Dorte Lønsmann

Linguistic diversity in the international workplace: Language ideologies and processes of exclusion

Abstract This article draws on a study of language choice and language ideologies in an international company in Denmark. It focuses on the linguistic and social challenges that are related to the diversity of language competences among employees in the modern workplace. Research on multilingualism at work has shown that employees may be excluded from informal interactions and from access to power structures on the basis of language skills in the company’s language(s). The data discussed here show that in the modern workplace, employees’ linguistic competences are diverse; international employees often have competence in the company’s lingua franca but lack skills in the local language while some ‘local’ employees lack competence in the corporate language (typically English). This can lead to the sociolinguistic exclusion of either group. In conclusion, the article relates these processes of exclusion to two language ideologies: one about an essential connection between language and nation and one about a hierarchy of English users.

Language ideologies in a Danish company with English as a corporate language: ‘it has to be English’

With the spread of English as a global language, concerns have been voiced over the impact of English on local languages. This article presents results from an ethnographic study of language ideologies in a Danish workplace with a particular focus on ideologies of English in relation to the local language and to other foreign languages. In this international company, conflicting ideologies construct the local language Danish on the one hand as the natural language in Denmark, but as unimportant compared to English on the other hand. English is constructed as prestigious and powerful in contrast with Danish. While previous studies of English as an international language have tended to focus on the consequences for the local language, this article also includes a discussion of the role of English in relation to other international languages. English is constructed as the international language, as the only possible choice for communicating internationally. The prevalence of this language ideology means that other foreign languages are either not considered at all, or even rejected outright as means for international communication, a process referred to by Irvine and Gal as ‘erasure’.

Embrace it or resist it? Employees’ reception of corporate language policies

Corporate language policies and particularly the use of English as a corporate language have been studied in multinational corporations (MNCs) for almost two decades now. Despite these volumes of research, very little has been written about the process of implementing a corporate language and even less about the employee perspective. The article contributes to the field of language in cross-cultural management by exploring when and why corporate language policies encounter resistance among employees. The study uses observational and focus group data to investigate reactions to a new corporate language policy in one Danish MNC. Drawing on sociolinguistic stancetaking theory and ethnographic methods, the study seeks to understand how contextual factors influence employees’ stances towards the introduction of English as a corporate language. English language competence, the local linguistic context and different temporal perspectives are found to be key factors. The study suggests that new language policies are likely to be resisted when they are introduced to support a long-term strategic goal but lack immediate relevance in the daily life of employees. These results have implications beyond the scope of corporate language policies but reach into the study of the implementation of strategic organizational changes more generally with the suggestion that understanding employees’ local context and outlook is necessary for management to successfully implement change in the organization.

Negotiating Positionality in Ethnographic Investigations of Workplace Settings: Student, Consultant or Confidante?

“All researchers are positioned whether they write about it explicitly, separately, or not at all” (Chiseri-Strater, 1996, 115). Ethnographic researchers are not supposed to be neutral observers, but are very much part of the research process. As such, the ethnographer herself becomes part of the data collection process, and the relationship between researcher and informants becomes a part of the process as well. This means that we as researchers need to reflect on the research process, including our own position as researchers. One reason why this is important is because our way of positioning ourselves as researchers influences what we have access to. As Chiseri-Strater puts it: “Ethnographies that omit the methodology of doing fieldwork disappoint me, because this information can reveal what a researcher was positioned to see, to know, and to understand” (123). In other words, what we see — or what we are allowed to see — depends on where we stand and who we are in that moment. By reflecting on this positioning in our work, we are providing important contextual information on the status and value of our research.

Language policy and practice in multilingual production workplaces

Abstract Transnational mobility results in a diversification of languages and cultures in the workplace. A common means of managing this diversity is to introduce language policies that often privilege English or the locally dominant language(s). In contrast, managing their everyday working lives may require employees to draw on a range of multilingual and non-verbal resources. Such tensions between policy and practice in multilingual workplaces may impact structures and processes of inequality and power in the workplace. By looking at two sites within logistics and construction, this article offers a critical look at multilingual policies and practices and their consequences for speakers within the workplace. The article investigates how language is conceptualised in language policies and enacted in language practice. From this point of departure we discuss how the tensions between policies and practices impact on the daily working life and professional opportunities of the workers. Our findings suggest that even though multilingual practices are crucial for the flow of everyday work interactions on the floor, the language requirements within the workplace mirror the repertoires and practices of high-status employees, and therefore their competence is valued more highly than the more multilingual repertoires of their subordinates. A consequence of this unequal valorisation of the different linguistic repertoires is the maintenance of existing hierarchies in the workplace and the creation of new ones.