Critical Jurnal Review

ENGLISH FOR BUSINESS

Lecturer :

Andri Zainal,SE.M.Si.,Ak.,Ph.D

Choms Gary GT Sibarani, M.Si, Ak, CA

Arranged By :

Wansah Fangaro Zai

NIM : 7182142018

Class B

ACCOUNTING EDUCATION B/2018

FACULTY OF ECONOMY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2019
 PREFACE

Praise and gratitude I pray to the presence of God Almighty, for His blessings and grace,
the author can complete preparation of this task well and timely collection of his duties.
This task is made with the intent to fulfill one of the six tasks required in the college contract,
namely the critical journal review the courses of English Business Communication. The author
would like to thanks for our lecturer Andri Zainal,SE.M.Si.,Ak.,Ph.D and Choms Gary GT
Sibarani, M.Si, Ak, Ca has given the author the opportunity to complete this task.

The author realizes that in making this critical journal review there are errors, both in
language usage errors and typing errors. For that criticism and constructive suggestions are in
need of authors for improvement in writing the next paper.

Medan, 25 March 2019

Author
Journal Identity

Journal 1

Original Title Using English for International Business: A European case

study
Journal Journal English for Specific Purpose

Volume Vol 26 (2007) 103–120

Years 2007
ISSN 0889-4906

Journal Homepage www.elsevier.com

Author Pamela Rogerson-Revell
Reviewer Wansah Fangaro Zai
Date March 23.2019

Journal 2

Original Title English As A Business Lingua Franca In International Business

Contexts: Pedagogical implications for the teaching of English for
Specific Business Purposes
Journal Journal of Business Communication

Volume -,
Years 2017
ISSN
Journal Homepage http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.923.4742
&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Author Christine S. Sing
Reviewer Wansah Fangaro Zai
Date March 23.2019
 BAB II

REVIEW JOURNAL

JURNAL 1
Background This study was conducted with the co-operation of the
Groupe Consultatif Actuariel Europeen (GCAE).6 The
GCAE has a consultative and advisory function facilitating
discussion with European Union institutions on existing
and proposed EU legislation which has an impact on the
actuarial profession. Thirty-three actuarial associations
from 30 European countries are represented in GCAE.
Many GCAE members meet at various European venues at
regular intervals to discuss current issues.
Research purposes The purpose of this study is it also aims to provide ‘soft’
data regarding participants’ perceptions of the use of EIB
in such contexts: data which seems relatively scarce in
current research.
Research methodology The research method used is a qualitative descriptive
method

