Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca

Abstract

Researchers exploring the use of language use in radiotelephony communication have tended to focus on the limitations of the non-native English user and the threats which their limited control of English may pose for aviation safety (e.g. Atsushi, 2003, 2004). Hence the recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) policy places the onus on non-native users to bring their English to an appropriate standard. The present paper argues that there is a need for a broader perspective on this issue and supports this case with reference to two sources of data: a) episodes of radiotelephony discourse recorded in two air traffic control centres in Korea exemplifying non-routine, abnormal and emergency situations involving NS of English and NNS from different language backgrounds, b) focus group and individual interviews with selected Korean aviation personnel eliciting their interpretations of these episodes and of issues in aviation English more generally. Findings suggest that responsibilities for communication problems in aviation English are distributed across NS and NNS users, and may be partly due to the absence of shared assumptions about efficient and appropriate communication practices in an environment where English is a lingua franca (ELF). Implications are drawn for the communication training of all aviation personnel, regardless of language background.

ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: a transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education

“…Also, ELF awareness goes beyond the non-native speaker and involves contexts involving NSs and NNSs as well, especially where NSs/NNSs' assumptions about what constitutes efficient and appropriate interaction can have safety-related consequences -a typical example of this being aviation (cf. Kim and Elder 2009). This means that teachers working in such contexts would have to consider those publications as well.…”

The use of language tests in the service of policy: issues of validity

“…The results of international comparisons of proficiency in reading in the mother tongue under an assessment scheme known as PISA (Program in Student Assessment), carried out by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are prompting crises in the education systems of countries such as Germany, Austria and Israel where students have not performed as well as expected on these tests. In the area of employment, airline pilots in Korea and China are in danger of losing their jobs because of failure on a test of competence in English in the aviation workplace mandated from 2008 by the International Civil Aviation Organization, discussed above, though they argue that the policy simplifies the issue of air safety and negatively impacts on non-native speakers in the profession (Kim & Elder 2009) in a way which is wholly unnecessary. In studies of test values and test impact, validity theory moves beyond issues of fairness as defined above to broader issues of social justice (McNamara & Ryan in press).…”

Critical review of validation models and practices in language testing: their limitations and future directions for validation research

“…Faced with a lack of a strong theory for language proficiency, specifying the inference for the domain analysis in a validation model may help test designers and validation researchers focus more on defining theoretical constructs and evaluating the definitions to more accurately explain and predict the test taker's performance in the language use contexts based on test scores (Fulcher, 2015). However, Elder, McNamara, Kim, Pill, and Sato (2017) point out that test constructs in language testing have been defined by language specialists, and Elder and McNamara (2016), Jacoby and McNamara (1999), and H. Kim and Elder (2009) commonly call for listening to actual language users who have insights into the language use situations for defining language proficiency in specific-purpose language testing. The justification for this perspective is that language users' perspectives reflect actual language proficiency valued in the real-world.…”