The Negotiation of Meaning in

Aviation English as a Lingua Franca: A

Corpus-Informed Discursive Approach
NORIKO ISHIHARA1 AND MALILA CARVALHO DE ALMEIDA PRADO2
1
Hosei University, Applied Linguistics/EFL, Faculty of Business Administration, 2-17-1 Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
102–8160, Japan Email: n-ishihara@hosei.ac.jp
2
Fujian University of Technology, School of Humanities, Office 401, No3 Xueyuan Road, University Town,
Minhou Fuzhou City, Fujian 350108, China Email: 61202007@fjut.edu.cn

This study explores the pragmatics of aviation English (AE) as a lingua franca in radiotelephony (R/T)
communications primarily between aviators and air traffic controllers worldwide. AE is a crosslinguistic
register used by aviation professionals who do not necessarily share their first languages and cultures.
Accordingly, mutual intelligibility is the ultimate goal, as in English as a lingua franca (ELF) featuring
message-oriented accommodation. Simultaneously, AE is a highly restricted and relatively stable register,
as its use is mandated to maximize accuracy, conciseness, and clarity of communication—factors all con-
tributing to air safety. While instruction and testing in AE have been investigated in applied linguistics, its
pragmatics-focused aspects are underexplored. In this qualitative corpus-informed study, we first relied
on a small corpus of R/T communications in nonroutine situations to identify 3 cases of communica-
tion difficulty and then, investigate in depth the discursive construction of meaning, especially in terms
of the pragmatic strategies the interactants used on the radio. Drawing exclusively on ELF-speaker ex-
changes from the corpus, we illustrate the process of the negotiation of meaning within the constraints
of the given aviation contexts. The findings of this study reveal similarities and differences between AE
in R/T communications and general ELF discourses described in the literature. We conclude by offer-
ing pedagogical implications for enhanced aeronautical training addressing pragmatic and interactional
competence.
Keywords: aviation English; radiotelephony communications; pragmatic strategies; communicative strate-
gies

IN THE EVER-GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH texts, if we are to uncover characteristics of ELF