Analytical technique The GCAE internal report provided a useful starting point
for a more detailed data gathering exercise, based on a
written questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to
gather quantitative data about participants’ use of EIB
(e.g., frequency of use, language skills needed, perceived
proficiency level) and about participants’ first language,
number of other languages spoken, etc. Qualitative data
were also gathered, through open-ended questions,
regarding participants’ views about the use of English in
GCAE business meetings and more generally about any
perceived communication issues in such meetings. The
questionnaires, which were written in English,9 were
distributed and returned during the two-day Annual GCAE
Group Meeting held in Manchester, England, in October
2004.
Discussion While it is difficult, and indeed unwise, to make
generalisations from these findings, there are one or two
issues that would benefit from some further discussion.
1. Understanding different accents
It is difficult to draw conclusions from the NNES
responses regarding accents, With reference to the variety
of accents exemplified as ‘easy’ and ‘difficult’ to
understand, it is necessary to bear in mind the mix of
regional and national languages and accents that the
participants represent as well as those that they are familiar
with. For instance, there is some suggestion from the
responses that when exemplifying ‘difficult’ accents,
participants refer to accents of those whose language group
is quite distant from their own.
2. NNES communication difficulties
Relating to the specific difficulties in communicating in
international meetings outlined by NNES participants,
there seems to be a spectrum of issues. These range from
comprehension difficulties, i.e. processing fast or quiet
speech, which seems to be problem shared by participants
with both high and lower English language proficiency,
through difficulties in both comprehension and production,
due to vocabulary limitations, which seem to relate to
speakers whose self-assessment of their language
proficiency (particular in speaking) is relatively low, to
difficulties in managing interactions appropriately.
3. NES comments
Many of the comments made by NSE respondents suggest
an awareness of the difficulties of using a foreign language
for business communication, in this case using English as a
Foreign Language (EFL), and an appreciation of the effort
involved (e.g., ‘‘They always speak better English than I
speak their native language’’ (NES4) and ‘‘Since most
meetings of international bodies are conducted in English,
this almost gives native English speakers an ‘unfair
advantage’’’ (NES6). Many also showed an intuitive
sensitivity to the needs of NNESs and of how to modify
their own NES language use in international contexts.
There was also a degree of self-criticism in comments such
as ‘‘Too many English speakers do not make allowances in
international gatherings’’ (NES5). Indeed, this criticism
was independently made by a NNES respondent: ‘‘Of
course I think I should improve my English, especially in
international business contexts but I also think that native
 English speakers should make greater efforts (actually,
most of them do none) in order to be properly understood
by non-native English speakers’’.
Conclusion It must be remembered that this analysis is based on a
small scale questionnaire which was seen primarily as a
secondary research tool to support further, and more
detailed, analysis to be carried out at a later date.
Consequently I do not wish to make generalizations
beyond the confinements of the actual data analysed.
Nevertheless, the data gathered explores, in perhaps more
detail than elsewhere, how a particular group of European
executives use English for International Business and their
views on its use.
It is hoped that these limited findings will help shed light
on some of the language issues that may be present in such
international gatherings and the possible communications
difficulties and frustrations that can result. A positive
result is that as well as uncovering some of these
communication issues, the analysis also shows an
awareness by many participants of some of the strategies
that can be used to overcome them. The second stage of
the research will involve a discourse analysis of audio and
video recordings of GCAE meetings held in Manchester in
October 2004. The analysis will hopefully provide specific
examples of some of the issues raised here regarding the
use of EIB in such contexts

Advantages -explain clearly and completely starting from the

introduction or background of the problem

- The journal is equipped with several images and graphics

Weakness In the journal research methods were not used so that the
reviews were difficult to review in this journal
JURNAL 2

Background The use of and the wider implications of English as a

lingua franca (ELF) are studied from various perspectives
and with different foci in several disciplines. The two most
important strands of research that need to be brought
together for the purpose of the present article are
linguistics, with its newly emerging field of ELF research
(e.g., Mauranen & Ranta, 2009), and international business
communication, in which the study of English as a
business lingua franca (BELF) has also become a major
focal point in recent years (e.g., Gerritsen & Nickerson,
2009; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005). In the following,
the conceptual issues outlined in the introduction will be
explored in more detail and linked to previous research.

The first set of questions concerns the English language.

What kind of English is used by and is useful for the
interactants? There is general agreement in both ELF and
BELF research that English used for international
communication purposes is not the same as the English
used by its native speakers locally in their home countries.
Thus, a conceptual distinction has to be made between
English as a native language (ENL) and ELF (see
Seidlhofer, 2001). Building on the concept of ELF, BELF
has been defined as a language that is nobody’s own, “but
can be shared” and “is used in the business discourse
community,” that is, it is “ELF usage in business
situations” (Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006, pp. 31,
34). This important distinction, however, between different
concepts of English, with the major implications it has on
several levels, is not always made explicit in the literature
nor is it, despite the use of the terminology, always
maintained in the line of reasoning in some work

Research purposes The aim of this article is to explore these and related issues
on the basis of a qualitative study that investigates the use
of English and its role as a business lingua franca
alongside other languages as experienced by
representatives of top and middle management of a
German family-owned multinational corporation (MNC).
Research methodology Methodology qualitative

