Masaryk University English As a Lingua Franca Used at International

Masaryk University Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

English as a Lingua Franca Used at International Meetings

Bachelor Thesis

Brno 2015

Supervisor: Written by: Mgr. Jana Zerzová, M.A., Ph.D. Jana Baran čicová

Prohlášení Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalá řskou práci vypracovala samostatn ě, s využitím pouze citovaných literárních pramen ů, dalších informací a zdroj ů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o zm ěně n ěkterých zákon ů (autorský zákon), ve zn ění pozd ějších p ředpis ů.

V Brn ě dne 5. b řezna 2015 Jana Baran čicová

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mgr. Jana Zerzová, M.A., Ph.D. for her kind supervision and valuable advice she provided to me during my work on this bachelor thesis and to my foreign colleagues without whose help it would not have been possible to write the practical part.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Theoretical Part...... 2 1. Position of English...... 2 1.1 Historical Overview ...... 2 1.1.1 How it Began...... 2 1.1.2 Base for the Future Global Language ...... 4 1.1.3 Next Step on the Way to Global Language...... 5 1.2 Reasons for a Global Language ...... 5 1.2.1 English in International Organisations...... 6 1.2.2 English in International Trade...... 6 1.2.3 English in Scientific World...... 7 1.2.4 English in the Media ...... 7 1.2.5 English in the Tourists’ World...... 8 1.2.6 English in the Air and on the Seas and Oceans...... 9 1.2.7 English in the Computer World ...... 9 1.2.8 English and Education...... 10 2. English as a Lingua Franca...... 10 2.1 Defining the Terms...... 10 2.2 English as a Global Language...... 11 2.3 English as an International Language ...... 12 2.4 English as a Lingua Franca ...... 12 2.4.1 A Lingua Franca in General...... 12 2.4.2 Defining English as a Lingua Franca ...... 13 2.4.3 English as a Lingua Franca versus English as a Foreign Language...... 15 3. Describing ELF...... 17 3.1 General Description...... 17 3.2 Linguistic Description...... 18 3.2.1 Phonology...... 18 3.2.2 Lexicogrammar ...... 20 3.2.3 Pragmatics ...... 23 3.2.4 Written Language...... 23 3.3 Summary ...... 24 4. Future of English...... 25

Practical Part ...... 27 5. English Used at International Meetings...... 27 6. Description of the Survey ...... 29 7. Non-Native Speakers...... 30 7.1 General questions ...... 30 7.1.1 Mother Tongue and Foreign Languages ...... 30 7.1.2 Requirement to Prove One’s Knowledge...... 31 7.1.3 Real Knowledge of English...... 33

7.1.4 Differences in English among Nations...... 35 7.2 Questions Related to International Meetings ...... 37 8. Native Speakers ...... 40 8.1 Do Mistakes Matter? ...... 40 8.2 Should Native Speakers Adapt?...... 42 8.2.1 Adapting in General ...... 42 8.2.2 Being “Too English”? ...... 45 8.2.3 Is Training Necessary? ...... 47 8.3 Attitude towards Lingua Franca...... 49

Conclusion...... 50 List of References ...... 51 Appendix 1 Questionnaire for non-native speakers...... i Appendix 2 Questionnaire for native speakers ...... v

Introduction

The thesis deals with the use of English as a lingua franca.

The aim of the theoretical part is to define the term English as a lingua franca. The thesis describes the process how English has become globally used and gives examples of areas where English is used as a common communication tool. It defines linguistic features of English used as a lingua franca in the areas of phonology, lexicogrammar and pragmatics and it also specifies how English as a lingua franca applies in written language. It explains the differences between English as a lingua franca and English as a foreign language. It also clarifies the terms “global” and “international” language.

The practical part concentrates on the environment of international meetings where English is used as a lingua franca. The aim of the practical research done through a survey among members of a NATO working group is to find out how native and non-native speakers feel about English used as a lingua franca during international meetings and how these two groups of speakers see each other in multinational interaction.

The chapters dealing with non-native speakers concentrate on the level of knowledge of English (both given by certificates and real knowledge) and on how native speakers cope with the English used during the meetings (whether they have problems with understanding or they sometimes get lost in a discussion or whether they sometimes decide not join it for language reasons).

The chapters dealing with the views of English native speakers should establish what approach they have towards mistakes made by non-native speakers, whether native speakers should adjust the way they speak at international meetings and how they generally view the fact that their mother tongue is used all around the world.

Theoretical Part

1. Position of English English has a unique position in the world today. It has become a global language, a lingua franca. No other language has been in such a position as English is today, this can be represented by the number of speakers of this language. Graddol, for example, presents the following figures differentiating types of speakers (10):

• First-language speakers or native speakers, i.e. those speakers for whom English is the mother tongue (Great Britain, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand): 375 million; • Second-language speakers, i.e. those speakers use English as an additional language besides their mother tongue, usually because it has a special position or special status, for example it is an official language of the country (as in Nigeria, India or South Africa): 375 million; • Speakers who learn English as a foreign language (as in the Czech Republic, Poland, Russia or China): 750 million.

The figures are only estimates and it is very probable that since 2000, when the book was written, the numbers have risen but they offer quite a useful overview of the “power” of English. The next chapter will attempt to show how it happened that English has become so widely used.

1.1 Historical Overview

1.1.1 How it Began

The story of English started in the 5th century and it is connected with the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Germanic tribes, the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes arrived from areas that are now called Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and started a new period both in English history and language. Although these tribes were invited to Britain to fight for the country, their real intention was to enslave it (Crystal, Encyclopedia 6).

The fighting went on for several decades, but the imposition of Anglo-Saxon power was never in doubt. Over a period of about a hundred years, further bands of immigrants continued to arrive, and Anglo-Saxon settlements spread to all areas apart from the highlands of the west and north. By the end of the 5th century, the foundation was establishe d for the emergence of the English language. (Crystal, Encyclopedia 7)

As Crystal mentions, the invaders were at first called Saxons by Latin writers even though they belonged to different tribes. Slowly, the term “Angli” (Angles) started to be used and the term “Angli” or “Anglia” were established Latin names for the country in the 7th century. Based on the terms used for the people and for the country, the term for the language itself emerged - it was “Englics” ( Encyclopedia 7).

However, the road from the Old English to the English of the 21st century has been long. The language has undergone some substantial changes. One of the fundamental changes took place during the 11th and 12th centuries. Crystal talks about “[a change] without precedent in the history of the language, and without parallel thereafter” ( Encyclopedia 32). The change included the loss of inflections and its replacement by word order was one of the factors on the way to modern English (Graddol 7). Walters also adds the fact that “declensions and grammatical genders disappeared, tenses relaxed, and the list of irregular verbs stabilised, the language registered the blossoming of idiomatic expressions” (n. pag.).

Sometimes these features of English, such as the way the declension or conjugation is done, seem to be taken as one of the reasons why English has become so widely used all around the world. A typical argument would be that English is, thanks to these features, easier to learn and use. However, Crystal does not agree. He argues that “ease of learning has nothing to do with it” ( Global Language 8). To support his argument he gives an example of Latin that used to be a lingua franca in the past, although there are a lot of inflections and gender differences. The same argument can be used about French, the lingua franca of the diplomatic world (Global Language 8). At the same time even Crystal admits that there might be something appealing about English. He names two distinctive features: first of all, it is its “cosmopolitan” character created by the fact that English has borrowed a lot of words from other languages and, secondly, it could be the “absence [...] of a system of coding social class differences, which can make the language appear more ‘democratic’”. On the other hand, “the accumulated irregularities of its spelling system” might appear as much less appealing (Global Language 8).

1.1.2 Base for the Future Global Language

The era of modern English began in the 15th century and the spreading of English started in colonial times (Walters n. pag.). “Britain’s colonial expansion established the preconditions for the global use of English, taking the language from its island birthplace to settlements around the world. [...] As a world language its history began in the 17th century, most notably in the foundation of the American colonies” (Graddol 6).

In this context, it is quite interesting to compare numbers given by Crystal who states that at the end of the 16th century:

[…] the number of mother-tongue English speakers in the world is thought to have been between 5 and 7 million, almost all of the living in the British Isles. Between the end of the reign of Elizabeth I (1603) and the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth II (1952), this figure increased almost fiftyfold, to some 250 million, the vast majority living outside the British Isles. ( Global Language 30)

These figures show that the colonial expansion was the beginning of a new era for the English language. It was quite an extraordinary journey of the language as it travelled “from the United States to Australia, from South Africa to Canada, but also from Nigeria to India” (Walters n. pag.). Thanks to the expansion the language spread, being carried on the wings of the British Empire, and it was the British Empire that built the foundations for the English language as a global language and “in the 19th century the British Empire, with its distinctive mix of trade and cultural politics, consolidated the world position of English, creating a ‘language on which the sun never sets’” (Graddol 6).

While English was brought by the Empire to countries where it became the mother tongue (for example USA, Canada or Australia), it was also brought to countries with their own mother tongues but in many instances it stayed there and gained a special status (Crystal, Global Language 4). To give a few examples: English has become an official language in South Africa, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya or Namibia.

However, there was one more factor that had an impact on the position of English related to the British Empire besides the spreading of the language while the Empire was expanding. It was the Industrial revolution. As Crystal points out, “by the beginning of the nineteenth

century, Britain had become the world’s leading industrial and trading nation. [...] Most of the innovations of the Industrial revolution were of British origin.” ( Global Language 80) and he adds that if people wanted to use these innovation and benefit from them, they had to learn English unless it were their mother tongue. It means that English was pouring out to the world through the inventions that kept reinforcing the position of the language.

1.1.3 Next Step on the Way to Global Language

Even though the British Empire managed to prepare good conditions for the English language and without it English would not be what it is today, it is not sure whether it would have kept its position once the British Empire started to fall apart:

Yet the world position of English might have declined with the Empire, like the languages of other European colonial powers, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, had it not been for the dramatic rise of the US in the 20th century as a world superpower. (Graddol 8)

The United States of America has played a very important role in the process of keeping English at the top and widely used. The fact that the USA has been a leading country in the area of technical progress and scientific research means that when a new product was developed, it was necessary to name it and the name, the new term “entering” the language had to be in English (Walters n. pag.). Basically, the situation was quite similar to the period of Industrial revolution when Britain was the industrial and innovative leader of the world. In the 20th century the same circumstances in the USA provided the same help and support to the language through new products, inventions and innovations as the British ones in the 18th and 19th century and the leading position of the USA keeps supporting it today.

1.2 Reasons for a Global Language

The previous part of this chapter summarises the events that have led towards the current position of English from a historical point of view but it is necessary to examine also the factors or reasons connected with these historical events that have helped English to gain its position. It has just been described how English made its way from England to the whole world during the colonial era but as Crystal points out “when a language arrives in a new

country, it does not necessarily come to be adopted. It has to prove its worth” ( Global Language 77).

What Crystal means is that it does not matter how far a language travels or how much it is spread, if there is no reason for it to stay and be used there. In the case of English the second half of the 20th century provided a lot of reasons for English to keep its position or rather to improve it very much. Both Crystal and Graddol agree that the years after the WWII were crucial and decisive from the point of view of the English language and its leading position in the world and Crystal puts an extra emphasis on the speed with which the expansion of the language has taken place:

No other language has spread around the globe so extensively, but [...] what is impressive is not so much the grand total but the speed with which expansion has taken place since the 1950s. In 1950, the case for English as a world language would have been no more than plausible. Fifty years on, and the case is virtually unassailable. ( Global Language 71)

Both of these authors concentrate on a few areas where English has proven to be either a good communication tool or where the dominance of Britain or the USA has forced the rest of the world to learn and use English in order to be able to join the area or to benefit from its results.

1.2.1 English in International Organisations

International organisations are one of many areas where there is a big need for a common language. The League of Nations was founded shortly after WWI and as Crystal stresses it was the first international organisation where English was one of the official languages. When it was replaced by the United Nations in 1945, English kept its position. Crystal estimates that English is used as an official language in more than 85% of international organisations in the world ( Global Language 87).

