5. Results
5.3 English language skills in the target companies
The second main focus of the study and one of the research questions was the need and importance of different aspect of language skills. The interviewees were first asked to choose the three most important aspects of language skills in the context of English use in their company from a predetermined list. The list and the results of the most important aspects of English skills are presented in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. The most important aspects of language skills needed in the target companies.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Grammar knowledge Pronunciation Cultural competence Occupational vocabulary Writing Listeing comprehension Reading comprehension Conversation skills
Times mentioned as one of the most important aspects of language skills
63
As Figure 2 illustrates, the most important aspect of language skills in the pilot company was conversation skills, which was chosen as one of the most important aspect of language skills by every interviewee. The next most important aspects of language skills were reading
comprehension and listening comprehension with three of the five interviewees placing them among the most important skills. Those were followed by writing with two mentions and occupational vocabulary and cultural competence, both with one mention. Pronunciation and grammar knowledge were not placed among the most important aspects of language skills by any of the interviewees. As the results show, many of the interviewees prioritized basic
language skills. They were seen as essential to be able to function to some extent in English:
(75) Interviewee: But those three that I mentioned, those are clearly the most important.
Interviewer: Yes, so reading comprehension, speech and writing.
Interviewee: So the basics. (Company 1)
(76) But let’s say that in those you need to have, let’s say that first, it is important to have basic level skills, that you can communicate, be understood. (Company 2)
The most important aspect of language skills according to the data, conversation skills, can also be considered a part of basic language skill repertoire. In the present study, oral skills were divided into conversation skills and pronunciation in order to differentiate between communicative and phonological approaches to oral production. Evidently, the target
companies perceived the communicative approach of conversation skills far more important than the phonological aspect of pronunciation. This is in line with the general direction of the basic communication skills appearing more important in the present study. On some level, the same phenomenon can be examined in writing as well: the companies in the present study reported that writing was moderately important with two of the five companies placing it among the top three language skills, whereas none of the companies selected grammar knowledge as one of the most important aspects of language skills. It seems that
communicating relevant information and being understood is far more important than having
64
flawless pronunciation or grammar skills. This corresponds well with previous studies and contemporary ideals of language teaching and competences. Communicativeness is seen as a more important goal in language learning and language proficiency, and for instance, the current Finnish national curricula are heavily based on the idea of communicating and conveying the message or information, rather than producing grammatically, structurally, lexically or phonetically perfect language (Finnish National Board of Education 2014: 348–349;
Finnish National Board of Education 2019a: 180-184).
In addition to the three most important aspects of language skills, which turned out to be the basic skills related to oral production and reception, as well as written production and
reception, the interviewees provided additional information on the more advanced or specific areas of language skills, such as occupational vocabulary or cultural competences. It seems that the basic skills in language production or reception were seen as a necessity to in communicating in English, and therefore required, expected and evaluated as the most important aspects of language skills, whereas the more specific skills, such as occupational vocabulary or cultural competence were seen as important and useful skills to have, as long as the more basic skills were sufficiently good. They were highlighted as important in order to achieve communicative success. Interestingly, multiple interviewees mentioned that the command of occupational vocabulary is very important, but considered so specific that knowledge on it is not expected, but rather to be learned on the job:
(77) Interviewee: If we look beyond the three most important skills, then
occupational vocabulary is also very important in our company. It’s very specific in our field, so it is not necessarily taught anywhere.
Interviewer: Do you mean the vocabulary in engineering in general or vocabulary specific to your field, company and products?
Interviewee: Yes, our field and company specifically. On the other hand, you learn those on the job, I don’t think anybody has been specifically taught them. I think everyone who has been here a bit longer has learned that during their
employment. (Company 1)
65
(78) The common vocabulary, the occupational vocabulary has to be up to par.
But the, no one can expect that a recently graduated engineer would know all the specific vocabulary in our company, because we use certain terminology for certain things, and they can be quite unusual. So those are learned by doing.
(Company 2)
(79) The occupational vocabulary is learned quite fast, as it is the vocabulary you have to use in your work, if you have the other competences, so the occupational vocabulary is not invalid. When you come into the company you learn it quite quickly. (Company 4)
The description of occupational vocabulary as a skill, which is primarily learned during employment positions it into a somewhat different framework than the other aspects of language skills. Learning or sharing information as a part of a certain group or context has been explored in previous studies as well, through the concept of community of practice.
