After a lively discussion of the article “Towards a Richer Understanding of Language and Identity in the MNC: Constructing Cosmopolitan Identities Through “English” (2023), we were very pleased that one of the authors, Tiina Räisänen, answered the open questions that Lucas Peltonen had collected during our session:
“Many thanks for sharing your discussion and the questions regarding our article! Anne and I are happy to hear about your vibrant discussion and for the insightful questions that you had. Here are our answers:
1. It seems that the article defines Business English as a “variety” of English. Do you mean to put it alongside something like “Singaporean English” or “Hong Kong English”? Or is the idea of “variety” of English conceptualized differently in this case?
> As we write in the article (section 4, p. 8), we make a difference between the two concepts: BELF and Business English. The latter has been conceptualized more as a certain type of language in which somewhat fixed set of features can be identified (in terms of vocabulary and phrases, for instance). This understanding echoes the concept of a variety. While Singaporean English and Hong Kong English for example are attached to the World Englishes framework, Business English is not, but rather aligns with the idea of Englishes for Specific Purposes. Therefore we would not claim that BE would be a similar variety with for instance Singaporean English. We could have, perhaps, explained this notion better and added more discussion.
2. There seems to be an assertion that BELF interactions are “only achievable via business education and socialization to the business community and/or on-the-job learning.” Does this mean that the authors do not believe in any sort of BELF pedagogy? Of course, this question arises because the conversation occurred with a group of Business English teachers.
> This is an excellent question, and we do believe in BELF pedagogy. However, we think that this pedagogy would entail some sort of business education (i.e. the ‘B’ in BELF). Again, we could have discussed this matter more elaborately in the paper. Thank you for pointing this out!
3. Finally, the “principles of practice are considered universal and cultural differences are secondary, to be managed in daily interactions.” Can you clarify this statement? My understanding of the statement is that the article argues that cultural differences are less important than “getting the job done,” while other attendees said that cultural differences were highlighted as being important but not put at the forefront of every interaction; rather, they are ever-present but in the background.
> Our intention with the statement was to highlight that cultural differences are less important than “getting the job done”, and cultural differences are to be managed in daily interactions.”
Many thanks to Tiina Räisänen for deepening the conversation.
Karhunen, P., Kankaanranta, A., & Räisänen, T. (2023). Towards a Richer Understanding of Language and Identity in the MNC: Constructing Cosmopolitan Identities Through “English”, Management International Review (63), 507-530. (Open Access)
Please find further references in our “Resources”