1.2.2 English in International Trade

In today’s global world, thousands of business transactions happen every day. Goods are transported from one continent to another and companies which employ people with different mother tongues are the rule rather than the exception. It is obvious that a common language is needed. Although in Europe the position of English is not unambiguous as German and

French still play an important role, English is the language used for communication outside Europe (Graddol 29).

1.2.3 English in Scientific World

English has become the language of scientific publications. As Graddol notes, English replaced German in this area after WWII: “The growing role of the US then ensured that English became, once again, the global language of experiment and discovery” (9). Nowadays, if a scientist wants to become part of the scientific world, he or she has to publish in English, or at least write a summary in English to make sure other scientists are able to get some basic information about their research.

1.2.4 English in the Media

The influence of English in the media is enormous. In the area of the press where English has been an important medium for nearly 400 years there are some estimates stating that the top five most influential newspapers on the world scale are in English: American papers The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and British papers The Times and The Sunday Times (Crystal, Global Language 91 - 92) but in the area of broadcasting it is much more difficult to make some estimates, although it is clear that English was the first language to be transmitted by radio in 1906, it was the first language of a commercial radio (in Pittsburgh in 1920) and English was also a language of the first television broadcasting (BBC in 1936) (Crystal, Global Language 95 - 96).

English has also become the language of advertising because it is the language of the international market and also because it is connected to American products known in the whole world (Kodak, Coca Cola, McDonald’s to name a few). As Crystal adds, the English advertisements are not only more numerous, in countries where English has no special status, but they are usually the most noticeable ( Global Language 94).

In the world of cinema the dominance of English is demonstrated by the fact that once sound was added to the technology that had started in Britain and France, English began to dominate thanks to the USA, where feature films emerged together with the start of the film studios in Hollywood. Nowadays, most feature films are in English and it is difficult to find

a blockbuster movie that would not be in English ( Global Language 99). The situation is very similar in the area of popular music as Crystal describes. Not only gramophone record, magnetic tapes and LP disks were invented in the United States but “when modern popular music arrived, it was almost entirely an English scene” and it seems that if somebody wants to become an international singing star, he or she has to start singing in English ( Global Language 102-103).

1.2.5 English in the Tourists’ World

English has become almost a universal communication tool for people travelling all over the world. About a half century ago, people did not travel as often and as far as they travel today. The following figure shows the difference very well:

Fig. 1 Development of world tourism 1950 - 1990 (Graddol 36)

All the people who travel need a common language and English seems to have become a useful one. Crystal describes the situation giving a few examples:

In the tourist spots of the world, accordingly, the signs in the shop windows are most commonly in English. Restaurant menus tend to have a parallel version in English. Credit card facilities, such as American Express and Mastercard, are most noticeably in English. ( Global Language 104)

[F]or those whose international travel brings them into a world of package holiday, business meetings, academic conferences, international conventions community rallies, sporting occasions, military occupations and other ‘official’ gatherings, the domains of transportation and accommodation are mediated through the use of English as an auxiliary language. Safety instructions on international flights and sailings, information about emergency procedures in hotels, and directions to major

locations are now increasingly in English alongside local languages. ( Global Language 105)

It is obvious that English has become one of the requirements for becoming successful in the tourist industry.

1.2.6 English in the Air and on the Seas and Oceans

In 1951, the International Civil Aviation Organisation agreed that English should be the international language of aviation when pilots and controllers speak different languages (Crystal, Global Language 108). The reason was clear: there is always a need for a common language when safety and human lives are at stake. “Airspeak” is not the only example of simplified English used a means of communication all around the world. Another example is “Seaspeak”. English has been recognised as the international language of the sea for a long time but as late as in 1980 a project was set up to produce “Essential English for International Maritime Use” that is quite restricted in comparison to everyday English but still has considerable expressive power ( Global Language 106).

1.2.7 English in the Computer World

It has already been noted that the USA has been the leading country in technical innovations and technical progress as such, so it is no surprise to see the same in the area of computers and mainly the Internet. As Graddol puts it:

English and computers have seemed, for decades, to go together. Computers and the programs which make them useful were largely the inventions of English speaking countries. The hardware and software reflected the need of the English language. (30)

And it is not just the issue of hardware and software. The American invention of Internet has changed completely the way people communicate with each other. It enables them to send messages from one continent to another within seconds; they can talk to each other and see each other at the same time thanks to applications such as Skype. When they do this, they need a common language and as Crystal points out “English continues to be the chief lingua franca of the Internet” ( Global Language 117).

1.2.8 English and Education

The area of education is rather different from the areas mentioned above. It cannot be listed as one of the reasons but it is more a consequence of the position of English as a global language. If English has entered all the mentioned areas and many others, it means that knowledge of English is essential to enter these areas and to be able to communicate successfully. That is why more and more people study English. According to the Eurostat news release from 2013, in the European Union in 2011:

83% of pupils at primary & lower secondary level and 94% of those in upper secondary level general programmes were studying English as a foreign language. The second most commonly studied foreign language at both primary & lower secondary level and upper secondary level was French (19% of pupils in primary & lower secondary level and 23% in upper secondary), followed by German (9% and 21%) and Spanish (6% and 18%). (n. pag.)

Graddol cites a recent study of foreign-language learning in 25 countries which shows that English is the most popular modern language studied worldwide. He gives an example of Russia where 60% of secondary school students take English lessons, 25% German and 15% French (40).

The popularity of English at schools goes hand in hand with the position of English in the world. As long as English keeps the current position, it will keep its popularity among students.

2. English as a Lingua Franca

2.1 Defining the Terms

First-language and second-language speakers of English as well as foreign-speakers of English have already been mentioned in this thesis together with the numbers to show the unique position of English in today’s world. Before it is possible to define English as a lingua franca (henceforth ELF), it is necessary to introduce Kachru’s “circles” of English. One of the reasons is that most authors writing about English as a global language or ELF use his model and make reference to it. Another reason is that his model is a good way to show different groups of speakers of English in context.

Fig. 2 Three circles of English by Kachru (Crystal, Global Language 61)

When Kachru describes the spread of English around the world, he uses the following terms: • The Inner Circle (represents countries where English is the first language or mother tongue); • The Outer or Expanding Circle (represents countries where English plays an important role as the second language and has an institutionalized position); • The Expanding Circle (represents countries where English is taught as a foreign language) (qtd. in Crystal, Global Language 60).

Kachru’s circles illustrate the different groups including the numbers and they even help in understanding the spread of English all around the world. Based on this wide spread of English, new terms have been used to describe the unique position of the language: English is called a global or world language, international language or lingua franca.

2.2 English as a Global Language

There is probably no dispute that English has become a global language. The status of English as a global language has been confirmed as it is used by more people than any other language. The statistics suggests that about a quarter of the world’s population is either fluent or competent in English, and the number keeps growing; in the early 2000s it was about 1.5

billion people (Crystal, Global Language 6). As Crystal adds, there is even a better to way to acknowledge that a language has become global: when no one can claim its sole ownership and when its usage is not restricted by countries (Global Language 141).

2.3 English as an International Language

When a phenomenon is described as international, it usually means that it involves more countries or that it goes over borders. English certainly is used for international communication among millions of people of various nationalities every day. In this respect English no doubt deserves the title “an international language”. Seidlhofer, however, when defining English as an international language (henceforth EIL), differentiates between English as a means of “intra-national” and “inter-national” communication ( Understanding English 3- 4). The former is defined as “localized EIL”. Although it is based on international spread of English under the colonial rule, it has been institutionalized as a local means of communication in the Outer Circle countries. The latter can be marked as “globalized EIL”. In this case English is used really internationally as a global means of communication at business meetings, at conferences, in tourist facilities and so on and these conversations happen across all the three Kachru’s Circles. As Seidlhofer adds about the globalized EIL,

[i]t is the massive and increasing extent of these uses, stimulated by developments in electronic communication and enhanced mobility, that has been primarily responsible for establishing English globally as the predominant international language - English as a Lingua Franca. ( Understanding English 4)

2.4 English as a Lingua Franca

2.4.1 A Lingua Franca in General

Generally speaking, a lingua franca is “a language adopted as a common language between speakers whose native languages are different” (Oxford Dictionaries). It is a language that people choose when their mother tongues are different but they need to speak to each other for various reasons for example for business, administrative or diplomatic purposes. There have been several languages in the history that served as a lingua franca and most of them faced the same fate: their importance kept fading and they gradually lost their position and some of them even disappeared completely.

The term was first used during the Middle Ages to describe a French- and Italian- based jargon, or pidgin, that was developed by Crusaders and traders in the eastern Mediterranean and characterised by the invariant forms of its nouns, verbs, and adjectives. These changes have been interpreted as simplifications of the Romance languages. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Encyclopaedia Britannica gives us more examples of languages that used to be lingua francas, for example Aramaic in Southwest Asia (in the Persian Empire) from the 7th century BC to approximately 650 AD. Latin was the lingua franca of European scholars until the 18th century. Portuguese served the same purpose during European explorations from the 15th to the 18th century as a diplomatic and trade language in coastal Africa and in Asian coastal areas from the Indian Ocean to Japan. Malay was used at about the same time in Southeast Asia by Arab and Chinese traders.

Arabic also played an important role as the vast Islamic Empire needed a common language. Arabic spread together with the Empire and expanded into China, India, parts of Central Asia, the Middle East, Northern Africa, and parts of Southern Europe. It was also a lingua franca of science and diplomacy in the 1200’s because more books were written in Arabic than any other language at that time (Briney n. pag.).

French was recognized as a diplomatic lingua franca in the 18th century but its importance has been declining since the WWI, although it still keeps a special position in some organizations such as NATO where it works as one of the official languages besides English. As Walters points out, it was the Treaty of Versailles that was written for the first time in both French and English and thus the treaty was the first document that guaranteed the diplomatic status of English (n. pag.).

2.4.2 Defining English as a Lingua Franca

If the goal is to define ELF, it is not possible to be content with the general definition of the term “lingua franca” because in the most general sense, a lingua franca is not a mother tongue. Crystal calls it a “common language”. It was originally a simplified language (a pidgin) and it was created as a combination of the different mother tongues of people who used it or it was a language accepted from outside the community (for example French ) for

political, economic, religious or other reasons ( Global Language 11). Thus, a lingua franca had no native speakers. As Jenkins explains:

[…], 'lingua franca' has come to mean a language variety used between people who speak different first languages and for none of whom it is the mother tongue. In other words, according to this interpretation, a lingua franca has no native speakers. (“ELF at the gate” n. pag.)

However, it is evident that English has native speakers; it has already been mentioned that their number is approximately 375 million. It is not possible to completely exclude them from the interaction and communication. Therefore, both Jenkins and Seidlhofer prefer to define ELF in a rather different way. Jenkins cites a definition from the VOICE (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English) website, which defines ELF as “an additionally acquired language system which serves as a common means of communication for speakers of different first languages” (“Review of Developments” 283). Seidlhofer’s definition says that ELF is “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option” ( Understanding English 7).

In this respect, of course, speakers using ELF are in a different position than speakers of a lingua franca understood in the traditional sense: they have a model they can follow; they have the “ideal” they can attempt to approximate to as much as possible. The question is whether they really do it or whether they should do it, which will be discussed later (see chapter 2.4.3).

However, there is an incomparable situation: there is a language with quite a high number of native speakers. At the same time there are non-native speakers of this language whose number - taking into account the numbers of speakers in the Outer and Expanding Circle - is much higher than the number of native speakers (375 million native speakers versus 375 million speakers who use English as a second language plus 750 million speakers who use English as a foreign language as cited from Graddol in chapter 1). The ratio of native to non- native speakers is probably 1:3 (Crystal, Global Language 69). Another way to describe this situation is to quote the German author Beneke who estimates that “80 per cent of all communication involving the use of English as a second or foreign language does not involve any native speakers of English” (qtd. in Seidlhofer, Understanding English 2). What does it mean for the language?

