Abstract
Ensuring linguistic operability in supranational organizations has led to the de facto imposition of an English-only policy in otherwise lingua-culturally diverse environments. This paper uses a combination of a literature review of military-related language policy documents and semi-structured interviews to explore the impact of those policies on the use of English as the working language of a professional context, the Spanish military. Broadly, the findings show that the standardization of linguistic certification procedures, a requirement for their participation in international operations, places these professionals in a disadvantage scenario in which lack of linguistic proficiency translates into the questioning of their personal, professional and institutional validity. The analysis of Spanish soldiers’ perceptions and attitudes helped to shed light on the conflicting interaction of language policies, practices and beliefs. Although English is valued as the language of work and therefore as a vehicle for interaction with other armies, for socialization or for contact with the local population, it is nonetheless viewed as an imposition of the globalized world, accepted with pragmatic and instrumental criteria, which entails the requirement of language certification standards they struggle to meet.
Resumen
La necesidad de asegurar la operabilidad lingüística de organizaciones supranacionales ha significado de hecho la imposición de una política que favorece el uso único del inglés en contextos que por otro lado se caracterizan por su diversidad lingüística y cultural. Este artículo combina una revisión de los documentos de política lingüística del entorno militar con entrevistas semi-estructuradas para explorar el impacto de dichas políticas en el uso del inglés como la lengua de comunicación de un contexto profesional, el ámbito militar español. Los resultados demuestran que la estandarización de los procedimientos de certificación lingüística, un requisito obligatorio para su participación en operaciones internacionales, sitúa a estos profesionales en un escenario de desventaja en el cual la falta de dominio del idioma se traduce en el cuestionamiento de su validez personal, profesional e institucional. El análisis de las percepciones y actitudes de los militares españoles permitió conocer la difícil interacción de las políticas, prácticas y valores lingüísticos. Aunque el inglés es positivamente percibido como la lengua de trabajo y por tanto como un vehículo de interacción con otros ejércitos, de socialización o de contacto con la población local, es visto sin embargo como una imposición de un mundo globalizado, aceptado con criterios pragmáticos e instrumentales que implica la obligación de la certificación de su nivel lingüístico que les cuesta alcanzar.
About the author
Concepción Orna-Montesinos is an ESP teacher at the Defense University, affiliated to the University of Zaragoza (Spain). Her research interests include the use of English as the language of international professional and academic communication and the acquisition of intercultural communication competence. She is also interested in genre analysis and specialized languages.
Acknowledgements
The research conducted in this paper has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness projects “El inglés como lengua franca en los discursos especializados: Espacios alternativos de producción lingüística y cultrual a través del análisis crítico de género” (FFI2012-37346) and “Genre ecology and ecologies of languages: the dynamics of local, transnational and international research communication” (FFI2015-68638-R), the Centro Universitario de la Defensa de Zaragoza (Defense University of Zaragoza, Spain) project “Los retos de la internacionalización en una universidad military” (2015-11), the Government of Aragon and the European Social Fund. The author also wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper.
