Michael Handford, Petr Matous, Problem-solving discourse on an

international construction site: Patterns and practices, English

for Specific Purposes, Volume 38, April 2015, Pages 85-98, ISSN

0889-4906, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.12.002.

This is a preprint version. Final version is available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490614000817

Abstract

This paper analyses the discursive realisation of on-site

problem-solving encounters in a large international construction

project in Hong Kong. Specifically, the analyses focus on

professional English as a lingua franca interactions between the

engineers from Japan who are full-time employees of the company

heading the joint venture, and contracted Hong-Kongese foremen and

engineers. A combination of methods and several data sources are

used to interpret the interlocutors’ communications and

relationships, and show how certain items, for instance problem,

issue and if, as well as evaluative items such as metaphors and

idioms, index discursive practices and patterns during problem

solving. These data sources include fully transcribed spoken

interactions, interviews with the participants and expert

informants, and researcher field notes. The results shed light on

the key intertextual role the contract plays in the context of

construction industry problem solving, the various bodies that are

involved in addressing complex problems, and the importance of the

foreman and on-site engineer relationship.

1

Keywords:International construction industryProblem solvingProfessional discourseDiscursive practicesBELF

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Professor Ozawa Kazumasa for his essential support for this project, the Japanese Society for Promotion of Science for funding the research, Grant No. 24246076 (アアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアア, Project Director Ozawa Kazumasa) and Grant No. 25370423(International Corpus of Spoken Engineering English, Project Director Michael Handford). We would also like to thank Ozawa Kazumasa, Tanaka Hiromasa, Yamakita Takeshi, Alex Gilmore and the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful critical comments.

2

1. Introduction

This paper focuses on how permanently employed professionals

from Japan and contracted professionals from Hong Kong working

together on a large construction project in Hong Kong (hereafter

HK) discursively construct and deal with problems in English. It

is a response to the relative dearth of work into the discursive

representation of problem solving, and indeed on any naturally

occurring spoken interactions, in the construction industry (for

exceptions see Angouri, 2012; Baxter & Wallace, 2009; Gluch &

Raisanen, 2009; Handford, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Handford & Matous,

2011; Holmes & Woodhams 2013; Tsuchiya & Handford, 2014). This is

despite the sector accounting for around 10 per cent of global GDP

(PricewaterhouseCoopers report, 2010), making it one of the

biggest industries in the world. In terms of the research that has

been conducted on spoken construction communication, unlike many

other professional face-to-face contexts (e.g., see Handford,

2010; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Koester, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen and

Kankaanranta, 2005), the field tends to be categorised as

inherently challenging, and sometimes adversarial. A variety of

reasons has been offered to account for this, including the

complexity of the projects, the uniqueness of each project,

conflicting interpretations of contracts, the range of different

stakeholders involved and the potential incompatibility of their

goals combined with the temporariness of their relationships

(Dainty et al., 2006; Emmitt & Gorse, 2003), the male-dominated

culture and the masculine, competitive genderlect of the

3

participants (Baxter & Wallace, 2009; Emmitt & Gorse, 2003;

Loosemore & Galea, 2008), and the potentially rigid, ethnocentric

cultural expectations of different groups (Handford & Matous,

2011; Loosemore & Al Muslmani, 1999).

Another issue to consider is the distinctive nature of on-site

problem solving in the construction industry in comparison to

other workplaces, such as problem-focused meetings in the

pharmaceutical, IT or manufacturing industries (see Handford,

2010). Through our observations, field notes, interviews and

recordings (see methodology section below), it became clear that

on-site problems are often highly unpredictable and require an

immediate response: each project is unique, and while digging in

the ground, for instance, unexpected objects or obstacles may be

encountered. In business, in contrast, many problems may be

predictable, and agendas can be drawn up to discuss such problems

in meetings, and long-term strategies can be developed.

Furthermore, it was explained to us that different levels of

seniority would largely define the type of problem the engineer is

required to deal with: junior engineers handle daily on-site

issues related to the construction itself and communicate

regularly with the foreman, whereas a senior engineer has to

manage the demands of the different stakeholders, for example the

client. Enabling young engineers to be competent on-site problem

solvers was raised as the main concern of the company in charge of

the project, and their desire for advice and training (see

Handford, 2012) accounts for their willingness to support this

research. Considering all these factors, how the on-site

4

professionals deal with problems in their daily work is therefore

of considerable interest, and through researching this area,

ecologically valid recommendations for improving communication can

be made.

Before providing a brief review of research into problem-

solving discourse, we should clarify that although we often use

the phrase ‘problem solving’, we are not implying that solutions

to problems are always reached; indeed, this is often not the

case, as decisions may be postponed, ignored or reinterpreted

(Boden, 1994). A linear problem–solution–evaluation discourse

pattern is presented in the work of Hoey (1983), and its

constituent lexicogrammar in academic settings has been explored

using corpus linguistics and discourse analysis by, for instance,

Flowerdew (2007). A similar description of this pattern is

explored in management and organisation research (Henry, 2001;

Lipshitz & Bar-Ilan, 1996; Pounds, 1969; Reiter-Palmon & Illies,

2004). Within the context of spoken business interactions, Holmes

and Stubbe (2003) explore the discursive realisation of both

linear and circular problem-solving patterns (see also Handford,

2010; Koester, 2006).

While the present study is unusual in that it analyses on-site

problem solving, the study is also noteworthy from a Business

English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) perspective (Gerritsen &

Nickerson, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta, 2005;

Nickerson, 2005), as it analyses communication between Japanese

and Hong-Kongese engineers using English as a lingua franca (see

Handford & Matous, 2011, for a corpus-informed study of the

5

lexicogrammar used in this context). Studies of BELF interactions

have typically taken place in European contexts (for example,

Firth, 1996; Kankaanranta & Louhiala, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen and

Kankaanranta, 2005; Poncini, 2004; Rogerson-Revell, 2007, 2008).

Furthermore, several BELF studies analyse data from simulations

(e.g., Planken, 2005) or with business students (e.g., Nickerson

et al., 2005), rather than naturally occurring professional

interactions (Rogerson-Revell, 2008). In contrast, the data

analysed here was recorded in Asia with professional engineers

going about their daily work, or in the words of Nickerson, “real

communication involving real business people1” (2005, p. 370).

Other studies that have analysed BELF construction communication

in Asia include Handford and Matous, 2011; Handford, 2014a, 2014b,

2014c; and Tsuchiya and Handford, 2014.