It means that there is an unprecedented linguistic situation because for the first time in history, a language has reached global dimensions and at the same time its native speakers are a minority, which implies that they are less likely to set the linguistic reference norm (Seidlhofer, Understanding English 7). If there is a majority of non-native speakers in the world, inevitably it will be them who will start adjusting the language according to their needs and communication purposes (as will be shown later) and this is what makes English the real lingua franca because the language “has taken on a life of its own, in principle independent to a considerable degree of the norms established by its native users” (Seidlhofer, Understanding English 8).

2.4.3 English as a Lingua Franca versus English as a Foreign Language

ELF as any other lingua franca is mostly used among speakers for whom English is either a second or a foreign language. It has already been mentioned in the previous chapter that 80 per cent of these conversations quite probably do not involve any native speakers. Yet, the native English is still the “target” or “goal” for these non-native speakers and their effort is supported by their teachers. It is, however, questionable, whether such an approach is reasonable and whether it makes sense.

When speakers learn a language as a foreign language (in this case, English as a foreign language, henceforth EFL), their “focus is very much on where the language comes from, who its native speakers are, and what cultural associations are bound up with it” (Seidlhofer, Understanding English 17). For them, certainly English as a native language (henceforth ENL) is the model that they try to get as close as they can mainly because they want to communicate with native speakers of that language, they are interested in the history, literature, films or music of the countries of the Inner Circle and they also might learn that language because they want to work, study or live in the country where this language is a mother tongue. In such a case

[...] it is to be expected that non-native speakers (learners and teachers) will defer to NS [native speakers’] norms of using the language - not only in terms of what is grammatically correct but also of what is situationally appropriate and typical, with all the fine nuances, resonances, and allusions embedded in shared knowledge and experience acting as ‘membershipping’ devices.” (Seidlhofer, Understanding English 17)

On the contrary, speakers who use ELF certainly have different goals. They use English to achieve communication goals at business meetings, during conferences, while travelling and so on. While doing so, they do not need to know anything about the history or culture of the countries where English is a mother tongue. Their knowledge of English also quite probably differs, so they have to “adjust” what they say and mainly how they say it to the current partners in conversation. In this respect, they have to be very flexible. They also do not try to speak English as perfectly as possible. That is why Seidlhofer argues that “it would be interactionally counter-productive, even patently absurd in most cases, for speakers to (strive to) adhere to ENL linguacultural norms when no ENL speakers may even be present” (Understanding English 18). The differences between ELF and EFL are very clearly shown in the following table:

Table 1: Conceptual differences between EFL and ELF Foreign language (EFL) Lingua franca (ELF) Linguacultural norms pre-existing, re-affirmed ad hoc, negotiated Objectives integration, membership in intelligibility, communication NS community in a NNS-NS interaction 1 Processes imitation, adoption accommodation, adaptation Source: Seidlhofer, Understanding English 18

These arguments of course raise the question whether ELF should be taught in the same way as EFL. As the table above shows, goals of ELF and EFL learners are very different. This being said, does it make sense to teach both these groups in the same way? It quite probably does not. It would, though, require much more space to define the differences between teaching ELF and EFL and to specify whether, how and in what extent ELF should be taught and/or included into the current methodology of teaching.

Therefore, it will only be noted here that quite a lot of teachers still teach only EFL and they do not take the ELF perspective into account (some of them are probably not even aware of the ELF concept). As Jenkins points out, it is essential for “teachers to reconsider their beliefs and practices and make informed decisions about the significance of ELF for their own teaching context” (“Review of Developments” 306). If they get familiar with the concept of

1 Interaction between non-native and native speakers.

ELF, it certainly does not mean that they will abandon teaching EFL and change their teaching methods completely. It means that they will be able to see English from a different point of view and they might for instance start questioning “the continued favouring of one of only two so-called prestige models, the American or British English” (“Review of Developments” 305). They might also consider setting themselves the teaching goals defined by McKay:

• Ensuring intelligibility rather than insisting on correctness; • Helping learners develop interaction strategies that will promote comity (friendly relations); • Fostering textual competence (reading and writing skills for learner-selected purposes) (qtd. in “Research Perspectives” 226).

Teachers who are able to see English from the ELF perspective are quite probably able to make sure their students will be able and not afraid to communicate in international environments. As Jenkins emphasises, promoting ELF perspective in teaching does not aim at promoting it as „an alternative approach intended to supplant existing pedagogy, but rather as an additional option about which teachers and learners can make informed choices” (“Review of Developments” 307).

3. Describing ELF

3.1 General Description

Although a definition of ELF has just been offered, a definition alone is not enough to describe the phenomena. Its features could be summarized in the following way:

• Native speakers are not the only ones who dictate what English will be like but millions of people from the Outer and Expanding Circles do it as well and speaking about ELF, it is mainly people from these two circles who have enormous influence on the English of future (Crystal, Global Language 172-173). • ELF speakers do not necessarily follow the linguistic norm of ENL and they should not be judged for it. These deviations from the native norm should not be considered

mistakes but rather specific features typical for ELF (Seidlhofer, Understanding English 18). • As the main aim of using ELF is to communicate, speakers of ELF are very flexible in adjusting their language to the current situation, to their speaking partners, to their level of English, they do not follow the ENL linguistic norm all the time, they even create norms of their own (Jenkins, “Review of Developments” 297). • ELF is not connected to the cultural-historical background of the countries of Inner Circle. ELF speakers do not need to know literature, art or history of Great Britain or USA as their interest is purely communicative and they mostly speak with non-native speakers (Seidlhofer, Understanding English 17). • Native speakers can even be in a more difficult position having joined an ELF conversation as they are not as flexible as non-native speakers who are experienced in adapting their speech to other non-native speakers (Jenkins, “Review of Developments” 298-299).

3.2 Linguistic Description

To describe a language from a linguistic point of view requires a lot of research. Although a lot of work has been done since 2000 - a year that Jenkins considers a “turning point” both for the ELF research and for the whole concept of ELF as she says “During the first decade of the third millennium, interest in ELF increased dramatically” (“Review of Developments” 283), much more must be done in order to describe ELF in the areas of phonology, lexicogrammar and pragmatics.

3.2.1 Phonology

The area of phonology has been covered to a large extent by Jenkins. She has concentrated on two phenomena: problems in intelligibility caused by pronunciation and phonological accommodation.

The main aims of the research were to identify the extent to which pronunciation was a cause of miscommunication between non-native speakers of English, who always speak with some trace of their mother tongue accent, and which phonological features were subject to the phenomenon of accommodation. (“Review of Developments” 287)

Jenkins created the term Lingua Franca Core. She divided phonological features into two groups based on the fact whether they, according to her research, cause or do not cause intelligibility. Those that cause intelligibility are part of the Lingua Franca Core.

It is very interesting that “th” pronounced either / θ/ or /ð/ that has always been considered “very English” does not cause misunderstanding. The same can be said about dark “l” /ł/. Jenkins’s research has shown that “master of these sounds proved not to be crucial for mutual intelligibility, and so various substitutions, such as /f, v/ or /s, z/ or /t, d/ for / θ, ð/ are permissible” (qtd. in Seidlhofer, “Research Perspectives” 217) and that is why these three sounds are not categorized as a part of the Core.

The reason why this is particularly interesting is that teachers of English consider these two sounds / θ/ and /ð/ very important and draw students’ attention to them as much as they can to teach them how to pronounce them correctly but as Jenkins shows, in real life when English is used as a lingua franca, correct pronunciation of “th” is not essential.

The following features were incorporated by Jenkins into the Core: • The consonant inventory with the exception of the dental fricatives / θ/ and /ð/, and of dark ‘l’ /ł/, none of which caused any intelligibility problems in the lingua franca data. • Additional phonetic requirements: aspiration of word-initial voiceless stops /p/, /t/, and /k/, which were otherwise frequently heard as their lenis counterparts /b/, /d/, and /g/; and shortening of vowel sounds before fortis consonants, and the maintenance of length before lenis consonants, e.g., the shorter /æ/ in the word sat as contrasted with the phonetically longer /æ/ in the word sad. • Consonant clusters: no omission of sounds in word-initial clusters, e.g. in proper and strap; omission of sounds in word-medial and word-final clusters only permissible according to L1 English rules of syllable structure so that, for example, the word

friendship can become /fren ∫Ip/ but not /frend Ip/ or /fred ∫Ip/. • Vowel sounds: maintenance of the contrast between long and short vowels, such as the

/I/ and /i:/ in the words live and leave; L2 regional vowel qualities otherwise intelligible provided they are used consistently, with the exception of the substitution of the sound / ε/ especially with / α:/.

• Production and placement of nuclear (tonic) stress, especially when used contrastively (e.g. He came by TRAIN vs. He CAME by train) (qtd. in Seidlhofer, “Research Perspectives” 216).

As Jenkins states, the following features are, on the contrary, not part of the Lingua Franca Core: • Vowel quality; • Weak forms; • Other features of connected speech such as assimilation; • Pitch direction to signal attitude or grammatical meaning; • Word stress placement; • Stress-timing (qtd. in Seidlhofer, “Research Perspectives” 217).

In her research, Jenkins also concentrated on the phenomenon of “accommodation”. The aim was to ascertain whether speakers adjust their pronunciation in order to be more understood. The summary of her findings was that non-native speakers, when speaking to other non-native speakers and when it is crucial for them to be understood, actually do adjust their pronunciation of some, but not all, features of their “non-standard” (in relation to native English) features of accents with more “standard” features (“Review of Developments” 287).

Even though Jenkins pointed out that these findings were only preliminary and more research was needed to confirm or adjust the above mentioned lists of features, they provide a good overview and a good base for defining ELF from the phonological point of view.

3.2.2 Lexicogrammar

In the area of lexicogrammar, it was Seidlhofer who built the foundations for the future research when she - based on a survey - defined “certain regularities”. Although she considers them hypotheses, Jenkins points out that even though Seidlhofer has presented the list of lexicogrammatical characteristics as a set of hypotheses rather than determinate features, they have proven to be quite durable (“Review of Developments” 289). The list, created by Seidlhofer, includes these items:

• Dropping the third person present tense -s; • Confusing the relative pronouns who and which; • Omitting definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL; • Failing to use correct forms of tag questions (e.g. isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they?); • Inserting redundant prepositions, as in We have to study about; • Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as do, have, make, put, take; • Replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses, as in I want that; • Overdoing explicitness (e.g. black color rather than just black) (“Research Perspectives” 220).

As Seidlhofer emphasizes, the above listed “regularities” are considered typical errors by teachers of English who would certainly feel the need to correct them (“Research Perspectives” 220). However, as it has been already explained, in ELF they are not viewed as errors. As the main aim of ELF is to communicate, to bring the message across and make sure the partner in conversation understands, the above mentioned “errors” do not play any role because they do not prevent speakers from understanding each other. They are considered “features” typical for ELF.

Vocabulary, though, can be a reason for misunderstanding. “Unsurprisingly, not being familiar with certain vocabulary items can give rise to problems, particularly when speakers lack paraphrasing skills” (Seidlhofer, “Research Perspectives” 220). This, however, does not involve only common vocabulary that speakers of ELF need, i.e. general vocabulary and special vocabulary mainly when ELF is used for example during expert meetings concentrating on one area such as business or science. Idioms, colloquial expressions or phrasal verbs can cause a lot of misunderstandings.

Seidlhofer uses the term “unilateral idiomacity” to describe the position of idiomatic expressions in ENL and ELF ( Understanding English 134). She explains that while native speakers use idioms as “conventionally preconstructed phrases (they) are familiar with” (Understanding English 130) to make their communication easier and faster, non-native speakers cannot rely on shared knowledge of these expressions as their meaning usually

cannot be guessed from the meaning of the individual words and as it is impossible for every non-native speaker to know all idioms. It means that if idioms are used in an ELF conversation, they can cause if not misunderstanding, then at least they can slow down the communication or even to interrupt it only to explain the meaning of that fixed phrase. In an ELF usage these expressions work against the ease and speed of any conversation.