Analytical technique Data collection and analysis were governed by general

principles of qualitative research in the social sciences
(Flick, von Kardorff, & Steinke, 2000/2004; Glaser &
Strauss, 1967) including the relevant quality criteria of
“intersubject comprehensibility” and “indication of the
research process” as suggested by Steinke (2000/2004).
The overall database collected in TechComp consists of 24
qualitative interviews of an average length of 90 minutes,
observation of various types of internal and external
meetings as well as dinners (16 events), 2 days of
shadowing, and nine recordings of phone conferences and
meetings. All in all, more than 30 days were spent on-site
at the company. Among the interviewees and observees in
TechComp were board members, highlevel executives, and
project managers, as well as engineers and a few assistants.
The majority of interview partners were German, and the
nationalities of the observees included Italian, French,
British, American, Chinese, and Spanish. However, at
events such as the annual international executive meeting
(which the author also observed), people from more than
20 nationalities gathered.
Discussion If members of management have been described elsewhere
as “often see[ing] language differences in simplistic terms,
so that language is not viewed as an important managerial
issue” (Welch et al., 2005, p. 11) the interviews studied
here convincingly demonstrate that in top management at
TechComp, a family-owned Germany-based MNC, this is
not the case. The four managers have a clear awareness of
the complex linguistic environment in which they need to
get their jobs done, and they have, at the same time,
developed sophisticated strategies for dealing with this
complexity— as is appropriate in their global business
contexts in each particular situation. Though forming an
integral part of their communication practices, this kind of
experience-based expertise is not necessarily part of their
declarative knowledge, and hence it is sometimes difficult
for them to articulate (see Wenger, 1998). With the
methodical help of the interview, though, this tacit
knowledge was elicited or rather prompted by questions
 the interviewees had never really asked themselves before
and transformed into explicit knowledge together with the
interviewer (Kvale, 1996).

Conclusion With regard to a number of conceptual issues, however,

the findings of this study suggest a slight reorientation.
Although, indeed, BELF has no native speakers, in some
contexts, native speakers of English are, in fact, part of
international business operations, occasionally causing
considerable communicative trouble (Charles, 2007). As
much as transcending the native speaker-nonnative speaker
dichotomy may be a desirable theoretical aim, it is
ultimately the empirical reality of a specific international
business setting that decides whether or not native speakers
of English are included in a particular research activity
(Rogerson-Revell, 2007, 2008). In a similar vein, how to
conceptualize BELF speakers adequately has been referred
to as an open question. In the interviews analyzed in this
study, the managers characterized themselves as being,
quite evidently, users of English but also in some ways
lifelong learners. Interestingly, adopting the CofP approach
helps to go beyond the controversial learner-user
distinction (see Charles, 2007; Louhiala-Salminen et al.,
2005). More specifically, the concept of CofP as an
integral part of a social theory of learning criticizes
traditional models of learning in which learners are
abstracted from their normal interactional contexts.
Instead, it defines learning as a fundamentally social
process through which we “learn to perform appropriately
in a CofP as befits our membership status” (Holmes &
Meyerhoff, 1999, p. 174). Researchers are therefore
invited to rethink their own notions of “learner” and ask
novice as well as expert members of different
(B)ELFspeaking business CofPs what it is they had to
learn about languages, and English in particular, in order to
become fully functional members in their communities
(see also Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005, p. 419). Finally,
with regard to BELF as a research paradigm, it is deemed
important not to see the two approaches of ELF and BELF
as mutually exclusive or in opposition (see Charles, 2007)
 but, rather, as complementing each other.

Advantages This journal is more complete and easy to understand

because in the journal there are research methods and in
the journal it is mentioned how long this research was
 conducted.

Weakness There is no suggestion for further research

BAB III

DISCUSSION

1. The first journal discusses the importance of English as the Lingua Franca in multilingual
settings in business.
2. The second journal discusses English as a lingua franca in Germany.