The problem-solving discourse in this BELF setting is also

compared to that in more widely researched English L1 professional

contexts. In English L1 problem-solving encounters, corpus studies

have shown certain lexicogrammatical features tend to reoccur at

specific stages of the problem-solving process, indexing specific

discursive practices (Handford, 2010; Handford & Koester, 2010;

Koester, 2006). For instance, the statistically significant

keywords problem and issue, and clusters featuring them (see Handford

& Matous, 2011), often invoke the first stage of problem solving,

when a particular problem is pinpointed. The keyword if and its

clusters constitute the second stage when potential solutions are

generated, and while all stages may feature modalised forms and

hedging, such forms are particularly evident at this stage. The

6

evaluative stage, where a decision may be reached, often features

metaphors and idioms (although evaluation can also occur at each

of the stages), as well as deontic modals. Table 1 summarises the

stages, typical practices and frequent language of problem solving

in L1 business encounters.

Table 1 AROUND HERE

Given that the speakers in this study are all L2 users of

English, with self-professed variable levels of English

proficiency, we can ask whether we might expect to see more

restricted usage of linguistic resources than professional

settings involving L1 users of English, for instance in terms of

metaphors, modality and hedging. The paper will therefore discuss

how the discourse in this BELF problem-focused context and that in

English L1 problem-focused business contexts compare.

The paper will specifically address these two questions:

1. What language items, discursive practices and patterns are

evident in on-site problem-solving encounters in this construction

project?

2. What is the relationship between the findings from Question 1

and the particular professional context in which they occur?

2. Methodology

2.1. Context

7

This joint venture (hereafter JV) project was led by a

Japanese company and directly employed over a hundred workers

(excluding subcontractors) only four of whom were Japanese; two

worked only in the office (a Deputy to the Project Manager and a

Finance and Administration Manager), and two worked both inside

and outside (a Senior Engineer, Kita, and an Engineer, Arai; their

names have been changed to ensure confidentiality). We shadowed

the two Japanese engineers, Kita and Arai, for one week, recording

their spoken communication. The main communication partner for

both engineers was the foreman of the respective parts of the site

that they were responsible for.

Foremen (Hong-Kongese in both cases) were stationed on the site

and supervised the local staff and local subcontractors. Both men

had over 20 years of experience working on locally and

internationally-led construction projects. Kita and Arai, while

younger (early 30s) and with only three to five years of work

experience in HK, were senior to the foremen in the organisational

hierarchy. Moreover, while the foremen are hired on a contractual

basis, Kita and Arai hold permanent positions within the company.

Kita and Arai spent part of their working day on the site (Arai

on sub-site A and Kita on sub-site B), checking the progress of

the project, and the remainder of the day at the ‘site office’,

located a few kilometres from the site. The project was a tunnel

construction. When interviewed, Arai said that each day starts

with group exercises, followed by a ten-minute discussion about

the anticipated challenges for that day with the on-site

contracted staff. He returns to the site if needed, which is

8

almost every day, and also conducts random inspections. He said

that when he is on-site, he mostly stands watching:

“I stand over there and check the situations and pile

installation. I am not always busy. If something happens it is

going to be busy.”

He continued by saying that every day some unexpected problem

arises: it is never known what will come out of the ground during

excavations. When a problem arises, he has to deal with it

flexibly, while considering safety, cost and time.

English was the official language of the construction project,

although other languages were also used. One of the engineers

occasionally used Cantonese for conversations with the foremen or

the workers on the site, but except for that and for internal

conversations among the Japanese staff, all their communication

with others was in English. In this paper, we concentrate on

analysing the English communication. However, we did not ignore

Japanese words used by the engineers when communicating in

English, for example hai as a way of back-channelling in

communication with their HK counterparts is included in the

analysis. Also, based on the informants’ preference, one of the

interviews was conducted by the authors in Japanese, while the

other interviews were in English.

2.2. Data gathering

While the audio and video recordings of the interactions were

conducted by both authors in December 2008 over the period of one

9

week, preparatory research was conducted and further background

data were collected over a period of several months. The second

author had visited four potential sites to conduct interviews with

the management, with the two sites most appropriate from a

research perspective being chosen. The criteria for selection were

the cooperativeness of the management with the research project,

the size of the site and the project stage. The selected site was

judged appropriate for this study in terms of size because the

project that these two sites were a part of was large enough to

involve multiple international employees in supervisory positions,

but at the same time small enough to require direct interaction

among all of these employees. The selected site was also suitable

in terms of project cycle stage; it was in the midst of intense

construction works.

Handheld audio and video recorders were used to capture the

engineers’ verbal and non-verbal interactions, with the

interactions totalling over 12,000 words. To understand the issues

faced by the employees, we interviewed the four Japanese

employees, the two HK foremen, a local senior HK engineer and a

British project manager employed by the Japanese company on a

contractual basis. Thus in total there were eight interviews, each

lasting between 30 minutes and one hour. The informants were

prompted to describe their main communication partners,

communication strategies and communication challenges. The

informants could talk freely, in English or in Japanese, and the

interviewers flexibly followed up with clarifying questions

whenever any new potentially relevant issues were raised. The

10

informants explained the general workings of the organisation, the

cultural issues that arose during their work, and the kind of

challenges they encounter and how they deal with them. After the

interviews, the authors coded the informants’ statements and

classified them into the following categories: general

communication strategies; modes of communication for different

purposes (written versus spoken); relationships; education and

training (classroom versus on-the-job training); perceived

cultural differences and conflict; work routines; and the role of

contract. The information in each category aided in interpreting

related issues in the transcripts of the natural conversations

that were recorded on the site. This data was further supplemented

by relevant written documents relating to the project and the

responsibilities of the staff. Specifically, we had access to the

organisational chart of the project, the office plan, the site

plan with the project drawings, the description of the project and

the schedule of the project activities. In addition, we regularly

consulted a long-term employee of the construction company who was

studying for his PhD at the second author’s research laboratory to

confirm technical and organisational details of the project at all

stages of our research. Through these different data sets, we were

able to develop a more in-depth understanding of the context in

terms of the daily working practices as well as the wider

organisational and professional goals of the project.

2.3. Analysis

11

According to Sarangi and Roberts (1999), the following three

aspects signal the workplace as a distinct discourse environment:

problem solving/decision making; the constitution of professional

knowledge and credibility; and thirdly, role relationships,

authority and identity. The main focus in this paper is on the

first theme, and in the next section, we will explore some longer

extracts that highlight the different types of problems that arise

on-site, and how they are dealt with. It should be noted that many

on-site problems are dealt with very swiftly and require minimal

interaction. For example, in the extract below, the engineer Kita

highlights the need for a hose, and the foreman replies that he

will buy one (see Appendix for transcription conventions).

Kita: A-hah (33) Do you have a [hose]?TT: No + I buy one.