The unilateral idiomacy is “the use by one speaker of marked idiomatic expressions attested in ENL that may well be unknown and unintelligible to the other participants in ELF interactions” ( Understanding English 134). This may quite often happen when at least one of the participants is a native speaker who does not realize that his or her partners of the talk may not be familiar with the idiom.

It can, however, also happen that there is no native speaker present and still an idiom is used. Seidlhofer shows that non-native speakers are quite flexible and creative in this area. If they do not understand the meaning but they can understand the meaning of the whole utterance, they usually skip the idiom and they do not let it interrupt their discussion. They also create their own idioms as well for example by using English expression in a different way or in a different context ( Understanding English 139). In situations when they cannot avoid unravelling the meaning of the idiom, they have no other choice than to indicate that they need help or directly ask for clarification thus slowing the conversation down or interrupting it ( Understanding English 141).

Even though it is clear that using idiomatic expressions created by native speakers is not beneficial for an ELF interaction, there is still the “prevailing assumption about second- language [...] users of a language, whether this is English or any other, that the closer they get to native speaker idiomatic behaviour the better“ (Understanding English 132). Teachers usually encourage their students to learn as many idioms as they can but the truth is that “the more distinctive native-like the idiom they [students] strive for, the greater the risk if they fail to ‘get it right’ in native speaker contexts” ( Understanding English 132). The reasons are obvious: it is necessary to produce the accepted wording of the idiom as well as to use it in the right context ( Understanding English 132). In ELF, though, these idioms are contra productive and against the aim of the communication.

3.2.3 Pragmatics

Pragmatics plays a very important role in ELF usage. As it has already been mentioned, the main aim of ELF speakers is to understand each other and to reach their communication goals rather than to speak absolutely correctly. If both or all of them are not native speakers, they are quite probably aware of the fact that their knowledge of English might differ and they tend to adopt their language to the current situation and their current partners. This can be one of the reasons why one common finding of the more recent empirical studies of ELF pragmatics is that non-understanding / misunderstanding tends to occur less frequently than it does in communication with native speakers. ELF speakers also exhibit a high degree of interactional and pragmatic competence, for example in signalling non-understanding without disrupting the flow of the conversation (Jenkins, “Review of Developments” 293).

Jenkins also gives examples of typical techniques or strategies that ELF speakers use to avoid non-understanding: • Repetition: a common strategy to avoid mis- or non-understanding, speakers use clarification, self-repair and repetition to ensure they will be understood; • Paraphrasing: used after prolonged silence, minimal response or overlapping talk; • Exploitation of plurilingual resources means that ELF speakers use the fact that they are all non-native speakers and they use code-switching quite frequently; • Idiomatic expressions have already been described in chapter 3.2.2 but it can be repeated that non-native speakers of ELF do not avoid these expressions, but they create their own idioms that then become markers of in-group membership; • Discourse markers (i.e. “you know”) are used in a different way in ELF than by native speakers. While native speakers use them for involvement, politeness and cooperation, ELF speakers do it for reinforcing a position, for introduction of what they are going to say next or for discourse planning and production (“Review of Developments” 293- 294).

3.2.4 Written Language

The previous chapters 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 deal with spoken language. The reason is that ELF means mainly spoken English, i.e. English used for spoken interaction: for talking, sharing

information or chatting. It makes sense that most research has been done in the area of spoken language, for example the project of Barbara Seidlhofer VOICE at the University of Vienna (2005 - 2013), and that all the features of ELF mentioned in the three previous chapters were mainly based on analyzing spoken interaction.

However, written English is also used in international context, so it should be covered as well. Written English is mostly used in the area of academic writing and also in business. Based on the experience from the international environment the author of the thesis absolutely agrees with Seidlhofer that “these modes of written ELF have, so far at least, conformed to the norms of standard grammar” (“Research Perspectives” 223). Writing gives non-native speakers an opportunity to check with dictionaries, it gives them time to re-write their texts, have them corrected or even proof-read, which makes following the native speakers’ norms easier and doable. Simultaneously, correctness according to native speakers’ norms is considered important as a part of a corporate image in business English where native-like competence is still seen as a matter of prestige (Ehrenreich - qtd. in “Review of Developments” 298).

Yet, Seidlhofer remarks that questions have arisen whether and to what extent written English (for example in articles in learned journals) should be corrected to conform to native norms (“Research Perspectives” 223). She speculates that in some time this dependence of native norms will gradually disappear and the written form of ELF will also take over the features of ELF evident in spoken language. Only future will answer this question.

3.3 Summary

There are certainly many features of ELF that can be described as typical and repeated as studies have shown. More studies will have to be done in future to verify validity of these features and to support future codification of ELF.

All the features, no matter whether they come from the area of phonology, lexicogrammar or pragmatics, have something in common. They arise because ELF speakers want to talk to each other. They want to do business, share scientific discoveries or just have a good time together. To do it, they have to be flexible, they have to adjust their language, and they have to be inventive. And they are so and as such they should not be regarded as learners and compared to native speakers as they are not native speakers and never can be.

4. Future of English

As it was explained in the thesis, English has become - thanks to quite a few unique circumstances - a global lingua franca but there is a logical question to ask: will English retain this position in future as well? Although the position of English may seem quite strong and indisputable, history shows that a lingua franca usually emerges, serves its purpose and then disappears and another language takes over its role. Crystal gives an example of Latin whose status also seemed absolutely certain and “if, in the Middle Ages, you had dared to predict the death of Latin [...], people would have laughed in your face” ( Global Language 123). At the same time it cannot simply be concluded - based on examples of other lingua francas - that English will share the fate of Latin mainly because English differs from its predecessors quite dramatically: no lingua franca in the past has been so widespread and never in the past has the world been so interlinked and connected as it is today thanks to modern technology (air travel, Internet, etc.), therefore any prediction based on what happened to previous lingua francas might simply be wrong.

One of the scenarios for the future might be that the decline in the importance and power of the United States, if it ever happens, that has played an important role in the process of English becoming a lingua franca (not just by supporting it by the number of English native speakers but also by the technological progress as shown in chapters 1.2.3, 1.2.4 or 1.2.7), will also mean a decline in the “power” of English (Crystal, Global Language 128).

Another scenario might possibly be that the more speakers of English there will be in the Outer and Expanding Circle, the more they will feel the need to adjust it to their needs and to make the language “their own”, which might lead into (and the process has already started) “the emergence of new varieties of English in the different territories where the language has taken roots” (Crystal, Global Language 142). The new varieties may then become so different from each other that English will no longer be able to serve as a common communication tool.

If English looses its leading position, then a new lingua franca will quite probably emerge. There are several candidates already. Graddol speaks about “rival languages” and offers a few

options: Chinese, Hindi/Urdu, Spanish or Arabic (59). He also points out that English does not necessarily have to be replaced by one dominant lingua franca but that the world might see a “shift from a linguistic monopoly to oligopoly” (59).

Yet, there is of course a scenario where English remains the world‘s lingua franca. As Crystal predicts, English might survive even the emergence of a high number of its own varieties. He suggests that the need for a common communication means could result in a variety that he calls „World Standard Spoken English (WSSE)” ( Global Language 185). Speakers of English would then use their variation of English (a kind of a dialect) at home and the WSSE when communicating with others in international environments ( Global Language 185). To the author of the thesis, it seems that when talking about WSSE, Crystal actually describes an ideal lingua franca (even though he does not mention it): a variety of English for which US or British varieties will no longer be real models and at the same time a variety influenced by common features of other non-native varieties of English and build with one main goal - to communicate.

In any case, the future of English is very difficult to predict. It is possible only to speculate about it. The chance is that none of the above mentioned scenarios will happen and English will move in a completely different direction. Those who like English, no matter whether native or non-native speakers, would probably agree with Crystal’s final worlds from his book English as a Global Language that „It may be that English, in some shape or form, will find itself in the service of the world community for ever” (191).

Practical Part

5. English Used at International Meetings

The practical part of the thesis focuses on the use of English in an international environment, to be more precise in one of the working groups in NATO. The author of the thesis has attended meetings of this group for more than 10 years; therefore, it was a logical step to include her own experience in this work. The aim of this part of the thesis is to describe how both native and non-native speakers feel about communicating in English, what problems or obstacles there might be in the communication and whether English servers its purpose as a lingua franca well.

At first, it would be useful to examine the position of English in NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 and right from the beginning English has been - together with French - the official language. Final Communiqué of the first Session of the North Atlantic Council states that “English and French shall be the official languages for the entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization” (n. pag.). This basically confirms what is mentioned in chapter 1.2.1 of this thesis that since the 1950s English has become the official language of many international organizations and NATO is no exception.

The current situation at the level of the working groups is, according to the knowledge and experience of the author of the thesis, that meetings are usually held in English and interpretation into French is provided only when meetings take place in the headquarters in Brussels. The author has attended only two meetings where interpreters were present. All other meetings have been held in English. The reasons are mostly pragmatic. While interpreters are available at the headquarters, it would be more difficult to provide everything necessary for interpreting when a meeting takes place outside the headquarters. Interpreting requires special equipment (earphones etc.), an extra room for interpreters and it would also raise the cost to hire an interpreter. Quite often a meeting takes place in military barracks of the hosting country where interpreting facilities are not available. Also, a civilian interpreter might struggle with specialized vocabulary used at the meetings. Moreover, all delegates are supposed to speak English (even the French ones) as it is not possible to do any other translating than simultaneous. If there were an interpreter interpreting every sentence while the speaker waited for him or her to finish, double time would be necessary for such

a meeting. There once were two delegates who had an interpreter sitting between them and whispering but it was quite disruptive and if everybody did it in the same way, it would quite probably make communication absolutely impossible.

Written documents are, with the exception of standardization documents that are produced both in English and French, also produced only in English. However, for written documents (for example meeting minutes) the rule that ENL should not be the ultimate goal for ELF speakers, which applies for communication, is not valid. As it has already been mentioned in chapter 3.2.4, native English is considered a model to which the written documents should approximate and for this reason it is seen as an advantage if a native speaker becomes a secretary of the group (i.e. the person who writes minutes and coordinates administrative steps of the group) because then she or he is able to produce a well-written and, from a native speakers’ point of view, correct documents. It is not, however, possible to put this burden on native speakers only because they are native speakers. In a situation when the secretary is a non-native speaker, native speakers might be asked to proof-read the document before it is distributed.

The thesis, however, concentrates on spoken English and it is clear that the English used during international working meetings no doubt functions as a lingua franca and the author believes that it can be described using the features of BELF (business ELF).

The author absolutely agrees with Jenkins who states that “BELF communication is seen as content-oriented (rather than focusing on form)” and that “expertise and correctness in terms of NS [native speakers’] standards, such as native-like grammar or pronunciation, are secondary to accommodation practices” (“Review of Developments” 298). The author has witnessed many times that the most important thing during the meetings is to get the message across no matter whether delegates speak correctly from a grammar or pronunciation point of view.

The fact that English is used as a communication tool at these meetings gives native speakers a certain advantage because they do not have to learn a foreign language to be able to attend such events. At the same time, native speakers “may be considered to be at a disadvantage or even to be a problem [...] because they are more difficult to understand than speakers of other varieties of English” (Jenkins, “Review of Developments” 298). According to the author’s

experience, native speakers of English are at an advantage because it is their mother tongue that is spoken at the meetings but they are not always good at adjusting their English to the way and level of English that is used there. Jenkins mentions that “while they seem to be aware of the challenges of intercultural communication, they seem unable to adopt effective accommodation strategies, [...] [however, they] at least in their self-reports, are aware of the need for such kinds of skills, and claim that they do take steps to accommodate to their NNS [non-native speakers’] counterparts by, for instance, avoiding idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms” (“Review of Developments” 298 - 299). These issues will be dealt with later on the following pages.

