Email messages in BELF

To find out how the perceptions about Finnish and Swedish communication were reflected in authentic data, 282 email messages written in BELF by the Finnish and Swedish employees of the paper company were investigated (for details, see Kankaanranta 2006). The analysis was based on the textualisations of 106 requests with a special focus on their directness to find out about the alleged ‘directness’ of the Finns and the nature of impositions to find out about the alleged ‘discussion-orientation’ of the Swedes.

In the data, every second request could be classified as direct, but the Finns were still somewhat more direct than the Swedes. Of all requests made by the Finns, 63% were classified as direct using either imperatives (e.g. Please comment.) or questions (e.g. What do you think?), whereas the Swedes used more indirect forms such as modal initials (e.g. Could you please comment on this?). More interesting than the relative directness of the requests was the fact that both groups used expressions that the other one never used or at any rate used less frequently.

One example of this difference is the use of kindly by the Finns to replace please; the Swedes never used it. Although the data was limited in size, it could be suggested that kindly is transference from the equivalent Finnish adverb ystävällisesti, which is an integral element in Finnish requests. For some Finnish speakers it may come more easily than please, which represents a functional equivalent for the adverb. What may confuse some Finnish speakers is the dictionary translation for please (olkaa hyvä), which is used when offering something, i.e. in the meaning of here you are.

Another example of different usage is that the Swedes clearly used modal initials more than the Finns. To put it simply, when the Finns wrote Please comment on this, the Swedes preferred Could you please comment on this. More research is needed to further explore this difference.

The nature of impositions in the requests did not generate any clear differences between Finns and Swedes. Most of the impositions (63%) called for communication-related activities: contacting people, informing them about something, and delivering something to them. Interestingly, one-fourth of all requests called for comments or opinions about other texts or business issues and was equally distributed among Finns and Swedes (see examples above).

This result seems to suggest that discussion and dialogue were ongoing and extensive in the company and both Finns and Swedes could be described as discussion-oriented. When this characteristic is combined with the fact that first names were frequent in salutations and complimentary closes of the emails, we gain an image of a people-oriented, democratic corporate culture reflected in the actual use of BELF.

To sum up, the authentic email data supported the survey findings only to some degree and the same applies to the authentic meeting data (see Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005).

Does business know how? The role of corporate communication in the operations of globalized companies

The second major research project run by the International Business Communication unit at HSE started in 2006 and will continue until 2009. Its starting point is the idea of communication know-how as an integral component of business know-how in corporate activities. On a concrete level, we aim to characterize ‘successful communication’ in situations where BELF is used in multinational companies. One of the five subprojects (for more details, see http://www.hse.fi/EN/research/t/p_10/liike2/) comprises a questionnaire survey targeted at companies operating globally, and related interviews.

The ongoing project is a spin-off from the first one, since it inspired us to focus on BELF-related issues. Here I narrow my discussion to only three areas: the nature of English needed in international operations, the role of culture, and the persuasion strategies of BELF communication. At this point, I must emphasize the fact that we are still collecting data and our present data have not been systematically analyzed. So, the findings I will be briefly discussing next are preliminary and should be treated as such.

First, respondents with different cultural backgrounds working in internationally operating companies considered the English proficiency important and felt that BELF communication usually works well in situations where both parties are familiar with the topic. On the whole, communication with other non-native speakers was considered easier than that with native speakers.

This finding is in line with the suggestion by Charles & Marschan-Piekkari (2002), who argue that multinational corporations should invest in training their native English speaker employees to better understand and communicate with their non-native colleagues. Also, it could be argued that BELF speakers might well benefit from training in each other’s specific discourse practices.

Second, it seems that in BELF communication culture plays an important role. However, although it is important to know both the organizational and national culture of the communicator, they are not considered as relevant as the knowledge of the other party’s role in the organization. Comments supporting this finding were also obtained from email writers, who were not able to tell the nationality of some of their frequent communication partners (see Kankaanranta 2006). This finding is in agreement with Jameson’s (2007) conception of individual cultural identity, in which nationality is but one component of many. Other such components are, for example, profession, education, religion, gender, and language.

Third, the respondents strongly agreed with the claim that such persuasion strategies as directness, explicitness, and politeness are important in BELF interactions; in particular, clarity was emphasized. They also stressed the importance of stepping into the other party’s shoes and of making him/her feel good. Thus, successful BELF communication seems to remind us of Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals and their importance in international business communication as discussed by Campbell (1998).

In particular, logos appeals are considered crucial: facts must be presented clearly, explicitly, and directly. Pathos appeals, i.e. appealing to the emotions of the audience, on the other hand, can be exploited to ease the possible cultural hiccups, since the attempts to be polite and to make the other party feel good are bound to pave the way for successful communication. And as mentioned earlier, the fact that knowing the role of the communicator was regarded as essential can be interpreted as emphasizing the ethos appeal.

To sum up, these and other emerging findings will be subject to further analyses and will be complemented with interview data. Finally, we aim at characterizing the prerequisites of successful international communication.