on English as a lingua franca (ELF), which we more holistically. Our study aims to work toward
broadly understand as “any use of English among this goal by exploring the pragmatics of aviation
speakers of different first languages for whom En- English (AE) as a lingua franca. Communication
glish is the communicative medium of choice, and in AE is fundamentally intercultural, and any in-
often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 7), the teractional turbulences can directly affect aviation
most studied domains are business and academic safety, making this topic of utmost concern to
ELF (Jenkins, 2017), leaving other domains and applied linguists (Friginal, Mathews, & Roberts,
contexts underexplored. However, precisely be- 2020).
cause ELF is flexible, adaptable, and contingent In this article, we take a corpus-informed ap-
on the immediate context of interaction, it is cru- proach to first draw on a radiotelephony (R/T)
cial that it be studied in a wider range of con- corpus to enable our selection of the data, and
then to investigate the discursive construction of
meaning in R/T communications primarily be-
The Modern Language Journal, 105, 3, (2021)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12718
tween controllers and pilots. Drawing exclusively
0026-7902/21/639–654 $1.50/0 from radio exchanges in ELF contexts, we closely
© National Federation of Modern Language Teachers examine the process in which aviation profes-
Associations sionals negotiate meaning through a variety of
640 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
pragmatic strategies. We also illustrate how their scale, which serves relatively well to assess pilots’
strategies assist or hamper the R/T communi- use of standard phraseology primarily in routine
cations within the local aviation contexts. The situations. For example, phrases such as cleared
findings of this study reveal unique characteristics for take-off or cleared to land are fixed expressions
of AE as a lingua franca used in R/T commu- used when controllers authorize aircraft to take
nications that are distinct from those in ELF in off or land. No other expressions or variants may
general. We conclude the article by offering ped- be used.
agogical implications for enhanced aeronautical Nevertheless, in nonroutine situations, pilots
training addressing pragmatic and interactional and controllers use plain AE to handle requests
competence. First, however, we present general that relate to both convenience and safety. For ex-
background information on AE. ample, controllers sometimes need pilots to speed
up to optimize traffic flow, or pilots may need
BACKGROUND to switch to a runway closer to where they will
park the aircraft. Also, there are nonroutine sit-
English is the official language of aviation as uations where technical problems or even emer-
stated by the International Civil Aviation Orga- gencies require plain AE to meet more urgent or
nization (ICAO). ICAO’s responsibilities are to complex needs from interactants. The plain AE
promote practices and establish policies to which used in nonroutine situations is the interest of the
member states from all over the world must ad- Language Proficiency Requirements, which pro-
here. One such policy, entitled Language Pro- vide a proficiency scale consisting of six linguis-
ficiency Requirements, set parameters for per- tic areas—pronunciation, structure, vocabulary,
sonnel licensing in international operations from fluency, comprehension, and interaction—as the
2008 onward—a deadline later postponed to language assessment criteria. Candidates need at
2011. Since then, all member states have had least Level 4 in all areas to be licensed ultimately
to comply with language testing regulations in to fly internationally. This framework thus in fact
assessing pilots and controllers’ English profi- focuses on language form and neglects the use of
ciency. Pilots and controllers wishing to operate communication strategies (Kim, 2018). As recent
internationally are now required to demonstrate studies point out, the scale does not seem to be
a minimum level of English (Estival, Farris, & tailored to assess the use of this plain AE, which re-
Molesworth, 2016; Friginal et al., 2020). quires pragmatic, intercultural, and interactional
Before we proceed further, we should note competences (Kim, 2018; Monteiro, 2019; Prado,
that the aviation community often lacks consen- 2019). Such inclusion would be justified by re-
sus over terminology. While details on terminol- cent dramatic growth of aviation in ELF contexts
ogy are beyond the scope of this article, we fol- (Bieswanger, 2019; IHLG, 2019) until the COVID-
low researchers who use the label ‘AE’ as an 19 crisis.
umbrella term beyond the scope of controller– While stating that “most of the contexts in
pilot radio communications, and ‘R/T commu- which English is used occur among speakers of
nications’ to refer precisely to the discourse co- English as a second or foreign language than
constructed between pilots and controllers over as a first language” (ICAO, 2010, Section 2.5),
radio, including both standardized phraseology the ICAO’s (2010) Manual acknowledges that
and ‘plain AE’ used primarily in nonroutine sit- AE should prioritize mutual understanding,
uations (Bieswanger, 2016; see subsequent sec- especially in pronunciation features supported
tions for further detail). However, because out- by Jenkins’s lingua franca core (Jenkins, 2000).
side of applied linguistics, the term ‘AE’ is often Yet this support for ELF is contradicted when
used broadly to entail English used by all areas of ICAO separates users of AE into so-called ‘na-
aviation professionals (e.g., maintenance techni- tive’ and ‘nonnative’ speakers of English while
cians, flight attendants, dispatchers), we use the exempting ‘native’ speakers from the Language
term ‘R/T communications’ where the reference Proficiency Requirements. This practice has been
is strictly limited to radio interactions. criticized by applied linguists (Douglas, 2014;
The challenges posed by the Language Pro- Monteiro, 2019). Estival et al. (2016) argued
ficiency Requirements mentioned earlier go be- that AE is a professional language and should
yond the mere lack of personnel or even exper- be treated as such in training and testing all its
tise, mostly relating to problems presented in the users. Indeed, given the rapid growth of AE in
Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language ELF transactions, there is an increasing concern
Proficiency Requirements (ICAO, 2010). In this doc- for incorporating intercultural elements into
ument, ICAO proposes an English proficiency AE and in the role these might play in R/T
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 641
communications (Borowska, 2017; Monteiro, pragmatics of ELF is not limited to the issues
2019). McNamara (2011) pointed out how the of face and (im)politeness but embraces inter-
ICAO’s language policy neglects certain ELF actional effectiveness, the ability to negotiate
features, such as joint responsibility and mutual mutual understanding through linguistic and in-
understanding in R/T communications. In re- teractional resources in a collaborative, flexible,
sponse, ELF research has been suggested as the and contextually contingent manner (Kaur, 2019;
way to guide investigations of AE (Bieswanger, Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018).
2019; McNamara, 2011). In Björkman’s (2014) taxonomy of commu-
Studies of ELF associated with other fields nication strategies, which was based on her
or methods have empirically demonstrated the corpus of academic ELF interactions in Sweden,