Community of practice is a concept created by Wenger (1998) of an occupational or skill-oriented group, in which learning and sharing information or responsibilities is central. In linguistics, Pitzl (2019) has explored the concept of community of practice in the context of BELF, and notes that in working life, new employees can be socialized into the profession, field or company from the perspective of language as well: they often learn quickly what kind of language is acceptable and frequently used. Similar notions are discussed by Räisäinen (2014), who has studied the language trajectories of Finnish engineers. In her study, the socialization into different language conventions was seen as one of the key parts of the development of the engineers’ language skills. The results of this study seem to place
occupational vocabulary, or the specific jargon needed in these export industry companies, as a language skill which is learned heavily through socialization at work. This is interesting, as occupational or professional vocabulary is often one of the main contents of formal
occupational language teaching. The results suggest that the scope of teaching occupational vocabulary in higher education should be reassessed, as most of the companies in the present study see it as a skill to learn at work. However, it should be recognized that the companies discussed the learning of the more specific jargon of their field, and stated that the
66
employees are expected to have a command of the general vocabulary related to engineering or business.
Additionally, the some of the interviewees mentioned that cultural competence is valued and needed in their company as well:
(80) Then of course, cultural competence should not be understated. It is, you can tell that although Finns speak English and it can be technically right, but it is not formally always the right way to communicate. If we think about Finnish, if it’s directly translated and communicated that way, it is extremely rude, there are no pleasantries or the like. So that requires learning. And possibly how you
communicate with other cultures and what yes or no mean. (Company 2)
(81) And then cultural competence, it is important in my opinion, it is important in situations, when you for example discuss a sale with an Asian, to know the conventions and manners. It is very important. (Company 5)
In addition to exploring the different situations English use and aspects of language skills, this study aims to examine the nature of the English interactions from the perspective of BELF and BELF competences. The interviewees were asked whether the English language interactions in their company happen with native speakers of English or non-native speakers of English, and what are the proportions of the interactions with these two groups. This was examined, as the status of a native-speaker or a non-native speaker, or the proficiency of the participants might actually affect the skills needed in the communication situations. The interviewees were unanimous and very confident in stating that the great majority of their employees’ English language interactions were with non-native speakers of English. The proportion of non-native interactions out of all English interactions being everywhere from nearly all interactions to 60 percent, with the most common answer being 80 percent of English interactions being with non-native speakers.
67
These results are very much in line with previous studies. In their study regarding ELF use in the work environment, Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen (2010: 206-207) found that the situations involving non-native speakers, as opposed to native speakers, are far more
common. In their study, around 70% of all communication situations take place between non-native speakers. Thus, it might be meaningful to consider the BELF competences presented by Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2013: 29–30), such as business communications skills and strategic skills, as important factors for occupational language education. Most
importantly, this has implications for the language teaching in higher education. Cogo (2012:
103–104) raises the question of founding English teaching on native varieties and models of English. According to her, students should have more diverse options and exposures to
English. The results of the present study reinforce this view, as the ELF contacts in the working life are clearly very versatile and do not consist of only encounters with native speakers.
To further analyze the needs and the current language skills of the employees in the target companies, the interviewees were asked to estimate the strengths and weaknesses of their employees’ language skills. The interviewees had the opportunity to describe them freely or use the pre-existing list for help (Appendix 2, question 6). Some interviewees noted that the evaluation is difficult, as the staff includes different types of people with different strengths:
(82) We have quite a broad spectrum of people, so many of them have strengths in different aspects of language skills. (Company 1)
(83) Well, now again, I cannot generalize, because in general the language skills in our company are quite weak. (Company 3)
However, the interviewees estimated that the strengths of their staff would generally be in written communication: writing and reading comprehension. In some cases, listening comprehension and occupational vocabulary were also seen as strengths among the employees. The interviewees described the strengths of the employees as follows:
68
(84) Interviewee: But… but probably the clearest strength would be reading comprehension, maybe. I think that would be the best skill among the employees if we talk about… about…
Interviewer: the staff in average?