References
Abbe, Allison. 2008. Building cultural capability for full-spectrum operations. Arlington: United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.10.21236/ADA478043Search in Google Scholar
Alderson, Charles. 2009. Air safety, language assessment policy, and policy implementation: The case of aviation English. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29. 168–187.10.1017/S0267190509090138Search in Google Scholar
Alderson, Charles & Dianne Wall. 1993. Does washback exist? Applied linguistics 14(2). 115–129.10.1093/applin/14.2.115Search in Google Scholar
Angouri, Jo. 2013. The multilingual reality of the multinational workplace: Language policy and language use. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(6). 564–581.10.1080/01434632.2013.807273Search in Google Scholar
Brecht, Richard & William Rivers. 2012. US language policy in defence and attack. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 262–277. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511979026.016Search in Google Scholar
Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2007. Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91(Focus Issue). 923–939.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.xSearch in Google Scholar
Carli, Augusto & Ulrich Ammon. 2007. Linguistic inequality in scientific communication today. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/aila.20.01ammSearch in Google Scholar
Coops, Cees & Tibor Szvircsev Tresch (eds.). 2007. Cultural challenges in military operations. Rome: NATO Defense College.Search in Google Scholar
Crossey, Mark. 2008. English for global peacekeeping. Current Issues in Language Planning 9(2). 207–218.10.1080/14664200802139448Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486999Search in Google Scholar
De Silva, Helen & Elizabeth Thompson. 2015. Language in uniform. Language analysis and training for defence and policing purposes. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Search in Google Scholar
Elder, Catherine & Alan Davies. 2006. Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. 282–304.10.1017/S0267190506000146Search in Google Scholar
Ferguson, Gibson. 2012. English in language policy and management. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 475–498. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511979026.029Search in Google Scholar
Fiedler, Sabine. 2010. The English-as-a-lingua-franca approach: Linguistic fair play? Language Problems & Language Planning 34(3). 201–221.10.1075/lplp.34.3.01fieSearch in Google Scholar
Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality. On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 237–259.10.1016/0378-2166(96)00014-8Search in Google Scholar
Footitt, Hilary & Michael Kelly (eds.). 2012. Languages at war. Policies and practices of language contacts in conflict. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Graddol, David. 2006. English next, vol. 62. London: British Council.Search in Google Scholar
Green, Rita & Dianne Wall. 2005. Language testing in the military: Problems, politics and progress. Language Testing 22(3). 379–398.10.1191/0265532205lt314oaSearch in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2003. English as a lingua franca. A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4). 556–578.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00242.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hynninen, Niina. 2014. The common european framework of reference from the perspective of English as a lingua franca: What we can learn from a focus on language regulation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2). 293–316.10.1515/jelf-2014-0018Search in Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo & Martin Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a. lingua franca. Language Teaching 44(3). 281–315.10.1017/S0261444811000115Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Ian & Louise Askew. 2014. Meeting the language challenges of NATO operations. Policy, practice and professionalization. London: Palgrave.10.1057/9781137312563Search in Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, Anne & Leena Louhiala-Salminen. 2013. ‘What language does global business speak?’-The concept and development of BELF. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 26. 17–34.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert & Richard Baldauf. 1997. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Kassis Henderson, Jane & Leena Louhiala-Salminen. 2011. Does language affect trust in global professional contexts? Perceptions of international business professionals. Rhetoric, Professional Communication & Globalization 2(1). 15–33.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Hyejeong & Catherine Elder. 2009. Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: Perceptions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 32(3). 23.1–23.17.10.2104/aral0923Search in Google Scholar
Kingsley, Leilarna. 2013. Language choice in multilingual encounters in transnational workplaces. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(6). 533–548.10.1080/01434632.2013.807271Search in Google Scholar
Leung, Constant. 2005. Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2). 119–144.10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00084.xSearch in Google Scholar
Maybin, Janet & Karin Tusting. 2011. Linguistic ethnography. In James Simpson (ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics, 515–528. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Orna-Montesinos, Concepción. 2013. English as an International Language in the military: A study of attitudes. LSP Journal 4(1), 87–105.Search in Google Scholar
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2015. Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common European Framework of Reference: What we can learn from research on BELF and intercultural communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 91–124.10.1515/jelf-2015-0009Search in Google Scholar
Ricento, Thomas (ed.). 2006. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Robichaud, David & De Schutter. Helder. 2012. Language is just a tool! On the instrumentalist approach to language. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 124–146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511979026.009Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to ‘realistic English’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203387962Search in Google Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard. 2009. Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511626470Search in Google Scholar
Vangehuchten, Lieve, Willy Van Parys & Alison Noble. 2011. Linguistic and intercultural communication for maritime purposes: A survey-based study. In Carmen Pérez-Llantada & Mayda Watson (eds.), Specialised languages in the global village: A multi-perspective approach, 127–152. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry. 1997. EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes 16(1), 135–146.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