use of strategies that go beyond pronunciation, self-initiated explicitness strategies and compre-
ranging from grammatical simplification to the hension checks occurred most frequently along
development of discourse tactics that promote with other-initiated confirmation checks and
rapport and cooperation (Taguchi & Ishihara, clarification requests. Explicitness strategies are
2018). Both ELF and pragmatics studies highlight typically used to create overtness in meaning and
how language users employ their plurilingual re- include repetition, simplification, signaling im-
sources (Jenkins & Leung, 2014), which are fre- portance, paraphrasing, negotiating (clarifying)
quently disregarded in the teaching and testing the topic, and discourse reflexivity (clarifying
of AE as well as in general language teaching. intention through metadiscourse) (Björkman,
Particularly in AE, Monteiro (2019) listed some 2014; Kaur, 2011; Mauranen, 2006, 2010). Com-
of the problems identified as R/T communica- prehension checks were also found frequently in
tion threats, including “non-cooperation, reluc- Björkman’s data as well as in Mauranen’s (2006)
tance to declare emergency, inference and false and Vettorel’s (2019) academic corpora. Com-
suppositions, incorrect interpretation of speech prehension checks can be viewed as a preemptive
acts, power distance and face-work, among oth- or proactive strategy through which interactants
ers” (p. 30); such communication threats need attempt to enhance explicitness or precision
to be addressed in AE teaching and testing. In in the discourse before potential issues arise
response, Monteiro suggested a revision of AE (‘pre-realizations’; Cogo & Dewey, 2012). Kaur’s
test designs by applying ELF intercultural com- (2011) examples from her academic corpus also
municative strategies to all users (among other illustrated how speakers not only made factual
considerations). Along these lines, we now turn or linguistic corrections but also made their talk
to ELF communication strategies. more specific, explicit, and clear to eliminate
vagueness that could potentially hamper com-
NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN ENGLISH AS munication. Kaur’s participants in a Malaysian
A LINGUA FRANCA university context did this by repeating potentially
misheard information, paraphrasing potential
In this section, we briefly review some of the sources of communicative difficulties, replacing
existing ELF literature on pragmatic strategies general terms with specific expressions, disam-
(for research on communication strategies in biguating pronoun usage, providing previously
second language acquisition [SLA] and ELF, unstated subjects and objects, and clarifying their
see Sato et al., 2019; Vettorel, 2019). Pragmatic meaning through explicit deixis and references
strategies refer to communication strategies that (see also Konakahara, 2012; Sato et al., 2019).
interactants deploy in their co-constructed and Aside from these self-initiated strategies, lis-
meaning-oriented exchanges to enhance mutual teners in ELF discourse also actively engage in
understanding and to preempt or resolve po- making meaning through, for example, confir-
tential difficulties in communication (Björkman, mation checks and clarification requests (Björk-
2011, 2014; Mauranen, 2006; Vettorel, 2019). man, 2014). These strategies can be regarded
In alignment with the notion of strategic com- as post hoc moves for resolving communicative
petence (i.e., the creative and flexible ability to problems (‘post trouble-source negotiation strate-
draw upon verbal and nonverbal language to gies’; Cogo & Dewey, 2012). Signals of nonunder-
achieve a communicative goal; Tarone, 2016), standing can be marked by listener prompts such
we view communication strategies as a range as echo (repetition of the key information with
of linguistic, paralinguistic, and extralinguistic interrogatory intonation), silence or no uptake,
resources used strategically by interactants to minimal query (e.g., mhm?, again?), explicit state-
enhance communication and achieve the shared ments of nonunderstanding, or inappropriate re-
goal of mutual understanding. Accordingly, the sponses (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Vettorel, 2019).
642 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
In addition, these signals can be followed by While accommodation strategies also enhance
other-initiated confirmation checks, such as para- communication effectiveness, they primarily serve
phrasing, repetition, or overt questions. Listen- to build solidarity and rapport by enriching inter-
ers can also express clarification requests by ask- actions using multiple linguistic, cultural, and in-
ing for explanations or additional information if teractional resources.
some aspect of the exchange is unclear. Thus, Although a handful of studies have investigated
pragmatic strategies are both remedial and pre- communication strategies in R/T communica-
emptive in nature, including retroactive strate- tions, most lack references to extensive pragmat-
gies used to resolve issues with understanding that ics research on this topic in applied linguistics
have already surfaced as well as proactive strate- or ELF (e.g., Borowska, 2017; Wyss–Bühlmann,
gies to forestall such issues from occurring. 2005). For example, based on Faerch & Kasper’s
In addition, simultaneous talk (e.g., overlaps, (1983) classification of ‘achievement strategies’
backchannels) may be frequently employed in and ‘formal reduction strategies’ in the field of
other ELF contexts. Backchanneling is used to ac- SLA, Wyss–Bühlmann (2005) categorized and il-
knowledge the content of the talk, prompt the lustrated communication strategies used by pilots
speaker to continue, elicit further talk, or sustain and controllers at Zurich Airport. Her subtypes
both speakership and listenership (Sachs, Jeffer- included compensatory strategies of paraphrases
son, & Schegloff, 1992). While backchanneling (e.g., rephrasing an unexecuted flight plan),
provides no new information, these devices man- corrections (e.g., making self- and other-initiated
age conversation, often cooperatively, by main- repairs), code switching (e.g., switching lan-
taining the role of the interactants and the state guages primarily to facilitate cooperation), and
of conversation as well as by indexing nuances lexical and syntactic reduction (e.g., simplifying
in interactants’ attitudes and intentions (Cogo & clearances and readbacks). Conducted in the
Dewey, 2012). Overlaps can be either competi- mid-2000s, this study focused on isolated anal-
tive or collaborative, showing support and engage- ysis of communication strategies using an SLA
ment or maintaining the rhythm of the conversa- framework. A more current approach for ELF
tion. However, even competitive overlaps can be data would be investigating R/T communications
viewed as positive emotional engagement while based on ELF communication strategies and con-
contributing to ongoing negotiation of meaning textualizing such analysis in order to investigate
(Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Zhu, 2017). Other ELF their effectiveness and consequences in situ.
communication strategies used for interactional Transcending a compensatory characterization
effectiveness include collaborative repair (Kaur, of ‘deficient’ ‘nonnative’ speaker competence, re-
2011), discourse markers (House, 2010), and searchers in ELF highlight multilingual interac-
‘represents’ (supporting interlocutors by echoing tants’ sensitivity and perceptiveness to subtle sig-