6. Description of the Survey

As it has already been mentioned, the information for the practical part of the thesis was collected through a questionnaire. Two questionnaires were prepared, one for native speakers and another one for non-native speakers (see Appendix 1 and 2). In order to make it easier for the respondents, the questionnaires were in Word format. Although there was an option to make an on-line form, the Word format seemed to be a better solution. All the respondents who were asked for help are very busy and opening a document in Word seemed to be less time consuming and did not require spending extra time on-line. As the author of the thesis meets members of the group only twice a year and the schedule of the meetings is usually very tight, it was not possible to talk about the questionnaires with the respondents in person. Instead, a personal e-mail with a request was sent to those who were believed to be willing to contribute, mainly to those who have been with the group for a longer time and also to some ex-members of the group who were with the group for a reasonable time to be able to contribute in a valuable way.

As a result, six filled-in questionnaires from native speakers and twelve from non-native speakers were received. There were two responses from Great Britain, two from the United States and two from Canada, which is a nice balance among the countries from the Inner Circle. No Australians were asked to fill in the questionnaire although there are some Australian members of the group. The reason is that they attend the meetings only rarely and usually there is no stable representation of Australia; they usually attend one meeting and somebody else comes for the next one, which means neither of them could give valuable

feedback on their longer-term work in the group. That is also why non-native speakers in the group do not have enough experience in talking to Australian delegates or listening to them around the table. Concerning non-native speakers, one reply was sent to the author of the thesis by delegates from each of these countries - Belgium, Greece, Spain, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Norway, Slovakia and two replies were from Germany. This variety should give a good overview of thoughts, ideas and opinions for the purposes of the thesis.

At first, the information from the questionnaires filled in by non-native speakers will be dealt with and later on the questionnaires filled in by native speakers will be commented on. Some questions were included in both questionnaires in order to compare answers and see whether native and non-native speakers have the same or different opinions, in such cases information from questionnaires for native speakers may appear in the section of the work that deals with questionnaires for non-native speakers and vice versa, which will hopefully contribute to a better clarity of the gained information.

7. Non-Native Speakers

The questionnaire for non-native speakers starts with some general questions before it proceeds to questions related to international meetings.

7.1 General questions

7.1.1 Mother Tongue and Foreign Languages

First of all, there was the question of what the respondents’ mother tongue was. This question had no other purpose than to make sure all the delegates could be considered non-native speakers of English.

In the following question, the respondents were asked whether they speak any other foreign language beside English. Almost half of them (five) do not speak any other foreign language, they speak only English. The other languages given show, in a way, which area the respondents are from: the Slovak delegate also speaks Russian, the Spanish delegate speaks

a little bit of Italian and Portuguese, the delegate from France speaks Spanish, the delegate from Belgium speaks French and the delegates from the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark speak German. The summary of this part of the survey may be that English is definitely the most important foreign language for all of them while it is not necessary for them to be able to speak another foreign language if they already speak English.

One of the reasons that all of them speak English - besides the fact that the meetings are held in English - can also be their working background. Most of them are involved in research and development, which implies that they have to be able to collect up-to-date information from their field of work; they read articles, search for information on the Internet, talk to staff in testing facilities that are often located abroad etc., which confirms what was mentioned in chapter 1.2.3 about English being used as a lingua franca in science and also in business, because these people get in touch with companies from various countries, attend international exhibitions and conferences and, of course, have to be aware of the most current products in their field of work.

7.1.2 Requirement to Prove One’s Knowledge

As representing one’s country at an international meeting requires a certain level of English, one of the questions was whether it was obligatory in their country to prove their level of English (to pass a language exam) before they were able to start attending international meetings. The reason why this question was part of the survey is mainly the STANAG 6001, which is explained below.

Within NATO there are standardization agreements or STANAGs. Their aim as with any other standards like ČSN (Czech State Norms), EN (European Norms) or ISO standards is to standardize certain issues, to offer a model, norm or measure for everybody to follow. One of these standardization agreements is STANAG 6001 Language Proficiency Levels. The aim of this agreement is to “provide NATO Forces with a table describing language proficiency levels” (STANAG, para. 1). The standard contains five proficiency levels (0 to 5) that are described in Annex A, which “give[s] detailed definitions of the proficiency levels in the commonly-recognized language proficiency skills: “listening”, “speaking”, “reading” and “writing”” (para. 4). Based on this STANAG, each nation who has ratified this agreement organizes language courses and also language tests. The final evaluation from the STANAG

exams contains four digits, for example the author of the thesis got 3333; each number describes a proficiency level reached in one of the above mentioned skill areas. Unlike some other internationally recognised exams there is no test in grammar. Grammar is tested in the frame of the other skills, i.e. it is evaluated in an essay or during the oral part of the exam.

Considering the fact that there is a military language standard, it was logical to ask whether the nations who send their representatives to NATO meetings use this standard in order to make sure their representatives (both soldiers and civilian employees) have a sufficient level of English to attend international meetings. However, eight out of 12 respondents said that it was not obligatory to pass a language exam in order to prove their level of English before they could start attending international meetings. Only four of them said it was obligatory for them and they all passed the STANAG exam. Still, five out of eight respondents from countries where a language test is not obligatory, do have a certificate proving their knowledge of English (two of them have passed the STANAG exam). These results show that the STANAG is probably not widely used by NATO or PFP 2 nations for evaluation of their representatives’ level of English for the purposes of attending international meetings. As far as the Czech Armed Forces are concerned, there is no such requirement either. However, the author of the thesis had to prove her knowledge of English before she started attending international meetings because it was the internal requirement of the section where she worked at that time.

The reason why there is no requirement to pass an extra language exam in some countries can be that there is probably a requirement for a good knowledge of English for the working position. Then it is of course not necessary to prove one’s level of English again. However, unless the respondents are in touch with English on a regular basis, their knowledge might decline quickly.

Six delegates, i.e. half of the respondents, said that they had passed the STANAG exam and five of them with the result of level 3 and only one of them level 2. STANAG 3 compares approximately to the CAE Cambridge exam (Cambridge Advanced English) and STANAG 2 to the FCE (Cambridge First Certificate in English) exam according to the List of Standardized Exams issued by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. Also, the Dutch

2 PfP – Partnership for Peace

respondent’s level of English, even if he has not sat for the STANAG exam, is C1 (according to the Common European Framework of Reference) and one of the German delegates reached evaluation 3332 in SLP (Standardisiertes Leistungsprofil), which is an evaluation of language skills in the German Bundeswehr that is based on the STANAG 6001. This shows that at least the results of exams say that the level of English of the respondents is high and should be sufficient for communication during international meetings.

7.1.3 Real Knowledge of English

However, a certificate of English does not always correspond to the current knowledge of the language and that is why the respondents were asked how they would evaluate their current level of English. Seven of them think that their English is at an advanced level, four consider their knowledge to be upper-intermediate and only one ranked his English as intermediate. The only person who thinks his English is only on an intermediate level is from Denmark and he might have either underestimated himself or he might feel that the fact that he retired a couple of years ago influenced his knowledge of English in a negative way. Certainly, when the author spoke to him during the meetings, his English was not intermediate, it was upper- intermediate at least if not advanced. Most of the respondents rank themselves in upper- intermediate or even advanced categories, both of which, should be sufficient for international forum, although delegates with lower level than advanced might face some occasional problems with understanding others or expressing their thoughts.

As the answers to the two questions show, the level of English of most respondents either given by the exam results or by their own evaluation or both should be sufficient for international meetings. The right question to ask then is: how do the native speakers see it? Do they feel the same about it? Therefore, native speakers were asked whether they think that the level of English of non-native speakers was sufficient for the purposes of international meetings. From the answers given in the questionnaires it seems that non-native speakers were right about their knowledge of English because five of out six native speakers think that most non-native speakers have a sufficient level of English and one native speaker even said that all of them! Taking into account that the survey cannot be taken as a good source of statistical information because the number of respondents is not high enough, it is still encouraging that native speakers expressed such a high opinion of the non-native speakers’ English. It is also interesting that non-native speakers, when asked the same question,

expressed the same good opinion as native speakers. The questionnaires show that nine of out twelve non-native speakers consider the level of English of most of their non-native fellow delegates sufficient. One non-native speaker even thinks that all of them have a sufficient level of English. Unfortunately, one of them believes that there are quite many whose level of English is not sufficient.

The conclusion made can be - based on the information above - that this is a good sign. It shows that most of the delegates, no matter whether native or non-native speakers, are satisfied with the level of English of their colleagues from many different NATO or PfP countries. It seems that the purpose of these international meetings - to talk to each other, to communicate, to exchange information - is very probably fulfilled. That is good news because it means that ELF serves its purpose very well.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to add that the author of the thesis would not underestimate the opinion of the Dutch delegate who thinks that there are quite many delegates whose English is not good enough for the purpose of the meetings. He was a chairman of the group for many years, so he met many delegates from various countries. Although the author of the thesis would not agree with him completely, she takes his opinion into account because there are delegates whose English is not sufficient. They can be divided into two groups according to the author’s experience:

In the first group, there are delegates who do not join the discussion; some of them never say a single word and it is only possible to find out the reasons in a personal conversation with them: their level of English prevents them from speaking around the table. Hopefully, their passive knowledge of English enables them to get valuable information and take it home; but they do not contribute to the work of the group.

In the second group, there are delegates whose lower level of English does not prevent them from speaking out and sharing their knowledge and experience. They usually manage to get their message across with the help of adjusting techniques like accommodation and adaptation (see chapter 5). The second group is, however, much lower in numbers than the first group because most people tend to be silent if they are not self-confident about their English.

For example, the author has met two delegates from Finland and each of them belonged to a different group. One of them was a member of the NATO group for many years and even though his English was far from perfect, he spoke without any fear, joined discussions and even started some of them. His successor belongs to the first group. She is very shy, she speaks only rarely and she seems to struggle with English even in a conversation at a dinner table.

It is necessary to add, though, that even though the term “groups” is used to describe these delegates, it does not mean that there are many delegates with insufficient level of English. Most of the delegates are able to communicate in an adequate way and those who are not so active in discussions around the table might have other reasons for their silence than just poor knowledge of English.

7.1.4 Differences in English among Nations

The end of the previous sub-chapter leads to a question, however, whether it is possible to make a general statement about whose command of English is better or worse in terms of countries. Native speakers were asked this question (they were asked to name three countries that are the best and three countries that are the worst irrespective of the order) and the results comply with the opinion and experience of the author of the thesis.

As the best were ranked Sweden (mentioned four times), the Netherlands (three times) and Norway (two times). Scandinavia was mentioned once. These results confirm the author’s experience that Scandinavian countries (with the exception of Finland) and the Netherlands usually have the best speakers of English at the meetings. Their level of English is usually a bit higher than English of delegates from other countries. Especially, their vocabulary is much richer than vocabulary of delegates of other countries.

As the worst were ranked Finland (mentioned four times), Greece (two times), Poland (two times) after that it was quite variable; the following nations were mentioned at least once: Spain, France, Italy, Turkey, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Estonia. According to the author’s experience, a general conclusion can probably be drawn that countries like France, Spain, Italy or Greece can be considered worse than others but the main reason probably is, generally speaking, the accent taken from the mother tongue. Especially, French delegates tend to

pronounce the words that are similar to their French versions with a heavy French accent and they usually keep this accent for all the other words they pronounce, which makes it very difficult to understand. Delegates from Southern-European countries have the same problem, especially Spanish delegates who fight with the accent taken from Spanish.

The “victory” of Finland as the worst is a bit of a mystery considering the excellent knowledge of English in the other Scandinavian countries; it might be connected to the fact that Finnish belongs among Uralic languages while English, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch are Germanic languages, so it might be more difficult for Finns to learn English. The reason why some former socialist countries were mentioned is probably the fact that it took a while for the delegates from the former Eastern block to reach a sufficient level of English after the events in 1989 and after decades spent learning predominantly Russian.