Such problem-solution on-site exchanges are arguably a type of

adjacency pair (Sacks et al., 1974), with the problem commonly

phrased as a question in the initial turn and the solution being

phrased as the preferred response. In the following sections, we

have chosen longer problem-solving interactions as they permit

greater analysis of the language, practices and patterns the

professionals employ. The chosen interactions range from those

exploring apparently straightforward problems to far more nebulous

issues.

The main focus is on potentially salient linguistic and

paralinguistic features and their constituent discursive

12

practices. The discourse analysis methodology is iterative in that

it moves between the text and the context to understand the

situated meanings, goals and practices the participants orient to

and constitute through their problem-solving talk (Gee, 2005). By

exploring problem solving and through references to the recorded

interactions, and the interview data, we will also be able to

comment on the other two themes outlined by Sarangi and Roberts,

and briefly comment on how issues such as status, social

identities, culture, rights and obligations are negotiated by the

interlocutors. In this study, we elicited through interviews

information concerning who typically interacts with whom, and who

has legal and social obligations to whom, and consequently what

are the respective positions of the problem solvers within this

network. Considering this structure of relationships that the

interlocutors and their colleagues are embedded in helps to

substantiate the findings on their practices in the studied

problem-solving processes.

3. On-site problem-solving analysis and results

3.1. Unexpected problem in the underground passage

The first situation, evident in Extracts 1, 2 and 3, involves

sub-site A, with Arai and HK foreman TT. In terms of interactional

structure, despite the problem itself being unpredictable, the

discourse follows the linear problem–solution pattern pinpointed

by Hoey (1983) and Koester (2006). Specifically, three discursive

13

practices are invoked and unfold in a linear fashion: identifying

the problem; discussing possible solution to the problem; and

finally evaluating the probable success of the chosen solution.

Extract 1: Problem identification in the tunnel

The first short extract shows Arai and TT pinpointing the

problem, which was discovered during routine checking of the site:

in an underground passage, someone has been stealing the hooks

that the JV placed in the passage walls. Hooks have been placed on

both facing walls, but only the hook on one wall has been removed

on several occasions. [Photo 1 shows the two men pointing at the

place.

1. TT: Yes + box [tap, tap, tap, tap] (3) And over there (9)

this + damaged + by somebody

2. Arai: Oh? + it’s only this side + not + the other side

3. TT: Yeah yeah + every + every time it’s this side (of the

wall) (2)

4. Arai: [pond] side

5. TT: [laughs] (7)

[Photo 1: NEAR HERE]

From the brief Extract 1 we can see the use of deictics there

and this, used typically to clarify the visual focus of the

discussion (see Handford & Matous, 2011); for instance, the first

14

this uttered by TT (turn 1) occurs at the moment that Photo 1 is

taken.

Extract 2: Discussing a solution in the office

The second extract occurs just after Extract 1, with the two

men having returned to the office and deciding that a box should

be used to cover the hooks. They find a type of box that would be

suitable, and following this conversation they drive to the shop

to buy something similar.

1. TT: Yes something like that something like that + this box +

something like a box like this ([Photo 2)

2. Arai: Mmm +

3. TT: I think that + something as [indiscernible] important

(6)

4. Arai: Oh + some opening + and then [later] and close and lock

(1)

5. TT: I think it’s like this + [its just compatible] ah it’s

okay (7) [I don’t know] the thickness is + not enough (12)

anyway it turns out something something like this

6. Arai: Yeah (2)

7. TT: I don’t know + err err err + something like with the

with the [door] if the [door is seal] in there it’s like this

+ I feel feel [complicated]

8. Arai: Yes (4)

9. TT: But anyway [we try to + get something from + I I I] +

[indiscernible] (18)

15

[Photo 2:NEAR HERE]

It is noticeable how much more hedged this extract is than

Extract 1, for instance the repeated phrases something like, I think, I don’t

know across turns 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9; such clusters are commonly used

in L1 business when interlocutors are looking for a solution to a

problem (Handford, 2010). Two possible, potentially overlapping

reasons for the use of such language are that TT is ‘thinking out

loud’ about the best solution, and therefore uses such language as

a filler, and a second reason is that he is attending to the

senior (although younger) engineer’s face needs. Were the solution

worded in a more forthright manner, the higher status engineer’s

face might be threatened, given that decisions tend to be made by

senior employees. A tentatively worded solution would also allow

the engineer to disagree without too much face threat to the

foreman.

Extract 3: Evaluating the probable success of the solution

Extract 3 was recorded in the car, with foreman TT driving. The

two men have been to the shop and have bought a box, the

suitability of which TT is now evaluating. TT is saying that, no

matter what they do to prevent the hook being removed in the

future, if the vandal is determined enough there is actually very

little that can be done and perhaps a metal box might be a better

solution.

16

1. Arai: same same

2. TT: Same + of course + even the parts are steel + that one

is aluminium -

3. Arai: Hmm mm

4. TT: also very thin -

5. Arai: Hmm

6. TT: you know + if he want to damage it + even where we pick

+ where we where we where we where we where we … aaah heavy

steel -

7. Arai: Hmm

8. TT: + also and (3) but we we we fixed the box on [today’s]

err he he he EVEN he want to play with [you] also when he

[trouble] + just give him trouble + back + that’s all

9. Arai: Hmm (11)

10. TT: [laughs] Even if we fix the steel or something -

11. Arai: Hmm

12. TT: + he will bring the gas compa… gas cutter [laughs]

13. Arai: No (3)

14. TT: That’s why I said he is crazy you know + for a

crazy guy you cannot measure what what what he is thinking

[laughs]

15. Arai: Only one side

16. TT: just he wanna play you + he want playing on there

[laughs]

17. Arai: Hmm (2)

17

As stated above, evaluation is a key part of problem solving

(Henry, 2001; Hoey, 1983), and often occurs towards the end of the

process. In professional communication, interlocutors often use

metaphors and idioms to evaluate the solution (Handford 2010;

Koester, 2006), and here we find TT in turn 8 using a metaphor

(want to play with you) and an idiom (give him trouble) to evaluate the

possible future scenario. The metaphorical, evaluative use of the

verb worry is interesting as it is positioned in a cleft clause

(Carter & McCarthy, 2006), thereby emphasising the importance of

the following copular complement, he still (3) damage even if we fix a box [in]

there. After a long silence, during which both driver TT and

passenger Arai stare forwards at the oncoming road, TT suggests,

using the modal verb can, they ask the electrician to give them his

metal box, and use that instead of the plastic box they have just

bought. Interestingly, Arai has largely been giving the briefest

of responses, except for turn 15, and the minimal socially

acceptable level of involvement, through the non-committal hmm.

This behaviour was evident in several other recordings as well.