or mirroring their utterances; see House, 2010, nals of trouble and the ability to act upon these
2012). to avert communicative problems using multilin-
Speakers in ELF contexts are also known to gual repertoires (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Maura-
use various accommodation strategies by ad- nen, 2006, 2010). Communicative challenges can
justing their output to the perceived needs of result from diversity or asymmetries inherent in
their interactants (Giles, Coupland, & Coup- ELF interactions, such as knowledge of differ-
land, 1991). Those strategies involve ‘letting-it- ent varieties of English, lack of shared knowledge
pass’ and ‘making-it-normal’ approaches (Firth, and cultural assumptions, and varying degrees of
1996), code switching, nonstandard idioms, and language competence (Björkman, 2014; Vettorel,
humor and laughter. For example, Cogo’s (2009) 2019). Despite these asymmetries, interactants in
participants showed alignment to their interac- ELF settings can be viewed as engaged in a ‘com-
tants through other-initiated repetition and code munity of practice’ working toward a shared goal
switching. Their accommodation strategies ap- of mutual understanding. We now turn to this
peared to serve multiple functions, such as sig- framework by applying it to the community of avi-
naling agreement and engagement in conversa- ation professionals.
tion, showing solidarity and comity, and indexing
affiliation and in-group membership in the multi- ELF AVIATION PROFESSIONALS FORMING A
lingual community. Likewise, users of ELF some- COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
times creatively and playfully negotiate the use of
nonstandard idioms as a shared interactional re- The notion of community of practice (Lave &
source to co-construct rapport and consolidate in- Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) is relevant to the
group belonging (Pitzl, 2009; Seidlhofer, 2009). interactional practices of R/T communications.
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 643
In this framework, participants mutually engage discursive approach to analyzing our selected
in the social practices of the community shap- R/T interactions. This approach, grounded in
ing, developing certain ways of behaving, speak- a discursive turn in wider relevant disciplines,
ing, and doing things as well as values, beliefs, and allows us to investigate just how the discourse
power relations that may be explicitly or implic- informs the way interactants perceive their re-
itly shared by members working toward common lations to others and to their communities (van
goals (Eckert & McConnell–Ginet, 1992; Wenger, der Bom & Mills, 2015). A discursive approach
1998). Full participation requires knowledge of goes beyond the analysis of isolated pragmatic
“activities, tasks, functions, and understandings” strategies, enabling us to examine the affordances
that “do not exist in isolation” (Lave & Wenger, and constraints of the local context as well as the
1991, p. 53) but are intertwined in a broader interactants’ meaning created and dynamically
system of relations. Social practices form a co- negotiated within that context by way of meso-
constructed and jointly negotiated enterprise, level analysis bridging macro- (e.g., ideologies,
which over time contributes to the development institutions, social structure) and micro-level
of a shared repertoire, including routines, vocab- (e.g., local interaction through lexical, syntac-
ulary, discourse practices, body language, written tic, and interactional resources) interpretations
symbols, genres, and actions (Wenger, 1998). (Garcés–Conejos Blitvich & Sifianou, 2019). We
The community-of-practice framework is some- ask the following research questions:
times drawn upon to explicate social practices
in ELF contexts. The three key criteria for a RQ1. How do participants in R/T commu-
community of practice to exist—that is, mutual nications engage in the negotiation of
engagement, joint enterprise, and a shared meaning in nonroutine situations as
repertoire (Wenger, 1998)—are argued to be they strive to achieve the shared goal of
compatible with ELF practices (Ehrenreich, 2009; effective communication?
Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011; Seidlhofer, 2009; RQ2. What pragmatic strategies (or lack
Zhu, 2017). These criteria are applicable to the thereof) assist (or hamper) the negoti-
professional practices and expertise of aviation ation of meaning in the local aviation
specialists operating in the global aviation com- context?
munity (Kim, 2018). Stakeholders in aviation can
be characterized as community members engaged
We aim to illustrate the nature and complexity
in the joint enterprise of smooth aeronautical op-
of the joint negotiation of meaning in R/T com-
erations. Although pilots, controllers, and other
munications holistically in discourse without ac-
professionals in the field are linguistically and
counting for individual strategies independently
culturally heterogeneous and engage in multiple
(Vettorel, 2019). We will also consider how glob-
discourses in a variety of genre practices (Garcés–
alization in aviation has led to new ways of con-
Conejos Blitvich & Sifanou, 2019), their mutual
ducting research in pragmatics. Next, we discuss
engagement in their respective roles constitutes a
our corpus-informed approach to pragmatics and
variety of professional practices, as in the genre of
then detail our method.
R/T communications, which take place through
a prescribed repertoire of aviation phraseology.
Unlike natural language, R/T is a specialized METHOD
register typically learned by community members A Corpus-Informed Approach
through exposure and participation. R/T and its
certification have been shaped by gate-keeping Corpus linguistics research, to some, may evoke
organizations such as ICAO, while its use is statistics and quantitative analysis; however, this is
dynamically and discursively negotiated by the only a component of corpus linguistics research.
community members as they co-construct interac- Interpretive research is drawn from the data of the
tional practices in each individual context. Such corpus based on the primary concern of the dis-
practices will likely diversify and change as inter- course or linguistic or social phenomena the re-
actions in ELF multiply through globalization. search intends to address. To illustrate, a corpus
can initially be used to identify linguistic samples
RESEARCH QUESTIONS containing certain searchable patterns or func-
tions, of which further analysis can be made in
Because the negotiation of meaning we set out depth (Weisser, 2018). The focus on what makes
to explore in this study is inextricably intertwined certain discourses effective and successful in in-
with each local context of aviation, we take a terpretive corpus linguistics studies aligns well
644 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
with the discursive approach to pragmatics strate- aircraft registered by their civil aviation agencies.
gies adopted here and, therefore, we take an We therefore selected ELF interactions identified
approach analyzing corpus-extracted interactions by pilots’ affiliations and air traffic control loca-
discursively in this corpus-informed study. tions (e.g., Dubai, Istanbul, Zurich, or even New
The data presented in this article are taken York John F. Kennedy Airport, one of the entry-
from a corpus-driven investigation (Prado, 2019) ways to the United States).
with a 110,737-word corpus transcribed of R/T With the aim of informing the teaching curricu-
communications called the Radiotelephony lum of R/T communications, the corpus-driven
