Transnational companies

The granting of special status to English and the advertising of that status spread throughout large firms during the 1990s, and particularly among those trying to achieve a global position through takeovers and mergers. Examples are ABB (Asean-Brown-Boveri), Alcatel, Aventis, Daimler-Chrysler, EADS (European Aerospace Defence and Space), Novartis and Vivendi. Until the early 1990s these companies were particularly solidly established in their countries of origin, had a highly organised head office in those countries and covered a whole network of branches.

Nowadays they regard themselves as transnational companies which are less identifiable with particular countries or which may even wish not to be identified with specific countries. They accordingly change their names and the location of their head offices and declare English to be their official language.

Aventis resulted in this way from the merger of Rhône-Poulenc and Hoechst, two companies previously identified very clearly with their countries of origin, France and Germany. Its head office has been located in Strasbourg, a city which has no links with the founder companies but instead probably has a practical advantage and symbolic importance. Its decision to confer a special status on English is deliberately flaunted by its top executives.

Alain Godard, President of Aventis Crop Science, formerly Rhône-Poulence Agro (recently sold to the Bader group), has declared: "Vice-President Gerhart Prante and I speak with the same voice in English, the company's official language." (Le Monde, 08.02.2000). Its Director of Human Resources was even more explicit: "We must build a common culture around English, which is establishing itself as our working language" (Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace, 12.04.2001). At the end of the 1990s Siemens AG decided that German was no longer appropriate to its global scale and replaced it with English, which was identified as a company language. English became the official language of Daimler-Chrysler from the moment when Daimler-Benz (Mercedes) and Chrysler merged. However, German is still very much in evidence in Mercedes plants outside Germany.

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?