It is not the aim of this thesis to find out reasons why some countries were ranked as better and some worse. It seems, however, that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands know how to teach foreign languages and they do it well. Apparently, it is not only about teaching the language at schools but also about many British or American TV shows, series and films being broadcast without dubbing and only with subtitles, i.e. a wide exposure to the language even in students’ free time.

Another argument shall be mentioned even though some of the countries were mentioned as bad or worse, it does not mean that the main purpose of the meetings, i.e. the communication, is not reached in interaction with delegates from these countries. It just needs more patience and accommodation practices (see chapter 5) on both sides. Just to illustrate it with an example; the previous chairman of the group was from Greece and even if his English was not perfect, he managed to chair the group. Of course, patience and more concentration were needed on both sides but his example shows that it is not necessary to speak English perfectly in order to use it as a lingua franca.

As the respondent from Norway added to the questionnaire: “Another problem is that nations often send their best English speakers, instead they should send their best expert, because we are a group of experts. I have several times in the past been the interpreter for other colleagues.” This quote expresses the whole idea behind ELF: the reason why delegates attend the meetings is to exchange information, to discuss various expert matters, to create

standards and so on. They should be experts and nobody expects their English to be perfect. They need English “only” as a tool to be able to fulfil all the tasks of the group. It proves that ELF is used in the international environment to communicate, to exchange information and if this aim is reached it does not matter so much what the level of English of the participants of the discussion is.

7.2 Questions Related to International Meetings

As it can be seen from the answers to the first question in this section of the questionnaire “How long have you attended international NATO group meetings?”, most of the respondents have attended the meetings for more than three years (six of them for more than three but less than six and five of them even for more than six years). Only one respondent attended the meetings for less than three years. All the respondents know the international environment very well and were able to give valuable feedback.

Then the delegates were asked three questions that relate to understanding and speaking during the meetings. These questions are of course closely connected to the level of English of respondents but they aim more at the practical side rather than theoretical evaluation of the knowledge of English. As it has just been presented, most respondents believe their English either upper-intermediate or even advanced, so they should be able to understand and interact with others around the table with no major obstacles, although a minor problem can occur sometimes.

Half of the respondents say that they have no problems understanding what is being said during the meetings and five of them say that they have only minor problems with understanding. Therefore, there is only one respondent (a delegate from Spain) who admits that he has serious problems with understanding occasionally. It means that almost all of the respondents face either minor problems or none at all. It is interesting though that there is no direct linkage between their current level of English and the option they chose when answering the question. Only four out of seven respondents who claimed their current knowledge of English is “advanced” said they had no problems to understand at all and two out of four who claimed their current knowledge of English is upper-intermediate also said that they have no problems with understanding. It is of course necessary to take into account that their own evaluation of their current level of English does not have to be very exact, some

of them might have slightly underestimated themselves and some of them might have been too optimistic about their knowledge. It does not matter so much how we evaluate our level of English but how our English works in real life.

On the other hand, it was surprising to see that six out of twelve respondents have no problems with understanding at all. In the author’s experience, it is very easy to face some - even if minor - problems with understanding especially because there are about fifteen nations around the table and non-native speakers speak English with so many different accents that despite the fact that the author considers her English to be on an advanced level, her answer to that question would be “I have minor problems with understanding” as it seems to her impossible to completely avoid situations when it is necessary to ask for clarification.

Yet, there are examples of delegates who probably have no problems with understanding. The respondent from the Netherlands (the one who replied that he had never experienced any problems) is a former chairman of the NATO group. As a chairman he had to answer many questions, he had to comment on many issues, react to discussions, etc. and he never hesitated. Also, delegates who are non-native speakers but have stayed in one of the countries of the Inner Circle for a certain time usually have no problems with understanding as, for example, one of the German respondents who has worked in the United States.

The positive feeling about understanding during the meetings remains also for the two questions that cover discussion around the table.

Eight out of twelve respondents say that they rarely get lost in a discussion around the table, three say they never get lost in a discussion and only one admits that he gets lost sometimes (he is the same respondent from Spain who admits facing serious problems with understanding during the meetings). Again, the respondents are very confident about their abilities. It is interesting that two respondents (one form the Netherlands and one from Germany) that are mentioned as good examples in the previous paragraph are among those who say they never get lost in a discussion. It demonstrates their very good knowledge of English.

Seven respondents say that it has never happened to them that they would decide not to join a discussion around the table just because they were not confident enough about their English.

To two of them, this has happened only rarely and to another two, it happens sometimes. As six out of seven respondents who consider their current level of English advanced say it never happens to them, it means that their confidence influences directly their contribution to discussions. However, it seems very promising that the level of English of those three delegates who say it happens to them only rarely, is said to be either upper-intermediate or even intermediate, which means that even though they do not think their English is perfect, they are not afraid to speak in front of all the delegates. Again, the delegate from Spain, who admitted problems in the two previous questions, admits that sometimes he does not join the discussion, which is no surprise considering his previous answers.

To the huge surprise of the author, one of the respondents with advanced English also admits that she sometimes does not join discussions. It probably implies that a high level of English might not be enough for the delegates to feel confident enough to speak. Some people are generally shyer than others and it is more difficult for them to speak when everybody is listening. In this case, the Hungarian delegate really is a shy lady and the reasons for her occasional “silence” are quite probably more of a personal nature rather than language reasons.

A comment based on the author’s personal experience is that it is understandable if some people are shy and do not feel confident enough to speak but the international environment is very tolerant and patient if somebody needs more time to express his or her thoughts. It does not mind grammar mistakes or mistakes in pronunciation as will be presented in chapter 8.1. Also, all non-native respondents of the survey said that it was more important for them to understand what other non-native speakers are saying even though they make some grammar or syntax mistakes from time to time, which proves what ELF is for: for communication no matter how perfect the speaker’s English is.

Jenkins suggests that “ELF speakers […] exhibit a high degree of interactional and pragmatic competence” (“Review of Developments” 293), which means they are aware of the problems of international communication and are able to react to it by adapting their language to the situation. In the questionnaire, when non-native speakers were asked whether they adjust their English due to the fact that the NATO group is an international forum and that the level of English of individual delegates can differ, seven out of twelve said they did and the remaining five said they did not. This indecisive result can conclude the section about non-native

speakers by observing that even though there are many non-native speakers who are conscious of the features of international communication, there are still some who do not attach great importance to it.

8. Native Speakers

As it has already been mentioned, six native speakers contributed by filling in the questionnaire: two from Canada, two from the USA and two from Great Britain. Three of them have attended or attended the meetings for more than a year but less than three years, two of them for more than three but less than six years and one of them for more than six years. Four of them speak a foreign language - French, the Canadians of course, one respondent from UK and one from USA, although their response usually was “I speak a bit of French”, so it is probably not advanced knowledge.

8.1 Do Mistakes Matter?

One of the aims of the survey in relation to native speakers is to find out how much they mind when non-native speakers use English incorrectly to a certain extent. Four of them stated that they do not mind non-native speaker’s grammar or syntax mistakes unless they prevent them from understanding. Two of them stated that they notice mistakes but that they do not mind. Such a result illustrates the tolerance of native speakers. They do not tend to judge or blame non-native speakers for making mistakes and it confirms what the author suggested in the previous chapter that the tolerance and patience of the international environment is indisputable.

When non-native speakers were asked the same question, whether they notice non-native speakers’ mistakes, nine of them answered that sometimes they notice mistakes but they do not care about them, two of them said that they do not pay attention to mistakes, they only concentrate on understanding what is being said and only one would rather if non-native speakers did not make mistakes. It can be seen here again that reaching the communicative aim and content of the speech is more relevant to the delegates than the format or structure of the speech.

Based on these answers, the author of the thesis absolutely agrees with Seidlhofer that in ELF grammar mistakes are not considered mistakes and the message of the speech is more important (see chapter 3.2.2).

As one of the respondents from USA adds to one of his answers: “Successful communication requires patience and effort. I honestly cannot think of an instance where I could not achieve proper understanding when those principles were employed, and it did not require an extraordinary effort to do so.” Another respondent from Canada commented: “I have been part of four different NATO meetings [...]. Having lived in Germany, and being born in French province in Canada, I am aware of mistakes I make in their language and that they make in English. I prefer people try and don’t mind the mistakes.”

The questionnaire also contained two questions asking respondents for examples of either grammar/syntax mistakes or pronunciation mistakes that they have/had noticed but respondents usually do not remember any examples. As one of them says “they are usually random occurrences”. However, a few interesting notes were added by some of the respondents. First of all, one of the respondents from UK suggests: “There are more cultural misunderstandings than any caused by syntax. In this regard a US and UK delegates are likely to have the same challenge,” which proves again that grammar or syntax mistakes are not so relevant as some teachers of English might believe.

Other comments were linked to pronunciation mistakes. The same UK respondent says: “Can’t think of any [pronunciation mistakes]! Once you get used to the accent (like Germans and the ‘V’ instead of ‘W’, it’s no barrier.” One of the Canadian respondents noted: “Sometimes there are humorous accents when pronouncing words; it is interesting that English speakers are often least likely to know other languages in NATO meetings, they should not be critical of others.” The last comment is from a US respondent and it covers both pronunciation and grammar/syntax mistakes: “Honestly, there are regions in the US where the English spoken is more challenging for me to understand than I encountered in Europe (at NATO meetings) and in other countries. Non-native English speakers, especially, tend to be more meticulous with respect to grammar. Pronunciations and syntax are easily worked through once one has a rudimentary understanding of the language (pronunciation of certain vowels, consonants or syllables) of the non-native English speakers.”

The fact that non-native speakers are “more meticulous” about grammar probably comes from the daily reality at schools. English teachers stress the importance of grammar in every lesson of English and they keep correcting grammar mistakes even if they are not an obstacle in understanding. If teachers were more aware of the ELF, they might change their mind and start looking at mistakes from a different point of view (see chapter 2.4.3).

8.2 Should Native Speakers Adapt?

The author considers this part of the thesis probably the most interesting and exciting because it gives readers the chance to discover whether native speakers are aware of the specific features of communication in an international environment. As it was mentioned in chapter 5, native speakers “seem to be aware of the challenges of intercultural communication, [but] they seem unable to adopt effective accommodation strategies (Jenkins, “Review of Developments” 299).

8.2.1 Adapting in General

All six respondents believe that, in general, it is necessary for native speakers of English to adjust their speech when non-native speakers are involved in the interaction. When the question is aimed at them personally, they all agree that they feel that they should adjust and change from their home “mode of speaking” to an international “mode of speaking” because they either speak too fast (mentioned three times) or use some vocabulary that could be unknown to non-native speakers (mentioned four times). One of the US delegates even mentioned problems that can be caused by slang terms. None of them mentioned less clear pronunciation or non-standard accent.

When non-native speakers were asked a similar question (when listening to native speakers, if you do not understand, what the reason usually is), their reasons were as follows: • They speak too fast (mentioned eight times); • They speak with a regional accent (eight times); • The do not pronounce clearly enough (five times); • They use technical or general vocabulary I do not know (both mentioned once).

Apparently, non-native speakers are not very satisfied with how native speakers speak and they often complain about a non-standard accent and less clear pronunciation while native speakers did not mention these two reasons at all. Two of the non-native speakers even expressed it in a less diplomatic way: “They [native speakers] usually don’t care about the person who is listening” (French respondent) and “[They are] Often very self-centred, [they think that] others should do like us, [they] use short terms” (Norwegian respondent).

Only two out of twelve non-native respondents think that it is not necessary for English native speakers to adjust their speech when non-native speakers are involved in the interaction.

It is evident from the above described answers that native speakers are aware that it might be difficult for non-native speakers to understand them but do they really adjust their speech (for example by slowing down, not using idioms, phrasal verbs, and concentrating on clear pronunciation) during the meetings? Two of them said they do it automatically without thinking about it. Three of them said they do it consciously most of the time. One admitted that he tries but he tends to return to his normal “mode of speaking” rather quickly.