Plain English Corpus (RTPEC; Prado & Tosqui– study developed in Prado (2019; mentioned pre-
Lucks, 2019). The RTPEC comprises 130 audio viously) grouped the most frequent three-word
files with a total of 12 hours, which targeted clusters (e.g., would like to, we’d like to, if you can) of
problem-solving situations only. All files present the RTPEC into a selection of 12 discourses that
nonroutine situations, encompassing a broad are lexically and pragmatically representative of
range of topics in unusual or unexpected con- the R/T discourse. Among these discourses, we
texts (such as bird strikes, fire on board, engine focused on communication difficulties and strate-
failures). The corpus was compiled by selecting gies used to overcome them to select three ex-
and manually transcribing radio communications cerpts for detailed analysis, following the purpose-
from 2008 onward. The original audio files derive ful selection of data employed by van der Bom
from a well-known aviation website, Live Air & Mills (2015), in which an excerpt was chosen
Traffic (https://www.liveatc.net), where a large due to the participants’ interactional difficulty re-
amount of spoken data from various airports vealed in the data. The communicative challenges
worldwide is published and is constantly updated. and the pragmatic strategies that appeared in the
Using Wordsmith Tools (Scott, 2016), the re- excerpts formed the focal points of the negotia-
searcher generated lists of common three-word tion of meaning being investigated in the present
clusters based solely on frequency of occurrence. study.
The 100 most common clusters in the corpus We first reviewed the three selected transcripts
were then analyzed one by one in the transcript repeatedly while listening to the audio files in or-
and in audio files, and then they were classified der to fully understand the logistics of the context.
according to the function they performed into Then, with existing research on pragmatic strate-
categories determined by their pragmatic ade- gies in mind, we analyzed any indicators of po-
quacy and integrity (McCarthy & Carter, 2002). tential problems in communication (e.g., signals
These categories included mitigating devices, of noncomprehension, no readbacks, transmis-
speech acts, honorifics, turn openers, discourse sion of wrong information, noncompliance, clar-
markers, and deictic markers that emerged in ification requests) and subsequent interactional
the data, in turn informing pragmatics-focused moves (e.g., repetition, simplification, paraphras-
research and pedagogical materials designed ing, confirmation checks). In addition, by paying
for pilots and controllers. All audio files were attention to paralinguistic and extralinguistic ele-
transcribed by the second author and reviewed ments, we attempted to closely dissect the discur-
by controllers and pilots. All transcripts follow a sive negotiations in terms of the factors that may
header with information about the context (e.g., have constituted the source of communication
place, speakers, date, type of occurrence, source difficulties as well as those that may have helped
of audio file, and reports about the problem). resolve (or further aggravate) it. While conduct-
ing this analysis, we particularly took note of each
Data Analysis Procedures discursive context and potential consequences of
the interaction to better understand the stakes in-
We draw exclusively from international ex- volved (e.g., delays or cancellations, airport con-
changes to ensure that our investigation would gestion, reprimands).
be focused on ELF encounters. While our data
do not allow for the self-identification of speak- FINDINGS
ers’ linguistic status, we first extracted interactions
that involved international communications, that As the corpus used in this study was also in-
is, when the aircraft’s origin was different from the tended for pedagogical purposes, the transcripts
air traffic control location. Due to the high stakes were made to aim at user-friendly content fea-
involved in the aviation industry, in a majority of turing little metalinguistic information. Thus, an-
countries, only national pilots are licensed to fly notations were kept to a minimum, and we only
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 645
noted important verbal clues such as laughs, “anything what?” In Turn 5, the controller para-
long pauses, or lack of response. To preserve the phrases the trouble source as “hazardous mate-
characteristics of oral production, the transcripts rial” and repeats the original term, in an attempt
were written so as to signal prosodic breaks to assist the pilot’s understanding for a third
(Cresti, 2000). A single slash indicates a break in time.
the tone unit, but it also shows a continuation of However, the pilot indicates noncomprehen-
the utterance; two slashes demonstrate the end sion of the terms when in Turn 6, he instead ex-
of the utterance, although it does not necessarily plains the problem his aircraft presented (which
correspond to the end of the turn. When signaled he already did in a previous exchange) by para-
in the transcripts, prosodic breaks allow the re- phrasing it (“only fumes / only odor”) and stat-
searcher to determine whether certain combina- ing a consequence of the problem (“we lost one
tions are units of meaning or mere coincidences. screen”). Perhaps because the information about
In the subsequent sections, we present three ex- dangerous goods is not urgently needed, the con-
cerpts to illustrate the process of meaning negoti- troller abandons the question by acknowledging
ation within the given R/T context. the information received (“Roger”) in Turn 7 and
switching to instructions in standard phraseology,
which becomes the portion of language again up
EXCERPT 1: SMOKE REPORTED MID-FLIGHT to Turn 10. In Turn 11, the pilot reassures the con-
troller that the aircraft is no longer experiencing
Excerpt 1 involves an exchange that occurs in smoke, weakening the urgency of the problem; in
Budapest airspace, after a French airline pilot de- the same turn, this mitigation is complemented by
clares smoke in the cockpit. As part of the proto- the tone unit “so uh this is uh security landing,”
col, the controller requests information about the meaning it is a precautionary landing. The con-
quantity of people and fuel on board, and if the troller acknowledges this with a simple “Roger,”
aircraft is carrying dangerous goods in the cargo not signaling a full comprehension of the prob-
compartment. lem to the pilot but simply giving instructions to
The information about fuel, people and haz- now contact the tower in Turn 12. This does not
ardous material is intended for the fire fighters to present a problem at the moment, as the pilot
act accordingly. In Turn 1, the controller does not reads back the instructions given without any fur-
state the complete question, conveying only the ther clarification.
information needed, adding that he can wait for Considering the communicative strategies
a more appropriate time. The pilot provides part found in this exchange, we begin with the clar-
of the information requested in Turn 2. The con- ification request employed in quite an informal
troller thanks the pilot and reinforces the missing way (“anything what?”) rather than the stan-
information, “uh any dangerous goods?” in Turn dard say again in Turn 4. When the request for
3. The pilot then demonstrates noncomprehen- information about “dangerous goods” is disre-
sion by partial repetition and clarification request garded, another strategy, repetition, is used twice

