charles and

_Yli-Jokipii

tie

their communication research efforts to

_{participation}

in the

_European

Union.

McLaren connects research in Australia and New Zealand with

national efforts to

_provide

the

_public

with documents that are easier

to

_understand,

efforts

_involving

research on

_{plain English}

and

docu-ment

_{design (e.g.,}

The Tax Law

_Improvement

_Project

of the Federal Inland Revenue

_Department).

McLaren further cites a seminal

_study

on the

_public

role of communication scholars.

_Noting

the role of

busi-ness communication research in Canadian

_{public policy,}

Sutcliffe describes government

funding

for

_{&dquo;applied}

research

_projects

that can

be used

_by

_government and

_industry

_groups

_{seeking input}

for social

and economic

_policy

formation.&dquo; She further contends that the

chal-lenge

for researchers is &dquo;to understand business communication as a

nation-building activity

and as an

_activity

that can

_potentially

trans-form the nation.&dquo;

Nakasako and Sutcliffe also associate cultural studies in our field

with national

objectives.

Nakasako describes

_Japanese

business

com-munication efforts as inclined toward

_attaining

the

_highest

levels of

success in the

_global

economy

through

&dquo;a

_deep

_{understanding}

of the cultures of all the

_parties

involved.&dquo;

_Using

this cultural

_knowledge,

he

suggests, should allow

_Japanese

to subordinate their cultural

inclina-tions in order to succeed in international

_{negotiations.}

_By

contrast, Sutcliffe

_speaks

of &dquo;Canada’s cultural

_identity

crisis&dquo; and asks for

more studies that look at Canada as a

&dquo;unique

culture,

worthy

of the

same attention we

_give

to

_{understanding}

business communication in

Japan,

Germany,

and the US.&dquo; In

_fact,

she

_applauds

Graves’s efforts to

discern &dquo;what may be

uniquely

Canadian about Canada’s business communication.&dquo;

The fact that business communication research activities are tied

to national

_agendas

raises a number of

_questions

for us as an

associa-tion of researchers and teachers:

. How is business communication research

_supported

and influ-enced

_by

national

_political

interests in various

_regions?

To what

extent do such interests enable and constrain research? . Should researchers

_intensify

efforts to obtain research

_support

from national and international

_{organizations?}

. How do national interests

_impact

international research collabora-tions ?

. Does nationalism color the

_teaching

of business communication? Are national concerns

_impeding

efforts to

_help

students under-stand what it means to conduct business from a

_{global perspective?}

The

English

Divide

These authors’

_descriptions

also _suggest that we share a keen interest

in

_English

as an international business

_language,

but that we teach and

_study

it from

_quite

different

_{perspectives.}

On the one

_hand,

as

Yli-Jokipii

and Charles

_explain,

business communication involves the

study

of

_language

and the discourse of business events;

_along

similar

lines,

Nakasako describes

_English

as the

_language

of trade.

Then,

too,

English

is the

_{language by}

which we associate

_{internationally;}

it is the

language

of ABC and the

_{primary language}

for research

_publications

worldwide

_{(Ahmad, 1997).}

On the other

hand,

English

also divides us.

As a

_community

of

_{scholar-teachers,}

we understand

_English

from two

very different vantage

points:

Some of us possess

English

as a mother

tongue; others do not. And this difference matters, I believe.

_Exactly

how it matters is hinted at in the

_opening

statement of Charles’s

article: ’

.

Research on oral business communication in

_Europe

is

_deeply

rooted in the multicultural and

_{multilingual reality}

of the continent. Most

European

business

_people

(with the

_{possible exception}

of the

_British)

must use at least one

_{foreign language}

to do business.

In

_separating

&dquo;the

_{British,&dquo;}

Charles

_implies

that the

_{&dquo;multilingual}

real-ity&dquo;

that is part and

_parcel

of business transactions in most of

_Europe

is less so in

_{English-speaking}

Britain.

_So,

too,

multilingualism, English

articles on business communication activities in

_{Europe, Japan,}

and

Malaysia,

but not the articles on activities in

_{English-speaking}

coun-tries,

as shown in McLaren’s

_piece

about Australia and New Zealand

(which

does have one

_paragraph

on the

_Maori).

Even Sutcliffe writes from the

_perspective

of

_{English-based}

_Canada,

_although

the situation

would be

different,

one _expects, in

_Quebec.

Evidence that this

_English

divide has some real

_implications

for

our international business communication

_community

_became

appar-ent

_during

a session at the _{1997 International} ABC Convention. Pre-sented

by

Ayseli

Usluata and titled

_{&dquo;Using English}

as the Medium of

Instruction in the Business Communication Class in

_{Turkey,&dquo;}

the

ses-sion revealed that students at

_{Bogazici University}

in Istanbul resented the need to subordinate their own

_language

to learn

_English

for

busi-ness purposes. Other non-native

_{English speakers}

at the session iden-tified with Usluata’s observation.

_{Taking objection,}

a native

_English

speaker

in attendance commented that she was the ultimate

loser,

having

been &dquo;robbed&dquo; of her mother tongue as well as the

_pressing

need to become

_bilingual

herself. These two reactions to

_English

are

not

_unique:

Consider Louhiala-Salminen’s

_discovery

that

_employees

at a Finnish

_export

_company

_{regarded English}

as

&dquo;just

a code I use&dquo;

and a &dquo;cultureless&dquo;

_language

_(1997,

_p.