While it is tempting to explain this taciturnity in terms of the

stereotype of the ‘shy/passive Japanese’, Nakane (2007) has shown

that competence in the L2 can be a more salient factor: the

confidence and ability of the speaker strongly affects depth of

interaction. Furthermore, the issue of power may also be a

contributing factor, in that the more senior Arai does not feel

required to provide longer responses. The genderlect of male

construction engineers (Loosemore & Galea, 2008) could also be a

factor in explaining the lack of interpersonal effort.

18

For this simple problem that does not involve other

stakeholders, as stated above the discourse unfolds in a linear,

problem–solution–evaluation pattern (Hoey, 1983). In terms of

language use, the communication shares several interpersonal

features with other professional interactions (see Table 1), such

as hedging, the use of if, metaphors and idioms, and modal verbs.

Unlike many other professional problem-solving contexts, such as

business meetings, here the process takes place over several

locations: the tunnel site, the site office, a shop and the car.

Given the physical nature of the problem, there is also a high

degree of place deixis.

This extract also illustrates the nature of construction

management work as stated by Arai in the interview alluded to

above: problems are unpredictable, but occur regularly. The

procedure they follow also reflects preferred modes of

communication for problem solving. Typically problems are

discussed, whenever possible, immediately and on-site;

furthermore, problems are usually talked about outside of official

meetings, and written communication is appended only after the

issues have been decided upon, for official records. One senior

interviewee stated that whenever he sends a written piece of

communication, including emails, he asks himself: “If this ends up

in court, will this help my case?”

3.2. Regular site problem-reviewing

19

The following recording is taken from sub-site B. As was

described in the interviews, towards the end of the engineer’s

(Kita) daily time on the site, he walks from the on-site

portacabin around the site with the foreman (Marvin). After this,

the engineer usually returns to the main site office for the rest

of the day. The engineer asks about several topics during this

check, one of which we shall explore here.

Extract 4 concerns who is responsible for the task, who has to

pay, workforce issues, how it affects the schedule, and therefore

clearly relates to issues of authority and professional knowledge

(Sarangi & Roberts, 1999). In the interviews with the senior

engineers, awareness of the distribution and degree of

responsibilities was raised as an important part of both

engineers’ knowhow and of the problem-solving process.

The underlying concern in this exchange is how the

subcontractors should be managed efficiently during this

relatively quiet period of the project. The two men are concerned

that time, and therefore money, are being wasted (as the

subcontractors are contracted for a specific length of time).

[Photo 3:NEAR HERE]

Extract 4: Dealing with the boulder

1.Marvin: After that I need to provide + an extra step (8)

2.Kita: So (2)

3.Marvin: (You can see) (1) how to create the border

20

4.Kita: [indecipherable] backhoe

5.Marvin: So in this moment by the backhoe first

6.Kita: Hai

7.Marvin: So after somewhere -

8.Kita: Hai

9.Marvin: - is a big (boulder) -

10. Kita: Hai

11. Marvin: - which you cannot reach + We need to consider

about the manpower

12. Kita: Hmm

13. Marvin: 'Cause due to the tendering they mention just

only breaking the boulder

14. Kita: Hmm

15. Marvin: Our (QS) no mention about by (breaker) or by

hand

16. Kita: Okay. But er “Construction method is decided by

constructors?”

17. Marvin: Yeah

18. Kita: You can say "Ah (arrange) this boulder"?

19. Marvin: Yeah Yeah

20. Kita: But but how to do? Because -

21. Marvin: So why why I let eeh + let the machine go down

first -

22. Kita: Hmm

23. Marvin: - because they already reached the site +(Nods)

They need to continue well + And then during this period they

argue with the (QS) + But if the machine still not yet go down

21

for work + They not come + not starting work first + It just

only after negotiating with QS and then start to work

[indecipherable]

And now (they're) already came on-site + they start work + they

start breaking but we considered that is very slow + they need

to think about another method by their own + own cost (1)

24. Kita: But they not follow our working program?

25. Marvin: Yeah yeah + So now now if we already start to

work we can chase them

26. Kita: We can push here but we cannot say by (??)

27. Marvin: Yeah yeah yeah + So mainly I why I eeh I push

them to make a temporary access and (then that) will cool down

the site + They already started work + They will continue (3)

28. Kita: But not for long … [indecipherable]

29. Marvin: Yeah [indecipherable] (10)

30. Kita: And some boulder neh they have to + eeh + pour in

concrete + under boulder + for keep -

31. Marvin: Aah

In this extract, the topic is opened from turn 2 with the long

silence and the discourse marker So, and is closed at turn 29 with

the discourse marker Yeah and the long silence. During the

exchange, Marvin and Kita survey the site while standing in the

same place, and discuss whether the boulder, which needs to be

broken up by the subcontractors, would be better broken by hand or

by a mechanical breaker. This was too small an issue to have been

prescribed in the written contract or decided by the QS (turns 15–

22

16), but different costs and obligations will be incurred by the

subcontractors or the JV depending on the decision that is

reached. The issue of the contract is discussed further below.

Discursively, several things are of note here, with the

interlocutors employing language and discursive practices that are

also evident in British domestic L1 and international business

meetings. For instance, the frequent spoken business cluster we

need to (Handford, 2010; Nelson, 2000) is used to clarify the

problem (turn 11), and once again, if is used to discuss

possibilities (turn 25). In business meetings, the cluster if you say,

‘Well…’, invoking hypothetical reported speech (Myers, 1999), is

used in negotiations and problem solving among business people to

imagine either desirable or undesirable outcomes (Handford, 2010,

pp. 198–199; Koester, 2014), and here we see a variant, You can say

"Ah…”, used by Kita in turn 18 to discuss a possible, but

potentially ineffective, directive that could be given to the

subcontractor.

As might be expected, several engineering-related nouns appear

in this extract, such as boulder, site and backhoe. Certain nouns also

allow for an intertextual interpretation of the discourse (Bhatia,

2004), thus enabling us to locate this communication within a

wider genre chain (Swales, 2004), as well as unearth the

organisational constraints the interlocutors need to negotiate.

These include intertextual references to the contract (the tendering,

turn 13, and the reference to the QS’s, or Quantity Surveyor’s,

decision: Construction method is decided by constructors, turn 16), as well

as references to previous discussions and negotiations with the QS

23

about the appropriate course of action, which ended up causing a

delay in the project. The reason for the subcontractors’ having to

think about another method by their own + own cost, in turn 23, is that the QS

has told the foreman and engineer that the joint venture company

cannot prescribe the method.

Once again, as the topic draws to a close, we see the use of

metaphorical language to evaluate and comment on the outcome:

firstly chase them, in turn 25, and then the repetition of push them

over the subsequent two turns, meaning that the subcontractors can

be told to speed up once they have started working on the problem.