EXCERPT 1
1 Controller: Air France 1695 / when you have a moment uh / fuel on board / persons on board and
whether you have any dangerous goods //
2 Pilot: Okay / one three six passengers on board / and we have nine uh uh something like eight tons on
board //
3 Controller: Thank you / uh any dangerous goods? //
4 Pilot: Anything what? //
5 Controller: Hazardous material / dangerous goods? //
6 Pilot: Uh it seems uh to be only fumes / only odor / uh but we lost one screen //
7 Controller: Roger // Air France 1695 / now turn right heading two two zero base and descend three
thousand feet //
…
11 Pilot: <unreadable> to confirm uh we have no more smoke in the cockpit / only fumes / so uh this is
uh security landing //
12 Controller: Roger // Air France 1695 / contact tower one one eight decimal one / bye //
13 Pilot: One eight <break> one eight decimal one / Air France 1695/ bye //
646 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
EXCERPT 2A

1 Controller: Etihad 101 / cross Runway two two right / taxi straight ahead on Alpha / Ground one two
one point six five //
2 Pilot: Cleared to cross Runway two two right / and after crossing via Alpha / one two one point six five /
confirm? //
3 Controller: Etihad 101 / which taxiway do you need to enter the ramp? //
4 Pilot: Golf uh Golf taxi to ramp //
5 Controller: Taxi right Bravo then right Bravo / Etihad 101 / right Bravo / Ground one two one point
six five //
6 Pilot: Right Bravo and uh one two one point six five / Etihad 101 / thanks //