When non-native speakers were asked what their personal experience was; whether native speakers adjust their speech during the meetings, half of them (six) said that some of the native speakers do it, four respondents think that most of them do it and two respondents said that native speakers do not adjust their speech.

The presented answers indicate that native speakers at least try to adjust their speech, but they are not always successful. If they were, the reaction to this question would be much more positive from non-native speakers. Yet, it is necessary to realize that it is not easy to change one’s mode of speaking and it needs some time before it can be done subconsciously without even thinking about it.

The author has a personal memory of a US vice-chairman of the group whose accent was a combination of a New York and Irish accent as he grew up in New York and was raised by his Irish grandparents. When the author asked him to pronounce clearly and to slow down, he had to use an A4 paper, to write down “SLOW DOWN” with big letters and each time he looked at that paper, his speech was reasonably understandable. Without the help of this “little note”, he almost immediately went back to his normal, quite fast (and quite unintelligible)

way of speaking. He said that he spoke very slowly and clearly with his unit (he was a military commander) but for some reasons he was not able to apply the same speed and clearness of talking on the international environment.

When native speakers were asked whether their experience from international meetings has influenced the way they speak in an international environment, two of them said “yes, absolutely” and four of them said the way they speak has changed quite a lot.

As there are differences between British, American and Canadian English, non-native speakers were also asked which countries’ delegates they find easier to understand by marking countries in the respective order (1 = the easiest to understand, 3 = the most difficult to understand). The winner of this “contest” seems to be American English because it got only one mark 3 and the highest number of mark 2; it also got almost the same number of mark 1 as Canada (USA got five and CAN got six of them), see the graph below.

It means that five non-native speakers consider American English the easiest to understand, six of them do not think it is the most difficult to understand and only one of them thinks it is the most difficult to understand.

Graph 1: Comparison of British, American and Canadian English by non-native speakers

4 1 2 3 3 2

Number of respondents 1

0 Great Britain United States Canada

Source: Information from the author’s questionnaires. Note: 1 = the easiest to understand, 3 = the most difficult to understand

The author of the thesis expected Canadian English to be the winner because in her own experience Canadian delegates tend to speak quite clearly, slowly enough and they usually do

not have any heavy accent. However, it seems that respondents prefer American English. One of the reasons can be the fact that Europeans watch a lot of movies and TV shows made in United States (see chapter 1.2.4 about influence of USA in the media) and therefore they are more used to listening to American English.

British English does not seem to be very popular among respondents, it got the highest number of mark 3 (it got six marks 3 while Canadian English three and American English only one). It is a bit surprising because, at least in the Czech Republic, most textbooks for English classrooms are British (published by Cambridge, Longman, Oxford, etc.) and the English taught at schools is dominantly British.

The graph might also show another issue though in an unspoken way: it might suggest that American and Canadian delegates are somewhat better at adjusting their speech to international environment than British delegates, which could have influenced how non- native speakers rated the countries.

From what has just been explained, it is apparent that native speakers usually try to adjust and are aware of the problem but according to non-native speakers they are not always successful. Non-native speakers should perhaps put more pressure on native speakers to make sure more of them realize when they are not understood. The questionnaire did not show a convincing result in the frame of pressure because three native speakers said they occasionally feel pressure to adjust their speech or are asked to slow down or speak clearly and another three said they have never felt the pressure.

The author has chaired three meetings and she realizes that sometimes it is very difficult to interrupt the speech as it does not seem polite or suitable, so she understands that non-native speakers might be hesitant about it. At the same time, it happens very often that if a native speaker is asked to slow down or speak up, he or she adjusts the speech only for a short time and then starts speaking fast or quietly again.

8.2.2 Being “Too English”?

Another problem that can be an obstacle in a communication mentioned by Seidlhofer (see chapter 3.2.2) lies in the area of vocabulary: idioms, phrasal verbs, collocations which non-

native speakers might not be familiar with. That is why one of the questions in the questionnaire was worded in the following way: Have you ever thought that you could be considered “too English” by non-native speakers and that this “Englishness” could prevent smooth communication in the international environment?” Two respondents answered yes and four answered no, which indicates that native speakers are not always aware of this problem.

However, when non-native speakers were asked about reasons why they do not understand native speakers, half of them mentioned the fact that native speakers use phrases, phrasal verbs or idioms that they do not know. Moreover when non-native speakers were asked to give examples of situations when they did not understand, while they did not come up with really concrete examples, there were some interesting comments.

The French respondent wrote a note: “Private jokes, subjects of conversation which are very ‘Anglo-Saxon’”, the Hungarian respondent noted: “A speech full of idioms and phrases” and the Greek respondent added: “Usually the Great Britain and American delegates [...] use phrases and idioms that are not widely known.” These three examples probably represent a view of many other non-native speakers who have talked to native speakers and had to deal with idioms or collocations that they were not familiar with. As it has been mentioned in chapter 3.2.2, such expressions or phrases can slow down communication if not even block it completely.

The author has her own experience with the phrase “a monkey on your back”. Some years ago she sent an e-mail with a request for information to one of the US delegates. On the next day, the e-mail returned with just a single and unfinished sentence: “Your monkey”. The author was quite confused until she realized that the e-mail was not sent to her directly but the US delegate sent it to one of his colleague in a different office and the e-mail that arrived in the Czech Republic was only a copy to let the person who had sent the request know that something was done in order to fulfil it. Still, there was one more question to answer mainly from the language point of view. Why is the US delegate talking about monkeys? Is it some kind of a secret code? These questions were only answered by talking to an American teacher in a language school.

Another example of an unsuitable use of idioms could be a story told to the author by a Canadian delegate. During one of the breaks he was talking to a Swedish delegate who came to him for help. She said: “Do you remember what David [a US delegate] said during his presentation about the current project? He said that ‘there are more ways to skin a cat’. I have no idea what he meant. Why would he skin a cat? Why would he hurt the poor animal?” The Swedish delegate probably did not realize that the American delegate did not talk about real animals but used the phrase in a figurative meaning.

8.2.3 Is Training Necessary?

Jenkins mentions that it might be useful if native speakers were “trained in intercultural communications skills” (“Review of Developments” 299). As this seemed to be a very interesting idea, the author included the question for the native speakers whether they think it would be useful for them to receive some lessons or lectures on how to use English in an international environment before they start attending international meetings. Three of them said that it would be useful, two of them that it would not be useful.

The remaining one crossed out both options. When asked for clarification, he replied: “With regards to the question 16 my thoughts are that it depends on the member. Generally if it contributes to the overall meeting then yes, if they would have more confidence in the group then it would be helpful, however if it would be seen to be insulting to the member simply because their accent or pronunciation is not perfect then I would say no.”

This, of course, brings another aspect into the discussion about native speakers and ELF, an aspect that has not been considered yet. It is essential not to forget that native speakers are partners in many conversations that happen all around the world every day and there is certainly a way they feel about English being used as lingua franca, which will be discussed later (see chapter 8.3) but it must not be forgotten that native speakers need support in adjusting to this new situation and help to be good conversation partners. As it was shown, native speakers are quite tolerant to grammar, syntax or pronunciation mistakes, so the same should be done towards their fast, unclear or idiomatic speech.

In any case, the results are not very clear, some respondents believe training would be valuable, some do think otherwise. The author of the thesis claims that a short lecture or

seminar where possibly tricky situations would be explained, some simple rules given, for example what vocabulary to avoid, and some guidance offered (in terms of whether and how to adjust the speech) would help some native speakers to prepare for situations they can expect and they could avoid some misunderstandings.

This opinion can be supported by answers to one of the questions in the questionnaire. Three respondents think that the English used during meetings is only a little different from the English they use in their country; two of them think it is not different at all. Only one believes that it is quite different. If the language used at the meetings is really not that different (at least in the eyes of native speakers), doesn’t it mean that non-native speakers face even a bigger challenge? The lecture or seminar mentioned above could certainly help native speakers realize that it might be necessary to be careful about what vocabulary they use, to make shorter sentences, avoid idioms, avoid complicated grammar structures, etc., which would then help make the English used during the meetings easier to digest for non-native speakers.

The author’s own experience from the meetings is that the longer the delegates attend the meeting, the better he or she gets at adjusting (actually, the one respondent who tends to return to his normal way of speaking quite quickly has been with the group for the shortest time from all the respondents). Also, a previous experience from working in an international environment makes a huge difference. For example, a UK delegate who used to be a member of the group some time ago spoke very slowly and clearly from the first meeting on and it was obvious that he was choosing words very carefully when he was giving a presentation or joining a discussion. He had worked for NATO before he joined the group, so he already had had experience from working and communicating with non-native speakers. The author believes that native speakers have to get used to the way communication functions in an international group and have to find out for themselves whether in their case it is necessary to adjust. There certainly are delegates whose natural speed of speech or accent does not require any adjustments for an international forum.

8.3 Attitude towards Lingua Franca

The last questions in the questionnaire were aimed at discovering how native speakers feel about ELF. However, the term “lingua franca” was not used in the questionnaires because the author was not sure whether respondents would be familiar with it.

Unfortunately, the answers to the question whether they think that the fact that so many people around the world use English even though they are not English native speakers influences their mother tongue, did not bring an unambiguous result. Two respondents think it does influence, another two think it influences to a certain extent and the remaining two think it does not influence it. However, even such a result can offer an interesting insight into the thinking of native speakers. Each pair of the respondents probably represents a different group of native speakers. The 375 million native speakers in the Inner Circle are not a homogenous group with just one opinion.

Thankfully, answers to the last question ‘how they feel about their mother tongue being used by millions of people all around the world’ were much clearer. It is remarkable that native speakers are quite optimistic about it and see it in a positive way. They are proud of it (mentioned twice) or happy about it (mentioned six times), they think it has a positive effect on English (mentioned four times) and they think it is an advantage for them while travelling or doing business (mentioned six times). The only slightly negative aspect chosen was “I’m afraid English native speakers rely on it and think they don’t need to learn foreign languages” (mentioned three times). That is probably the reason why four out of six respondents stated that they speak only “a bit of French”; they do not need to speak any foreign language well (see page 40). Other (rather negative) options that were offered in the questionnaire, for example “I’m not happy about it”, “I’m afraid it’ll have a negative effect on English” were not chosen by any of the native respondents.

It is gratifying to finish the commentary on the questionnaires in such an optimistic way. Although there probably are quite many native speakers who are not so happy about English being used as a lingua franca and are afraid that it will change their mother tongue in a way that they cannot influence, it is good to know that some of the native speakers enjoy the fact that their own language has spread all around the world and is used by so many people in so many different countries.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that English is a global lingua franca. It differs quite a lot from the previous lingua francas that never reached global dimensions and it functions in conditions that are also very different from the lingua francas of the past when there was no Internet, no air travel and the world was not as interlinked as it is today. English is very special in this respect and it has proven its quality as a communication tool since the 50’s of the twentieth century when the story of the “globalisation” of English approximately started. The thesis concentrated on ELF at international meetings but there are many other areas where English works as a useful communication tool.

The work in a NATO working group offers a great insight into one of the areas where English is used as a lingua franca. This thesis attempted to describe the communication of delegates and their feelings about the language they share. Working on the thesis enabled me to view English from a completely different point of view and use my experience from the international environment. I really appreciate the patience and tolerance that is used at the meetings in order to reach communication goals. It does not mean that the communication is always flawless. Every delegate needs some time to find out how the communication works and occasional problems with understanding are not exceptions but are exactly the reason why the international communication needs more flexibility and adaptability than communication at home.

Would another language work in international environments as well as English does? If the circumstances explained in the thesis had not made English what it is today? The answer to this question is that it quite probably would. The main key to the international communication is overcoming obstacles that arise from the fact that people of different mother tongues talk to each other, so it does not matter that much which language is used. However, English seems to be a well-“chosen” lingua franca and hopefully, it will keep its position in the future.