Metaphors often signal a high degree of convergence between

interlocutors (and here the metaphors might be solidarity markers

between the foreman and engineer, as well as signalling their

power over the subcontractors), as does the sequential repetition

of items (as in the repetition of the metaphor push) (Carter,

2004). Also, the ambiguous referents of we, as evidenced in we can

chase them, is a common convergent strategy in inter-organisational

communication (Handford, 2014a; Poncini, 2004), and it is

noteworthy to see it can be used in a joint venture with an

equally convergent effect.

In terms of problem-solving patterns in this extract, the

foreman highlights the problem, and the two men discuss

surrounding issues and a possible solution, using if and evaluative

metaphorical language. Therefore, in terms of interactional

structure, the discourse once again unfolds in a linear pattern,

invoking the same discursive practices noted at the beginning of

Section 3. Specifically, foreman Marvin pinpoints the problem in

24

turn 11 (We need to consider about the manpower), and then in turns 16–18

and 24–26 the engineer proposes solutions in a three-part sequence

(Engineer: clarifying situation; Foreman: agreeing; Engineer:

making suggestions). In turn 27, Marvin shows that he is in

control of the situation.

While the solution has been agreed upon (to encourage the

subcontractors to hurry up), the decision cannot be enforced or

followed up yet, because the subcontractors need to decide first

how they are going to solve the problem; once the subcontractors

have decided what to do, the foreman and engineer/joint venture

company can tell them to hurry up. Extract 4 is part of a longer

exchange, and the other phases of the exchange also display the

same pattern: a problem is raised, a solution is discussed and

decided upon, the topic is closed, and then a new problem is

raised.

This extract is also interesting because it sheds a clear light

on the role of the foreman as a buffer between the subcontractors

and the Japanese client construction company of which the engineer

is a permanent employee. This relationship between the engineer

and the foreman is thus the key interface or the critical tie,

because so much of the day-to-day work is dependent upon it. Given

that many Japanese engineers tend not to speak Cantonese, and the

HK contracted staff may not be able to speak English, the foreman

in such international contexts plays a more important and powerful

role than may be the case in monolingual sites. As such, the

foreman is very much a gatekeeper, and this perhaps explains the

strong emphasis that was put on effective, trustworthy and regular

25

communication between the foremen and the engineers that was

expressed in several interviews. Furthermore, Kita stated that

when he or his Japanese colleagues request the HK contracted staff

directly, their requests may be refused, but when the local

foreman makes the same request, the staff agree: “If I ask [the

subcontractors] something, they may say no; if Marvin asks, they

say yes.” He attributed this to the greater solidarity and longer-

term relationships between the foremen and the local staff. In

terms of the discursive negotiation of power relations, while the

engineers have higher status, the foremen have greater social

capital (Bourdieu, 1991) in the on-site context.

While a closer relationship between the foreman and the

subcontracted workers is understandable, it could be argued the

engineers could have done more to develop relationships with

others. For instance, one Hong Kong foreman complained in an

interview about his Japanese superiors’ custom of eating and

socialising separately from the other employees. Also, one senior

engineer, in fact, Arai and Kita’s line manager, resorted to the

social stereotype of the ‘shy Japanese’ when stating that his

subordinates are “always together and are shy to talk”. It is

interesting to note these two complementary perspectives on the

same behaviour of the Japanese on-site engineers from contrasting

positions in the JV hierarchy. When we asked the engineers about

their habit of eating separately, their arguably unconvincing

justification was that when there were fewer Japanese on-site they

would eat with their non-Japanese colleagues, but now there were

more Japanese they wanted to eat together. Furthermore, we

26

recorded very few instances of Kita and Arai engaging in positive

face strategies associated with relationship building at work

(Holmes & Stubbe, 2003), such as small talk or joking with the

contracted employees.

Before analysing the final problem scenario, the importance of

the written contract in construction communication is discussed.

It is of critical intertextual importance in construction projects

because it outlines the responsibilities of all the relevant

parties. This issue was raised in several of the interviews that

we conducted with Japanese, British and Hong Kongese members of

the JV, as it is an area that can cause considerable intercultural

friction. According to the interviewees, this is because certain

organisational cultures (such as large Japanese construction

companies) assume a large degree of shared, tacit understanding

(referred to as “give and take” by Kita), and therefore may tend

to create relatively short contracts, whereas in some other

cultures (including international multiparty projects) contractors

may be unwilling to do a job unless it is explicitly stated in the

contract. Therefore, the potential for cross-cultural

misunderstanding and conflict is high. Furthermore, even though

international projects have far more detail and are considerably

longer than equivalent Japanese contracts, it is not possible for

all eventualities to be predicted. Therefore, according to Arai,

while contracts are considered more central to the decision-making

process in international projects than they are in Japan, dealing

with problems is more difficult in international projects.

Moreover, his colleague Kita independently stated that different

27

stakeholders could challenge the definitions of some words in the

contract, further complicating the situation.

3.3. On-going complex problem

The final extract concerns an issue that is discussed by many

parties over several days in different places. The JV company is

deliberating over the need to pay the subcontractor more for

demobilising the equipment, with Kita saying that the JV company

only needs to pay for transportation costs, but the JV HK engineer

(Andy) seemingly questioning this. Towards the end of the extract

(turns 27–31) Andy says the JV company wants the subcontractors to

move the platform, but is doubtful whether they will do this for

free. However, neither engineer is senior enough to make the

decision over payment, and according to Kita, the Head Engineer

David (referred to in turns 1–11) does not fully understand the

situation (although this may of course be a tactical response). In

a later discussion, both men decide that the foreman should pass

this information on to the QS, who can then decide. As such, the

participants are demonstrating awareness of their role and

position within the decision-making hierarchy.

In terms of the interactional structure, this extract does

not follow a linear problem-solving pattern, but instead can be

categorised as forming part of a larger cyclical pattern. The

problem they are discussing is the subcontractor’s obligation to

pay, and the speakers explicitly return to this at different

points in the exchange (turns 3, 8, 11–16, 27–31). In contrast to

28

the interactional structure of the preceding extracts, the

discussion does not move beyond identifying the problem to the

second or third stages of the problem-solution pattern. Instead,

the interlocutors are fixed on the nature of the problem itself,

that is, whether the subcontractors should pay or should be paid.

Extract 5: Payment problems

[Photo 4: NEAR HERE]

1. Andy: I don’t know + this + this is [a labour + some labour +

but actual [indiscernible] I call + I have called David

2.Kita: [indiscernible]

3.Andy: today morning + I called him + he said no problem

4.Kita: Hmm + he don’t know [indiscernible]

5.Andy: He don’t know -

6.Kita: about the [demobilisation]?