(Turns 3 and 5) as well as paraphrasing (“haz- Turn 6. This exchange is directly followed by the
ardous material”). Paraphrasing is also observed next eight turns as the controller communicates
in another moment: “odor” for “fumes.” From with four other aircraft, one after another (in
Turns 1 to 6, call signs were used only once, omitted Turns 7–14). He then returns to speaking
demonstrating that the responsibility over the with the Etihad pilot (Excerpt 2B).
problem had been shared. Plain AE is used In Turn 15, the controller repeats his earlier
throughout these turns. It is only when the instructions for the pilot to turn right on Bravo
controller needs to instruct a turn and further while respecting the pilot’s choice of Golf. How-
descent in Turn 7 that he uses standard phrase- ever, the Etihad pilot sees a wide-body Airbus 340
ology, signaling it with the use of the call sign occupying Alpha. In Turn 16, the Etihad pilot im-
again. plies that he could not follow the instructions, as
Alpha is too close to Bravo, and asks a clarification
question regarding this judgment. In Turn 17, the
EXCERPT 2: CONFUSION DURING TAXI controller delivers a somewhat confusing message
saying (“nah <break> yeah”) without directly re-
With congested traffic at John F. Kennedy Air- sponding to this query. Instead, he hastily and
port, an Etihad aircraft arriving from Abu Dhabi twice more repeats his instructions to go on Bravo
is unable to vacate the taxiway promptly. Upon ar- given in his previous turn. Following this, the pi-
rival, the pilot is instructed to cross the runway lot further explains in Turn 18 that the aircraft is
and go on Taxiway Alpha by a Kennedy Tower con- unable to pass Bravo due to limited space as his
troller (Excerpt 2A). wing tip would collide with the wide-body aircraft
In Turn 2, the Etihad pilot reads back the in- remaining on Alpha (“we can’t pass through be-
formation correctly about the runway and taxiway fore we go to Alpha Bravo1 because of wing tip
he is instructed to use. He also requests confir- clearance”). However, this intervention may be in-
mation of the ground radio frequency (“one two terpreted as implicitly criticizing or complaining
one point six five”) that he should switch to. In about the controller’s performance as it is his re-
Turn 3, the controller asks which taxiway Etihad sponsibility to ensure safe separation among taxi-
requires, to which the pilot responds by specifying ways. In Turn 19, the controller adopts a sarcastic
taxiway “Golf” (Turn 4). Based on this, the con- tone directed to himself or a controller colleague
troller instructs the pilot to turn right on Bravo to (“he says he has no wing tip clearance”), perhaps
exit, which he repeats twice more to enhance clar- responding to the pilot’s implicit criticism, imply-
ity in Turn 5. He also responds to the pilot’s ear- ing that he blames the pilot for being unable to
lier request to confirm the next radio frequency. control his aircraft. Then the controller reverts
The pilot reads back all information correctly in back to his original instructions to go on Alpha.