List of References

Briney, Amanda. “Lingua Franca. An Overview of Lingua Franca, Pidgins, and Creole”. About.com n.d. Web. 20 August. 2014 Bundessprachenamt. “Sprachprufungen” Bundessprachenamt. 1 Oct. 2008 Web. 21 Dec. 2014 Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print. Crystal, David. English as a Global Language . Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Web. 15 July. 2014. Eurostat Press Office. “Two-thirds of Working Age Adults in the EU28 in 2011 State They Know a Foreign Language”. 26 September. 2013. Web. 25 March. 2014. Graddol, David. The Future of English? A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century . London: British Council, 2003. Web. 4 May. 2014. Jenkins, Jennifer. “ELF at the Gate: The Position of English as a Lingua Franca”. Humanising Language Teaching. March. 2005. Web. 6 April. 2014 Jenkins, Jeniffer, et al. “Review of Developments in Research into English as a Lingua Franca”. Language Teaching 44.3 (2011): 281-315. University of Southampton. Print. NATO. “Final Communiqué of the First Session of the North Atlantic Council (Terms of Reference and Organisation)”. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. 17 Sept. 1949. Web. 31 August. 2014. NATO. “STANAG 6001 Language Proficiency Levels”. Univerzita obrany. Cetrum jazykového vzd ělávání. n.d. Web 21 Dec. 2014 Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a t ělovýchovy. “Seznam standardizovaných jazykových zkoušek, č.j. MSMT- 24195/2013”. 24 July 2013. Web 3 Nov. 2014 Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 4 May. 2014 Seidlhofer, Barbara. “Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24 (2004): 209 - 239. Print. Seidlhofer, Barbara. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Walters, Jackie. “Why is English the International Lingua Franca?” TranslationDirectory.Com . n.d. Web. 25 March. 2014.

Appendix 1 Questionnaire for non-native speakers

1. Which country are you from?

2. What is your mother tongue?

3. Can you speak another foreign language besides English? If yes, which one(s)?

Yes, I speak … No

4. Is it obligatory in your country to prove your level of English (to pass a language exam) before you can start attending international (NATO) meetings?

Yes No

5. Have you passed the STANAG 6001 language exam in English? If yes, what level?

Yes Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 No

6. If you have not passed STANAG 6001 exam, do you have another certificate proving your knowledge of English?

Yes Name of the certificate (and the level) No

7. What do you think is your current level of English 3?

Elementary (You can understand many simple everyday expressions in familiar situations and sometimes grasp what the basic topic of a conversation in English is. You can produce understandable questions and answers involving information above basic.) Pre-intermediate (You can understand the gist of a common conversation in English, though not in detail and you can produce English well enough to take part if spoken carefully. You can initiate conversation and can perform most everyday social and practical functions to survive comfortably.) Intermediate (You can understand the gist of a common conversation involving fluent speakers, provided that some allowances are made, or occasional help given. You can produce well enough to make substantial relevant contributions and to get full information from other speakers.) Upper Intermediate (You can understand well enough to hold continuous conversation with a native speaker, even where the speaker does not, or can not, adapt their language to a foreigner. You can produce well enough to initiate new topics, change the subject and generally take part in the management of the conversation.) Advanced (You can understand native speakers of everyday standard English, even when not being directly addressed, and you can therefore take part in a normal interaction on almost the same terms as a native speaker. You can produce speech fluent enough to convey feeling, to argue and maintain point of view.)

3 Definitions taken and adopted from www.englishschool.org.uk

Proficient (Your English is a native speaker standard in every skill.)

8. How long have you attended international NATO group meetings?

Less than a year. More than a year but less than three years. More than three years but less than six years. More than six years.

9. Understanding what is being said during the meetings:

I have no problems to understand. I have only minor problems with understanding. I have serious problems with understanding occasionally. I have serious problems with understanding quite often.

10. Do you sometimes get a bit lost in a discussion around the table?

Yes, quite frequently. Yes, sometimes. Yes, but very rarely. No, never.

11. Do you sometimes decide not to join a discussion around the table just because you do not feel confident enough about your English?

Yes, quite frequently. Yes, sometimes. Yes, but very rarely. No, never.

12. When listening to non-native speakers of English: if you do not understand what they are saying, the reason usually is (choose more options if necessary):

They speak with a heavy accent that comes from their mother tongue. They don’t pronounce clearly enough. They use vocabulary I do not know. They make grammar mistakes that prevent me from understanding. Other:

13. Do you occasionally notice that non-native speakers make grammar or syntax 4 mistakes?

No, I do not pay attention to mistakes, I only concentrate on understanding what is being said. Yes, sometimes I notice mistakes but I don’t care as far as I can understand. Yes, sometimes I notice and I would rather if they did not make mistakes.

4 Syntax = the way words are put together to form a sentence.

14. Can you give an example (examples) of the situations when you did not understand? Are there any typical mistakes in grammar or pronunciation that prevent you from understanding? You can also give a random example.

15. Where vocabulary is concerned, do you think it is more important – for the purposes of NATO group meetings - to have a sufficient level of knowledge of

…technical (expert) vocabulary? …general vocabulary?

16. What is more important for you during the meetings?

To understand what other non-native speakers are saying even if they make some grammar or syntax 2 mistakes from time to time. Good level of English of other non-native speakers, speaking without mistakes.

17. Do you think that the level of English of non-native speakers who attend the meetings is sufficient for the purposes of an international meeting?

Yes, all of them have a sufficient level of English. Yes, most of them have a sufficient level of English.

No, there are quite many whose level of English is not sufficient.

18. When listening to native speakers of English: if you do not understand what they are saying, the reason usually is (choose more options if necessary):

They speak too fast. They speak with a heavy (regional) accent. They don’t pronounce clearly enough. They use technical vocabulary I don’t know. They use general vocabulary I don’t know. They use phrases, phrasal verbs 5 or idioms 6 I don’t know (they are “too English”). Other:

19. Can you give an example (examples) of the situations when you did not understand?

20. Do you feel that it is necessary for English native speakers to adjust their speech due to the fact that non-native speakers are involved in the interaction?

Yes No

5 Phrasal verbs = verbs that consist of a verb and a preposition that form a new word when used together and the meaning cannot be guessed based on the knowledge of the meaning of the verb and the preposition when used separately (e.g. to run into, take after, look forward, hang up, break down) 6 Idioms = phrases where the words together have a meaning that is different from the dictionary definitions or the individual words (e.g. It’s all Greek to me. It’s not my cup of tea. It doesn’t ring a bell.)

iii

21. Based on your experience, do English native speakers adjust their speech during the meetings?

Yes, all of them do. Yes, most of them do. Yes, some of them do. No, they don’t.

22. Which countries’ delegates do you find easier to understand? Please mark the countries in the respective order (1 = the easiest to understand, 3 = the most difficult to understand):

Great Britain USA Canada

23. Do you (as a non-native speaker) adjust your English due to the fact that the NATO group is an international forum and that the level of English of individual delegates can differ?

Yes No

Thank you very much! Your help is really appreciated!

If there is anything you want to add or comment on, please use this space:

Appendix 2 Questionnaire for native speakers

1. Which country are you from?

2. How long have you attended international NATO group meetings?

Less than a year. More than a year but less than three years. More than three years but less than six years. More than six years.

3. Can you speak any other language than your mother tongue?

Yes, I speak… No.

4. Do you think that the level of English of non-native speakers is sufficient for the purposes of international meetings?

Yes, all of them have a sufficient level of English. Yes, most of them have a sufficient level of English.

No, there are quite many whose level of English is not sufficient.

5. Speaking about countries where English is not a mother tongue, do you think it is possible to make a general statement about whose command of English is better and whose worse (i.e. when you speak to somebody or when you listen to him/her talking at the meeting, are there delegates who you like to speak to or who you prefer because you know their level of English is good and your conversation will be without misunderstandings and fluent enough)?

The best (name three countries): The worst (name three countries): Note: The order is not important; there is no first, second or third place.

6. Where vocabulary is concerned, do you think it is more important – for the purposes of NATO group meetings and for non-native speakers - to have a sufficient level of knowledge of

…technical (expert) vocabulary? …general vocabulary?

7. How much do you mind non-native speakers’ grammar or syntax 7 mistakes?

Not at all unless they prevent me from understanding. I usually notice mistakes but I do not mind. I usually notice mistakes and I’d rather if they didn’t make them.

7 Syntax = the way words are put together to form a sentence.

8. Can you give example(s) of grammar or syntax mistakes that non-native speakers tend to make? It can be either mistakes that prevented you from understanding or mistakes that non-native speakers repeat quite often no matter what country they come from, mistakes that you find annoying or any random mistake that you remember.

9. Can you give example(s) of pronunciation mistakes that non-native speakers tend to make? It can be either mistakes that prevented you from understanding or mistakes that non- native speakers repeat quite often no matter what country they come from, mistakes that you find annoying or any random mistake that you remember.

10. Generally speaking, do you feel that it is necessary for native speakers of English to adjust their speech due to the fact that non-native speakers are involved in the interaction?

Yes No

11. Speaking about you personally, do you feel that you should adjust and change from your home “mode of speaking” to an international “mode of speaking”?

Yes If your answer is yes, can you specify the reason? I think I speak too fast. I think I do not pronounce clearly enough. I think I do not have a standard accent. Some of the vocabulary I normally use could be unknown to non-native speakers. Other reasons, please specify: No, because I think my English does not need adjustments for the international environment. No, I have never thought about it.

12. While speaking, do you consciously adjust your speech (e.g. by slowing down, not using idioms, phrasal verbs, concentrating on clear pronunciation etc.) due to the fact that non-native speakers are listening?

Yes, I do it automatically without thinking about it. Yes, I do it consciously most of the time.

Yes, I try to but I tend to return to my normal “mode” of speaking rather quickly. Usually I have to be reminded or asked. No, not really.

13. Have you ever felt pressure to adjust your speech / been asked to slow down or speak clearly?

Yes, quite often. Yes, occasionally. No, never.

14. Have you ever thought that you could be considered “too English” by non-native speakers and that this “Englishness” could prevent a smooth communication in the international environment? (Being “too English” means using phrases, phrasal verbs 8 or idioms 9 that non-native speakers might not be familiar with)

Yes No

15. Do you feel that the English language used during the meetings is different than the English that is used in your country? (The reasons can be various, e.g. limited vocabulary, shorter sentences, less/no idioms or collocations, special phrases used only in international environment, simplified grammar etc.)

Yes, absolutely. Yes, quite a lot. Yes, a little bit but not enormously. No, not at all.

16. Do you think it would be useful for native speakers to receive some lessons/lectures on how to use English in an international environment before they start attending international meetings?

Yes No

17. Do you feel that your experience from international meetings with non-native speakers has influenced the way you speak in an international environment (when you compare your first meeting with how you feel about it today)?

Yes, absolutely. Yes, quite a lot. Yes, partly. No, not at all.

18. Do you think that the fact that so many people around the world use English even if they are not English native speakers influences your mother tongue?

Yes, absolutely. Yes, to a certain extent. No, I don’t think so.

19. How do you feel about your mother tongue being used by millions of people all around the world to communicate with each other even if they are not English native speakers? You can choose more options if necessary.

8 Phrasal verbs = verbs that consist of a verb and a preposition that form a new word when used together and the meaning cannot be guessed based on the knowledge of the meaning of the verb and the preposition when used separately (e.g. to run into, take after, look forward, hang up, break down) 9 Idioms = phrases where the words together have a meaning that is different from the dictionary definitions or the individual words (e.g. It’s all Greek to me. It’s not my cup of tea. It doesn’t ring a bell.)

vii

I feel proud about my mother tongue. I am happy that so many people around the world learn and use English. I think it has a positive effect on English. I think it’s an advantage for me e.g. while travelling abroad in my free-time or while doing business with foreign partners. I don’t care. I’m not happy about it. I’m afraid English native speakers rely on it and think they don’t need to learn foreign languages. I’m afraid it will have a negative effect on English. Other:

Thank you very much! Your help is really appreciated!

If there is anything you want to add or comment on, please use this space:

viii