7.Andy: Yes + because -

8.Kita: actual cost by himself

9.Andy: huh?

10. Kita: you mean the actual cost by himself?

11. Andy: not by himself [indiscernible]… because they

+ I think they reconsider that the [costs will not so]

[indiscernible]

12. Kita: Their compressor + they already +

demobilising + demobilising + so no + they cannot claim to us +

only + transportation fee

29

13. Andy: Only transportation free?

14. Kita: FEE + transportation fee only + because no

[argue] + just transport + to err [asphalt] + this place (2)

maybe [laughs]

15. Andy: one thousand

16. Kita: yeah + give him + and err + [platforming]

17. Andy: platform they will not dismantle

18. Kita: keep?

19. Andy: keep (7) But -

20. Kita: [they will lose]

21. Andy: but but the err lowest + platform err + I

think if we remove + if we watch [remove] the [boulder] -

22. Kita: hmm

23. Andy: support the line -

24. Kita: yes yes

25. Andy: there -

26. Kita: upper part okay + [indiscernible]

27. Andy: the lower the lower platform the lowest +

platform + I think it will be moved + but I don’t know whether

+ they will do it for us

28. Kita: [indiscernible]

29. Andy: so money + [trip] business money + okay?

[indiscernible] but originally we scheduled the [soil nail]

with the + with the work that err + to outside (2) to err

insert into our main activity

30. Kita: yes yes + everything everything changed

[laughs]

30

31. Andy: so I think that err + some money need to be

spent [laughs]([Photo 4)

Because this extract, and several others, were recorded ‘on-

site’ while the noisy projects were going on, understanding what

the speakers say was difficult, and the same can probably be said

for the speakers themselves (Dainty et al., 2006). There is a lot

of effort expended here by both speakers to make sure they

understand each other through clarifications (turns 4–11, 12–14,

18–19). Nevertheless, in some other on-site discussions (e.g.,

Extract 3), and in many BELF interactions, speakers do not always

spend so much effort clarifying the meaning (e.g., Extract 3) and

tend to “let it pass” (Firth, 1996), which suggests that this

discussion involves an important and nebulous issue, as payment or

non-payment usually is, with potential longer-term relational

inter-group ramifications. Furthermore, Tsuchiya and Handford

(2014) in their study of a large ELF construction design meeting,

argue that other-repair and other-reformulations may be more

acceptable in construction communication than in other BELF

settings, given the importance of issues like safety in the

industry, the strong masculine genderlect (Baxter & Wallace, 2009;

Emmitt & Gorse, 2003; Loosemore & Galea, 2008) that is evident in

interactions (hence less sensitivity to potentially face-

threatening communication), and the invocation of differing

organisational, professional and national identities. Also,

Angouri (2012) argues that the international construction meeting

she analyses involves levels of disagreement that are unmarked in

31

that context but which would be marked in many other professional

contexts.

The difference between the interlocutors’ approach to the first

problem (Extracts 1–3) and the latter two (Extracts 4 and 5) can

be viewed in terms of the relationships in which the actors are

embedded. In the first case, the speakers are dealing with an

anonymous local vandal who is not related to either of them and

the engineer’s non-committal responses suggest that he lets the

foreman decide how to tackle the problem. Conversely, in the two

other issues, the interlocutors need to consider in their

decisions other project stakeholders, such as subcontractors on

the one side and project management and clients on the other, with

whom they have legally and socially binding relationships (Figure

1). The foremen and the local engineers are responsible for

coordination of the locally hired subcontractors. As noted above,

this group of densely interconnected Cantonese-speaking

subcontractors is also socially closer to the foremen and

Hongkongese engineers, and they do not directly communicate with

Kita and Arai, who, on the other hand, must report to the seniors

from their company regarding the progress of the project in terms

of finance and time. The Japanese project management and engineers

are interconnected through a dense web of strong mutual

relationships. These actors are not only bound by employment

contracts, they also form a community with frequent social

interactions, which in practice the non-Japanese seem to be

excluded from. The foremen and the engineers are in the position

of brokers who are the bridge between the international project

32

managers and the locally hired subcontractors. It is at these

links between the foreign engineers and the local foremen and

engineers that cultural, including professional and

organisational, expectations may clash and frictions may occur

during problem solving, thus requiring negotiation of task and

relationship.

[Figure 1:NEAR HERE]

The various intertextual and interdiscursive threads that are

woven into the last extract include the understanding of the head

engineer David, the rights of the speakers to make this decision,

the responsibility of the JV and the subcontractor, the contract,

the role of the QS, the changing context, and relationships

between the permanent and contractual members of the JV. In an

interview, David signalled the need for certain problems to be

dealt with between the different parties of the JV and also the

client. In other words, certain types of problems need to be

addressed at the top level of the organisational hierarchy.

The problem also impacts on issues like the longer-term

relationship between the JV and the subcontractor: if the

subcontractor is forced to do certain jobs for free, then some

goodwill may be lost. In turn 27, the HK engineer alludes to the

need for cooperation on the part of the subcontractors when he

says, but I don’t know whether + they will do it for us, and he summarises his

view with the summarising cluster so I think. Both men use convergent

communication strategies that may help to alleviate the potential

33

face threat inherent in such a sensitive topic as money and

payments. They both can be seen laughing during this exchange, for

example turns 30 and 31 where the discussion finishes (but does

not reach a conclusion) with the HK engineer explicitly stating

that some money need to be spent. Also at that moment he uses an

informal gesture to signal money (see photo 4 – he is rubbing his

thumb, forefinger and index finger together at turn 31).

On the issue of payment, Kita’s stance seems non-negotiable:

for instance, in turn 12 he states rather emphatically, they cannot

claim to us. This is a stance noticed in other communication in the

JV; Kita and Arai are permanent employees of the Japanese

construction company, whereas the HK engineers and even the head

engineer are employed by the construction company on a contractual

basis. Such a situation is fairly typical of large construction

projects (Dainty et al., 2006). This may explain the greater

unwillingness on the part of the Japanese engineers to part with

money. Also, given that the HK engineers are working in their home

environment, they may feel that issues like maintaining goodwill

with the subcontractors are more of a priority.

4. Discussion and conclusion

This article has explored the discursive realisation of problem

solving on a joint venture construction project in HK. It has

specifically analysed the interactions between permanently

employed Japanese engineers and contracted HK foremen and

engineers, who use English as a professional lingua franca. At a

34

lexical level, these participants employ many of the same words

and clusters that are used in business meetings among L1 users of

English, and these items were employed to index many of the same

discursive practices, such as signalling obligation through the

use of need, or the discussion of problems and possible solutions

through if. Other items commonly associated with L1 users of

professional English were also pinpointed, such as employing

metaphors to evaluate. Such findings suggest that further research

exploring the potential overlap of lexis and practices in BELF and

L1–L1 professional settings should be conducted. Nevertheless, a

cursory glance at the extracts above shows that at the syntactic

level, there may be many forms that would be anomalous in an L1

setting. Furthermore, while the problem-solving discourse analysed

here mirrors that in other professional contexts, in terms of

wider interpersonal issues the context examined here may differ

from many BELF studies, as will be discussed in the next section.

