Questions arising

These remarks concern a part of what might be called the tip of the iceberg of linguistic practices in industry. The reality of these practices should be looked at.

Does the ostentatious adoption of English reflect the genuine use of English or the need to display an image (international or global)?

If it is found that English is actually used, is this the result of a communication problem?

What other reasons might there be? To establish a power relationship based on that language? To create a business culture?

What are the place and relative functions of English and the other languages, particularly the languages of the host countries?

Is allowance made for the concept of a national language? Does such a concept mean anything?

What about languages other than the national language?

When a national or other language is taken into account, what are the motives for such a step: organisational or productivity requirements, relations with staff?

Do the staff have the capacity to impose linguistic practices, to assert an identity? Or do they feel it necessary to abandon the field to a dominant language and to accept the power relationships imposed by management?

Do those who use it feel more highly valued? Different?

What happens to the language of the country from which the company originates?

What is the situation in SMEs?

The studies in this sector have been carried out with a view to providing guidance to companies. They provide information about the use of foreign languages for export (Hagen, 1999). What is the situation regarding practices at work, for example in companies which have gone international?

In principle there are two abundant sources of data regarding languages in the workplace: language-knowledge requirements in job vacancies, and demand for language training. However, these data are themselves subjects of research.

Does, for example, the requirement to know English in a job vacancy represent an economic need?

Are the linguistic requirements for posts based on a study of the practices relating to the posts in question? Or are they simply social or cultural requirements designed to show that the applicant's educational background matches the responsibility involved, to guarantee that the applicant has been in contact with economic or business-management models regarded as references or to prove that the persons concerned are mobile and adaptable and not too deeply rooted in their national culture or attached to their specific identity?

When there is a demand for English training, does this correspond to a practice in the job, to the desire of part of the staff not to be sidelined in relations with a management which expresses itself in that language, or to a fear of being sacked when the next merger occurs?