Teacher Discussion Forums

Here is a piece of advice for Indians wanting to work in or with European business circles:

Language

"You will find that there are differences in structure and usage between Indian English and "European business English".

The structure of sentences is a little different. The adjectives often come after the noun.

Take these differences in stride, and try to adapt your style of speaking and writing to the people you're doing business with. It is much more effective to communicate in the way the majority of people are comfortable with than to try to change things to the style you may be more used to."

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/200 ... 440900.htm

Do you think that native AE and BE speakers, when working in or with Indian English speaking business circles in India, should also adapt their usage to suit that context?

Heh. It looks like Indian and AE business people have more in common than European business people, if the rest of the article is to be believed. Casual Fridays is a part of many companies.

I don't know what examples the person is considering. Does he/she mean a sentence like "My house old is in need of repair." is common? If so, I'd think AE/BE speakers could understand it, but I see no reason why they would have to produce it, although I find it difficult to believe.

Casual Fridays is a part of many companies.

Every day is casual in Spain.

Do you really think we should pay attention to the business English expertise of a writer who can produce introductory sentences such as this:

If business success is the delicious dessert that gives the finishing stroke to a good meal, cross-culture appreciation is the silver platter that adds to the setting.

In fact I suggest people read the whole article, and then decide if there would be any earthly advantage in aping the style of Mr. Murthy.

Stephen Jones wrote:...

In fact I suggest people read the whole article, and then decide if there would be any earthly advantage in aping the style of Mr. Murthy.

The thread question was a general one, Stevie.

BTW, I agree that the metaphors in the opening sentence are poor, but is the rest poor English, IYO?

An aside:

An extract from the above article:

"In Europe, calling someone by their first name (unless invited to do so) is considered presumptuous and too familiar for business interactions. Courtesy titles and last names are the norm. "

Even though that is not universally true, it is generally so in most business contexts in Germany, for example. Should, Indians, Americans, and others with a, supposed, casual approach to business communication, respect German business etiquette when doing business in/with Germany?

I guess that depends how badly you want their business. While a German who does a lot of business with people who take a more casual approach might not be fazed at being addressed by his/her first name, I would imagine he or she would still approve of being called by a courtesy title and last name: it shows that you've made the effort to approach someone on their terms and not yours.

I'd consider that as general courtesy rather than Applied Linguistics.

BTW, I agree that the metaphors in the opening sentence are poor, but is the rest poor English, IYO?

Absolutely atrocious in my opinion.

Still this little nugget makes up for much of the dross:

Meetings in Europe are generally more relaxed. Introductions are never neglected, and meetings often start on time.

Well I don't know.
I accept that some cultural considerations do go very deep and that religious matters are another thing altogether but there doesn't seem to be much point in arriving at some kind of Global English or Standard English if everybody still has to tippy-toe round the cultural niceties of each country, calling the Germans Mr Schmidt for ever and taking the business card with both hands in Japan and so on.

If we're all so desperately keen to do business globally then perhaps some kind of Global Manners might be in order, doing away with the need to remember all these rules.

Has anybody turned down the chance to make a profit because someone else took their jacket off or talked business before coffee or sneezed or whatever it was that was such a faux-pas?

.

I'd consider that as general courtesy rather than Applied Linguistics.

So you think it wouldn't need to be taught or brought to the attention of ESL/EFL students?

Absolutely atrocious in my opinion.

What is it about it that makes it atrocious? Can you analyse it for us? "Dross" is another odd word that seems to be out of place on an Applied Linguistics forum, IMO?

I think "brain fart" was another of your non-scientfic comments. For example, why not compare that writer's usage, vocabulary, etc. with your own here?

If we're all so desperately keen to do business globally then perhaps some kind of Global Manners might be in order, doing away with the need to remember all these rules.

How would we go about doing that and who would decide on what was or wasn't good manners?

metal56 wrote:

If we're all so desperately keen to do business globally then perhaps some kind of Global Manners might be in order, doing away with the need to remember all these rules.

How would we go about doing that and who would decide on what was or wasn't good manners?

Has anybody turned down the chance to make a profit because someone else took their jacket off or talked business before coffee or sneezed or whatever it was that such a faux-pas?

You're only looking at it from a sellers POV. If you're a buyer, such as IBM, Telefonica, Coca-Cola, etc. and you are contracting services or searching for providers, you are in the driving seat. You can pick and choose.

While I can see where JTT is coming from, I'd still take the view that it's better to be safe than sorry. I doubt anyone ever lost a contract by showing a bit of respect and sensitivity. But, like I say, is that AL?

lolwhites wrote:But, like I say, is that AL?

Is that the same question as "Does this discussion belong on this forum"?

Applied Linguistics (AL) provides the theoretical and descriptive foundations for the investigation and solution of language-related problems, especially those of language education (first-language, second-language and foreign-language teaching and learning), but also problems of translation and interpretation, lexicography, forensic linguistics and (perhaps) clinical linguistics.

I'd say the part in blue fits the intention behind this thread. And, do you also think that most of the writing in the thread article is atrocious?