4.1. BELF in construction contexts

This paper adds to the small but growing amount of research

into attested interactions in the international construction

industry, many of which involve professional ELF speakers

(Angouri, 2012; Gluch & Raisanen, 2009; Handford & Matous, 2011;

Tsuchiya & Handford, 2014). This research seems to suggest a

rather different ‘default setting’ towards interpersonal issues,

such as accommodation and repair, compared to many other studies

of BELF (Firth, 1996; see also Koester, 2010) and indeed

35

professional L1 interactions (e.g., Boden, 1994; Holmes & Stubbe,

2003). In the data examined here, little effort is expended on

interpersonal accommodation, especially on the part of Kita and

Arai; in contrast, there is considerable effort expended to ensure

full understanding of the other’s talk through other-repair in the

final extract where the issue of payment is central. The results

here thus further support the possibility of a differing stance

towards interpersonal issues and potential face-threatening acts

such as other-repair in international construction communication.

Nevertheless, as outlined in the preceding paragraph, in terms of

the language, discursive practices and stages of problem solving,

the paper has shown that there is a strong similarity here with

other professional contexts. The implications of this for training

are discussed below.

In interpreting why interlocutors in BELF construction

interactions may approach interpersonal issues differently from

other BELF contexts, there are several factors that it might be

tempting to consider, such as the national differences of the

speakers. However, given the well-documented adversarial nature of

both domestic and international construction projects (Dainty et

al., 2006; Emmitt & Gorse, 2003; Loosemore & Galea, 2008), we

argue that the professional context of the construction industry

may be more relevant than other factors. There are elements that

contrive to create such a context (Handford, 2014b): the critical

importance of safety and the related responsibility for potential

mistakes; the complexity of the projects that require the

participation of several groups that may be in inherently

36

divergent positions, such as the checking engineer, the quantity

surveyor and the construction company in charge of the project;

the one-off nature of projects, meaning that different groups do

not see the value in investing time to create goodwill; the time

pressure under which construction projects are inevitably

conducted; and the very masculine genderlect that typifies much

construction communication.

4.2. Intercultural implications

We hope that this paper contributes to intercultural

communication theory and to engineering education literature by

providing an account of problem solving without stereotyping

national differences. In much intercultural business literature

(e.g., Hofstede, 1991; Lewis, 1999), problem-solving patterns and

essentialised notions of culture are associated: ‘Asians’ are seen

to prefer cyclical or circular problem solving, whereas

‘Westerners’ tend towards a linear style. The different types of

patterns described and analysed in our study suggest that such

approaches fail to account for the complex realities of unfolding,

authentic spoken professional discourse in specific contexts. In

accounting for the particular problem-solving pattern, the

relevance of the local requirements and contextual factors of the

specific issue, such as the contract, formal and informal

relationships between the stakeholders, the position of the

interlocutors in the hierarchy in relation to the specific problem

at hand and so on, and the fact that the communication is taking

37

place in the international construction industry, appear greater

than the geographical background of the interlocutors. These

findings also add weight to the argument that, in terms of

culture, the participants’ goals and their professional and

institutional social identities may often be far more discursively

relevant in the unfolding communication than their nationality.

The analysis has also highlighted the role of the foreman as a

gatekeeper of information and an interface between the overseas

construction company and the locally subcontracted labourers. This

finding was supported by the participants themselves, who stated

that a solid and effective relationship between the foreman and

the engineers was a prerequisite for the success of the project.

Nevertheless, a perceived lack of interpersonal involvement on the

part of Japanese engineers was raised in interviews with their

Hong Kongese colleagues, and in many of the interpersonal

workplace interactions Kita and Arai gave only minimal responses.

We argue that the different nationalities to which the

participants belong (e.g., Japanese) is not the most important

factor, rather it is on the one hand the perception of difference,

and the other is that there are inevitable associations between

nationality, language and power. In other words, certain speakers

of one language (e.g., the Japanese engineers) who are not

comfortable in using a second language for interpersonal

communication would therefore prefer to socialise with speakers of

the same first language, and would be less likely to develop

relationships through the second language. Also, given that this

group is more senior in status and in permanent employment, they

38

may not feel an obligation to develop closer relationships with

contracted foremen and construction workers. Another factor to

consider concerns whether the group are at ‘home’ or overseas: in

this study, the Japanese are working abroad and the Hong Kongese

are not, which may also account for the Japanese engineers’ desire

to stick together: it is not their being Japanese per se that is

relevant, but their domicile status. Such issues can lead to the

perception that certain nationalities are shy or uncommunicative

or arrogant, which then further reinforces negative evaluative

stereotypes. But in fact, rather than nationality causing

differences, it is used as a post-hoc explanation of them.

4.3. Educational implications

In conclusion, two lessons can be gleaned from this study.

Firstly, to communicate in international on-site construction

projects, professional knowledge coupled with a willingness to

communicate outweigh an advanced grasp of English syntax.

Secondly, the importance of relationship building cannot be

overstated. As in all workplaces, constraints operate at several

levels, and here engineers can negotiate the constraints of the

dictates of the contract in relation to the problem at hand, and

the potential for differing interpretations among stakeholders,

depending on the relationships they have developed with the

stakeholders and the goals of the different parties. In terms of

educational implications of this research, understanding the

allocation of rights and obligations among the problem solvers,

39

comprehending intertextual references which are characteristic for

construction communication and being aware of differences in

expectations towards contracts, and performing intercultural

communication with a flexible mindset are some of the important

insights that can be drawn. In training with young engineers we

encourage analysis and discussion of the issue of effective

interpersonal communication to further transactional goals, while

eschewing the temptation to fall back on simplistic national

stereotypes.

The finding that on-site problem-solving communication is in

many respects similar to other types of business interactions

means that similar types of communication education materials can

be used for training of construction engineers as for ‘mainstream’

business education. This view was supported by the interviewed

managers, who believed that what some employees were lacking was

not knowledge of technical issues or terminology, but minimum

general language skills. The interviewed managers on the surveyed

sites believed that the employees should be able to acquire these

minimum necessary skills through generally available language

courses, if only there was a human resource development system in

place, including promotions and demotions, that would motivate

them to do so.