Interviewee: Yes, that. (Company 1)
(85) Well, it is, as it with Finns commonly is, that the language skills are good in general, but they are a bit shy in using the language. So I would say that we are more competent in written than spoken communication. (Company 2)
(86) Maybe, If I think, they probably are reading comprehension, reading is, then probably listening comprehension and writing. (Company 4)
(87) Yes, well our strengths, the occupational vocabulary is pretty good, and reading comprehension and reading is on average very good. (Company 5)
As the interviewee from company 2 mentioned, spoken communication is often seen as weaker than written communication. For the average weaknesses of the employees of the target companies the interviewees mentioned spoken production overall as the primary weakness among their employees:
(88) Well, the weaknesses certainly lie in speech, as the employees need spoken English less. So producing intelligible spoken English can be difficult. Even though you might be able to read well, the production might be so difficult that it just does not work. (Company 1)
(89) Well of course now, in the end, people are so shy in using the language, so even if you could, the speaking is often so difficult that it indeed is the spoken communication and conversation skills and producing speech where it often fails. (Company 3)
69
(90) Then what we, we do okay with, but it is not necessarily pleasant for
everyone, is the spoken communication and conversation skills, in those we have room for improvement. (Company 4)
(91) Sometimes when we think about pronunciation and such, so our people surely know the vocabulary, but the pronunciation can be, that we just
mispronounce the words. Then the other side doesn’t necessarily understand what we meant, so there probably are the weaknesses, in producing speech and pronunciation. (Company 5)
Previous research has focused more on the strengths and weaknesses of language users in the context of work, rather than the perceived importance of different areas of language skills. In the study of Airola (2004: 49–51) informants from companies were asked to select three strengths and weaknesses in the English communication of their employees. The results were partially similar to the present study, as the most common strengths in Airola’s study were reading comprehension, conversation skills and listening comprehension. Reading comprehension was the most prominent strength in both studies, and listening
comprehension was mentioned among the strengths in both studies as well. However, the result of conversation skills being ranked as the second most prominent strength in the study of Airola (2004: 49–51), as opposed to the several mentions as a weakness in the present study is noteworthy. In turn, the three most prominent weaknesses in the study of Airola (2004: 49–51) were grammar skills, oral presentations, and conversation skills. Therefore, although oral skills in the form of conversation skills were mentioned as a strength in the previous study, they were also estimated among the most prominent weaknesses in the form of conversation skills and oral presentations. In addition, pronunciation was mentioned as the fourth most common weakness after conversation skills.
In the previous language needs analysis study of Huhta (1999: 80–90) where informants were asked to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses in English, the results were similar to Airola and the present study: reading skills were again the most prominent strength among the informants, followed by oral skills and listening comprehension, whereas oral skills were
70
also discovered as the most common weakness by far, followed by reading skills, cultural understanding and reading skills. It seems that spoken communication and oral skills seem to be the most prominent weakness in the previous studies, as well as in the present study, but additionally seen as a strength by some language users. Furthermore, Huhta (1999: 80–90) examines the strengths and weaknesses from the perspective of the employer, which corresponds better with the present study. The employers in her study highlighted the
position of oral skills as a weakness by a much larger margin than the employees and did not see it as one of the most prominent strengths at all, thus mirroring the results of the present study more exactly. This could be linked to the fact that according to the results of this study, employers also value oral skills and estimate them to be the most important aspect of
language skills, and therefore set a high standard for the conversation or oral skills of their employees. However, the results on pronunciation do not support this, as the interviewees did not place it as one of the most important aspects of language skills at all (see Figure 2), yet as excerpt (91) illustrates, the lack of pronunciation skills seems to cause misunderstandings and hinder communication and therefore be in need. This could be explained by
pronunciation only having an effect or becoming a problem in the specific situations where speech becomes unintelligible, whereas conversation skills could have an effect on achieving additional goals in business and communication in addition to affecting only intelligibility.
As the general result of perceiving reading and written skills as a strength and oral skills and conversation skills as a weakness has been established in previous studies as well, some justification or conclusions have been offered through the years that explain the situation.
Huhta (1999: 80) notes that the employees in her study gave a variety of reasons behind the oral weaknesses, such as difficulty in finding the correct vocabulary in the situation or
insufficient proficiency in pronunciation causing misunderstandings. On a similar note, in her study of Swedish language skills among Finnish lawyers, Kuosa (2020: 57) offers the
instantaneous and unpredictable nature of spoken communication in a foreign language as the reason for the perceived weaknesses or difficulties in spoken situations. It seems that in the oral situations, the courage and confidence to use the language despite imperfect pronunciation or proficiency, as well as the lack of time to think about your speech are the
71
main factors contributing the challenges in oral situations. This was indeed confirmed by interviewees of the present study as well:
(92) Yes, it might be that when we think about it, spoken communication, you have to be quite confident, as you have no time to then think. When you write, like an email, you have a moment where you forget a word, you can always look it up and think. In speech you don’t have that option. (Company 2)
(93) Or overall the… sort of the.. whatever it is with language skills, that when you listen or read, it is somehow easier overall for people, but when you have to produce something yourself, either spoken or written, then the written seems a lot easier, as you perhaps have more time there. But the spoken language, especially in like, like a meeting, a Teams-meeting, you don’t have that kind of time at all, so it might not then be that easy or pleasant. (Company 4)
Additionally, the results of the present study and the previous studies clearly show that receptive skills, such as reading or listening, are more often seen as strengths than
weaknesses, and are perceived to be easier for the users of the language. This was also briefly directly voiced by one of the interviewees in the present study, as can be seen in the excerpt above.