₃₁₇₎

and consider the

_implicit

resentment in the claim that &dquo;the

_{English language...is strengthening}

its

_{dominating grip&dquo;}

_(Ahmad,

_1997,

_p.6).

These

_perspectives

suggest

that,

_although

we

_study

_English

all the

_time,

we have _yet to consider how our different

_perspectives

on _{it may be}

_influencing

our own work as well as how we

_interpret

the work of others.

. Is miscommunication

_{taking place}

between native and non-native

speakers

of

_{English doing}

business communication research worldwide

_and,

if so, what is the

impact

on our research and its

interpretation?

. Given the

_importance

of

_English

for international business

trans-actions and the attention it receives in business communication

teaching

and

research,

what difference does it make that some of us understand

_English

as a second

_language

while for others it is

the &dquo;mother

_{tongue&dquo;?}

How is either

_{perspective advantaged}

and

disadvantaged?

. Relative to other

_languages,

what is the contribution of

_English

to

Of course, this issue is further

complicated

when we consider that many

Englishes

are

operating

within our research

_community,

each

deeply

rooted in our individual cultural realities and each

involving

unique

linguistic

effects. International

_{colleagues, especially}

those who

_{speak English}

as a second

_{(or third,}

or

_{fourth ...)}

_language,

are

helping

us to

_place

such issues on the research

_agenda.

Moreover,

which

_English

to teach and in what way remain

questions

for

peda-gogical

researchers worldwide. As Nakasako and Tan _comment, some

programs are

_moving

away from the ESL and BE

approaches,

while

others,

as Charles notes, continue to link business communication with ESL and BE.

Relatedly,

it could prove informative to _{compare research and}

teaching

efforts in

_European

countries,

where the focus is on

con-trastive

_language

studies

(see

Charles and

_{Yli-Jokipii),}

with

_Japan’s

seemingly singular

quest

for

proficiency

in the

_{&dquo;English}

of trade.&dquo; Or

to _compare views on

_English

in the US with those in

Singapore,

where

_English

has in some

_respects

become the native tongue.

(As

a

Chinese

_Singaporean

banker

_recently

reminded me,

&dquo;My

mother

tongue is

English

not

_{Cantonese!&dquo;)}

Next

Steps

These articles

_suggest

that business communication researchers

worldwide

_comprise

an identifiable _{group of}

loosely

connected

indi-viduals who share common views of the field. Collaborative

endeav-ors are also evident:

McLaren,

for

_{example, relays}

how &dquo;communi-cation-needs

_{analyses&dquo;}

conducted in US

accounting

firms were

subse-quently

conducted in New

Zealand;

Charles describes a multifaceted

European-American

project involving &dquo;shadowing&dquo;

managers in

Eng-land,

Finland, Sweden,

and the United States. In

_fact,

ABC itself has become a kind of academic United Nations-a

working

body

with

international members who retain

_autonomy

while

_seeking

mutual

understanding,

cooperation,

and _support to advance business

commu-nication research and

_teaching.

To shift the

_analogy,

_however,

we may need to work toward a more

_{integrated global community}

of

scholar-teachers. An

_{integrated body}

would

_probably

look more like the

emerging

European

Union than the UN.

_Building

such a

_body

would

require

more

_willful,

_organized

efforts to

_identify

and reduce barriers

inhibiting

the trade of

_ideas,

much as our ABC home _{page and}

Web-sites,

conference

roundtables,

and think tanks have done. Even more, it would

_{require continuing}

efforts toward

_developing

a kind of

com-mon currency for

global

knowledge production

and

_exchange,

improving

our distribution systems and networks to disseminate

research and

_pedagogical

_materials,

as well as

_reaching

some

consen-sus

regarding

our communal

_goals

and

_global

standards for

member-ship.

And,

I

_believe,

it would

_{require coming}

to terms with issues such

as our

differing

national commitments and our divided

_perspective

on

English. ’1’

I ’ ..:..&dquo;. ~ . .. ,

References

Ahmad, U. K.

_{(1997). Scientific Research}

Articles in _Malay: A Situated Discourse

Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

_Michigan.

Andrews, D. C. (1988). Technical Communication in the Global _{Community. Upper} Sad-dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Graves, R. (1997). ’Dear Friend’ (?): Culture and genre in American and Canadian direct _marketing letters.

_{The Journal of}

Business _{Communication, 34}

_(3),

_235-252.

Hagen, P. _(1998).

_Teaching

American business _writing in Russia:

Cross-cultures/cross-purposes. Journal

of

Business and Technical Communication, 12 _(1),

109-126.

Locker, K. O. (1998). The role of The Association for Business Communication in

shaping

business communication as an academic

_discipline.

The Journal

of

Business Communication, 35

(1),14-49.

Louhiala-Salminen, L.

_(July

_1997).

_{Investigating}

_{the genre of} a business fax: A Finnish case

_study.

The

_Journal

_of

Business Communication ₃₄

_(3),316-333.

Europe:

Oral Business Communication

Mirjaliisa

Charles

Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland

RESEARCH on oral business communication in

_Europe

is

deeply

rooted in the multicultural and

_multilingual

reality

of the continent. Most

_European

_{businesspeople}

(with

the

_possible

_exception

of the

British)

must use at least one

_foreign

_language

to do business. For most, that

foreign language

is

English-with

French and German

hav-ing

clear

_{significance.}

It is no

_surprise,

therefore,

that

_European

busi-ness communication research is

_closely

linked with the needs of

foreign

language

learning

and

_teaching.

Indeed,

instead of

_speaking

about business

communication, researchers,

teachers,

and trainers