To familiarise learners with those aspects of the construction

site context that are unique, the authors have used the anonymised

video recordings collected on the present project site to

introduce engineering students to the atmosphere on a real

international construction project. Both Japanese and non-Japanese

40

students tend to feel encouraged and be positively surprised that

even large international projects can be managed without

syntactically sophisticated expressions.

Through research such as this, empirically informed

recommendations for improving construction communication and

problem solving can be proposed to decision makers in the

profession. The authors have co-organised a workshop with

representatives of major Japanese construction companies and

discussed the insights provided by this study and other related

empirical research. The practitioners have confirmed the need for

development of a training system for their young engineers to hone

their problem-solving skills in projects with stakeholders from

different cultures. In particular, they confirmed the importance

of teaching their staff to understand the structure and

responsibilities of diverse stakeholders involved in large

international projects and their potentially divergent

interpretation of the contract documents. We therefore feel the

need to continue our interdisciplinary work within the academy and

with engineering organisations to improve both pedagogy and

professional practice.

41

References

Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem-solving

meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1565–1579.

Baxter, J., & Wallace, K. (2009). Outside in-group and out-group

identities? Constructing male solidarity and female exclusion

in UK builders’ talk. Discourse in Society, 20, 411–431.

Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum.

Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford: Polity Press.

Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London:

Routledge.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dainty, A., Moore, D., & Murray, M. (2006). Communication in

construction: Theory and practice. London: Taylor and Francis.

Emmitt, S., & C. Gorse. (2003). Construction communication. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On

’lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of

Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.

Flowerdew, L. (2007). Corpus-based analyses of the problem-solution pattern.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Gerritsen, M., & Nickerson, C. (2009). Business English as a

lingua franca. In F. Bargiela-Chappini (Ed.), The handbook of

42

business discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 180–

194

Gluch, P., & Raisanen, C. (2009). Interactional perspective on

environmental communication in construction projects. Building

Research and Information, 37, 164–175.

Handford, M. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Handford, M. (2012). Construction communication training: Issues

and aims. The Japan Society for Civil Engineers, 67(11): 73–76.

Handford, M. (2014a). Cultural identities in international, inter-

organisational meetings: A corpus-informed discourse analysis

of indexical we. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(1): 41–

58.

Handford, M. (2014b). Construction industry discourse. In V.

Bhatia & S. Bremner (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of professional

discourse. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Handford, M. (2014c). Context is spoken professional discourse:

language and practice in an international business meeting.

In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Discourse in context. London: Continuum.

Handford, M., & Koester, A. (2010). ‘It’s not rocket science’:

Metaphors and idioms in conflictual business meetings. Text and

Talk: 30(1): 27–51.

Handford, M., & Matous, P. (2011). Lexicogrammar in the

international construction industry: A corpus-based case

study of Japanese-Hong-Kongese on-site interactions in

English. The Journal of English for Specific Purposes. 30, 87–100.

Henry, J. (Ed) (2001). Creative management. London: Sage.

43

Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and

Unwin.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organisations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. A

sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Longman.

Holmes, J., & Woodhams, J. (2013). Building interaction: The role

of talk in joining a community of practice. Discourse and

Communication, 7, 275–298.

Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). “English? – Oh,

it’s just work!”: A study of BELF users’ perceptions. English for

Specific Purposes, 29, 204–209.

Koester, A. (2006). Investigating workplace discourse. Oxford: Routledge.

Koester, A. (2010). Workplace discourse. London: Continuum.

Koester, A. (2014). “We’d be prepared to do something, like if you

say…” Hypothetical Reported speech in business negotiations.

English for Specific Purposes, 36, 35–46.

Lewis, R. (1999). Cross Cultural Communication: A Visual Approach. Warnford:

Transcreen Publications.

Lipshitz, R., & Bar-Ilan, O. (1996). How problems are solved:

Reconsidering the phase theorem. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 65, 48–60. Doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0004

Loosemore, M., & Al Muslmani, H. S. (1999). Construction project

management in the Persian Gulf: Inter-cultural communication.

International Journal of Project Management, 17, 95–100. Doi:

10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00030-1

44

Loosemore, M., & Galea, N. (2008). Genderlect and conflict in the

Australian construction industry. Construction Management and

Economics, 26, 125–135. Doi: 10.1080/01446190701798810

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a

lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case

companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 401–421.

Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.003

Myers, G. (1999). Functions of reported speech in group

discussions. Applied Linguistics, 20, 376–401. Doi:

10.1093/applin/20.3.376

Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in intercultural communication. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Nelson, M. (2000). A Corpus-based Study of Business English and Business English

Teaching Materials. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Manchester: University

of Manchester.

Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a Lingua Franca in international

business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 367–380.

Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.001

Nickerson, C., Gerritsen, M., van Meurs, F., (2005). Raising

student awareness of the use of English for specific purposes

in the European context: a staff-student project. English for

Specific Purposes 24, 333--346. Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.01.003

Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales

negotiations: A comparison of professional and aspiring

negotiators, English for Specific Purposes, 24, 381–400.

Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.002

45

Poncini, G. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural

business meetings. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Pounds, W. F. (1969). The process of problem finding. Industrial

Management Review 11, 1–19.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). Engineering and construction report.

www.pwc.com/gx/en/engineering-construction; accessed October

10, 2011.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and

creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-

solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.

Doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international

business: A European case study. English for Specific

Purposes, 26(1), 103–120. Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.004

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2008). Participation and performance in

international business meetings. English for Specific Purposes 27,

338–360. Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.003

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest

systematics for the organization of turn-taking for

conversation. Language, 50(1), 696–735.

Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). The dynamics of interactional

and institutional orders in work-related settings. In S.

Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and

applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

46

Tsuchiya, K., & Handford, M. (2014). A corpus-driven analysis of

repair in a professional ELF meeting: Not ‘letting it pass’.

Journal of Pragmatics, 64: 117–131.

Doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.004

47

Photos

Photo 1. Foreman left, engineer right

Photo 2. Foreman showing box.

48

Photo 3. Foreman and engineer discuss on-site.

Photo 4: Engineers discussing money, engineer Kita on left

49

Appendix

Transcription conventions (from Holmes & Stubbe, 2003).

YES Capitals indicate emphatic stress

[laughs] Paralinguistic features in square brackets [inaudible]

+ Pause of up to one second

(3) Pause of specified number of seconds

. . ./. . ./. . . Simultaneous speech

. . ./. . ./. . .

(hello) Transcriber’s best guess at an unclear utterance

? Rising or question intonation

- Incomplete or cut-off utterance

. . . Section of transcript omitted

50

1 It is debatable whether engineers are ‘business people’. Rather than ‘BELF’, a more appropriate label for the types of interactions analysed here, and indeed in other professional contexts, might be ‘PELF’ (Professional English as a Lingua Franca).