EXCERPT 2B
15 Controller: Etihad 101 / right turn on Bravo / please / if you’re going in at Golf / right turn on Bravo /
Ground one two one point six five //
16 Pilot: right turn on Bravo / but we have the 340 in Alpha / confirm? //
17 Controller: nah <break> yeah / you’re going right Bravo / if you’re going in Golf / right Bravo //
18 Pilot: Etihad 101 heavy / we can’t pass through before we go to Alpha Bravo because of wing tip
clearance //
19 Controller: he says he has no wing tip clearance // alright / straight ahead on Alpha / then straight
ahead Alpha / keep the aircraft moving //
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 647
EXCERPT 2C

32 Delta: Ground / 29 / we’re still on the hold short line here //

33 Controller: Roger / hold / Etihad 101 / move the damn airplane / straight ahead on Alpha please //

There is no readback of this by the pilot. Fol- peats this in Turn 19 as if there were no obsta-
lowing this are 12 rapidly spoken turns in which cles on Alpha (“alright / straight ahead on Alpha
the controller communicates with three different / then straight ahead Alpha / keep the aircraft
aircraft (in omitted Turns 20–31). Then, another moving”).
aircraft (Delta 29) returns (from omitted Turn 8) The controller may be concerned less about
to call the controller’s attention to the fact that he which taxiway the Etihad pilot will take as long
is still on hold (Turn 32; Excerpt 2C). as he exits immediately. However, the lack of up-
Upon hearing this reminder, the controller take and accommodation on the part of the con-
raises his voice to repeat himself, telling the Eti- troller does not appear to provide a solution with
had pilot to move his aircraft by going straight on the Etihad pilot. The problem persists as the con-
Alpha. It is notable that the controller combines troller becomes increasingly irritated with the pi-
the use of both the swearword “damn” and the lot still occupying the taxiway in Turn 33. The con-
politeness marker “please” within the same utter- troller’s repeated instructions to go on Alpha in
ance. Turns 19 and 33 do not address the pilot’s concern
The controller here attempts to deal with a se- expressed in Turns 16 and 18 that there is a wide-
ries of cases of noncompliance to his instructions body aircraft on that taxiway, which may be the
given in multiple turns (Turns 1, 5, 15, 17, 19, primary reason for his persistent noncompliance.
and 33). Although Turns 1 and 5 deliver differ- In fact, the instruction may sound illogical and
ent instructions (“straight on Alpha” in Turn 1 impossible to meet to the Etihad pilot, who may
and “right on Bravo” in Turn 5), both are read need more specific instructions, such as to go on
back correctly indicating no linguistic breakdown, Alpha and wait behind the Airbus 340. Although ex-
which constitutes the communication strategy of plicitness strategies—primarily self-repetition—
confirmation check. In Turn 15, the controller are used a number of times in this case, they do
politely redelivers his earlier instructions, indi- not appear to be serving their purpose as the
cating an awareness of the pilot’s preference to message is left ambiguous and no elaboration is
go on Golf and even repeating the key informa- provided. Unfortunately, we did not have access
tion for reinforcement (“right turn on Bravo / to the continued interaction beyond Excerpt 2
please / if you’re going in at Golf / right turn to examine the resolution of this failed negoti-
on Bravo”) through the strategy of partial repe- ation and the consequences of the controller’s
tition. This elicits the Etihad pilot’s mention of reprimand.
a perceived problem when he implies in Turn
16 that another aircraft present on Alpha would
be blocking his way as he passes onto Bravo.
However, the controller either does not under- EXCERPT 3: ABORTED TAKE-OFF DUE TO
stand this message or disregards it. After some ENGINE FIRE INDICATION
hesitation he merely persists with his instructions
in Turn 17 (“nah <break> yeah / you’re go- In this excerpt, an Aerolíneas Argentinas pilot
ing right Bravo / if you’re going in Golf / right is communicating with a tower controller at John
Bravo //”). The controller presumably suggests F. Kennedy Airport. The aircraft has been granted
that the aircraft currently on Alpha will not in- a take-off, but the pilot cancels this due to an
terfere with the Etihad pilot exiting on Bravo. indicated fire in the right engine. Although the
This leads the pilot to further elaborate on this fire appears to be out, the controller calls emer-
perceived problem, indicating in Turn 18 that gency vehicles. The pilot requests a tow truck so
his wingtip would collide with the aircraft on Al- as to vacate the runway as it is too slippery for
pha due to the limited space even if he went on the aircraft to taxi on one engine. While wait-
Bravo. The pilot’s awareness of this aircraft may ing for a tow truck, the pilot is contacted by one
not be identical with the controller’s, or the pi- of the emergency fire trucks. The truck wants
lot may not have positioned himself appropri- to know whether the pilot has applied a fire ex-
ately. Despite this plea, the controller reverts back tinguisher to the engine that was reportedly on
to his initial instruction to use Alpha and re- fire.
648 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
EXCERPT 3A

1 Truck: Argentina 1301 from Truck 1 //

2 Pilot: Truck 1 / Argentina 1301 / go ahead //
3 Truck: Uh sir / did you uh deploy your bottle on that engine? //
4 Pilot: (5.2) Yes uh we are stopping the engine / we are shutting down the engine one right now //
5 Truck: No / that’s negative sir / did you deploy the fire suppression on the number two engine? //
6 Pilot: Uh I didn’t get wh <break> I didn’t get what you say uh / we stopped because we heard a noise
uh a strange noise / and one American / I think / on the taxiway reported fire on engine number two /
when we stopped the engine number two shut down automatically by itself / and after that we shut
down and we secured the engine number two //
7 Truck: Okay / so did you <break> you did or you did not deploy the fire uh system on that engine? //
8 Pilot: We haven’t reported fire on the right engine / we haven’t reported because we have no indication
of fire //
9 Truck: Okay thank you //
10 Pilot: Someone reported uh a kind of flame when the engine stopped / but was momentarily // we
have no indication of fire / we haven’t reported the fire on engine number two / Argentina 1301 //
11 Truck: I understand that sir / thank you //
12 Pilot: Thank you //

In Turn 3, Truck asks whether the pilot “de- engine. In Turn 7, Truck once again paraphrases
ployed [his] bottle on that engine.” He chooses the question, using “deploy the fire system,” this
the term “bottle,” which may have confused the time with emphasis on “you did or you did not.”
pilot. Although the term ‘bottle’ is part of aviation The pilot still does not answer the question in
terminology (e.g., engine fire bottle extinguishing Turn 8, only explaining that he did not report a
systems), it usually collocates with the word fire, as fire and why. Truck then abandons the question
in fire bottle. Turn 4 indicates the pilot’s noncom- with thanks in Turn 9, which the pilot detects,
prehension as he pauses for a long 5.2 seconds, paraphrasing his explanation once again in Turn
time that may also be spent on pilots’ tasks. 10, stating that he had no indication of a fire
Following this, he speaks only about shutting and did not report one. Truck politely dismisses
down the engine in question and paraphrases the explanation in Turn 11 by thanking the pilot
this message slightly to enhance clarity. Noticing again.
the noncomprehension, Truck paraphrases the In the interaction that immediately follows this,
question in Turn 5, asking if the pilot “deploy[ed] the tower contacts the tow truck and emergency
the fire suppression” on the engine. Although trucks (in omitted Turns 13–18). In Turn 19,
“bottle” is replaced with “fire suppression,” the Truck reports that he and the pilot are, in his
pilot still does not understand the question and words, having a “language barrier” and states that
states that in Turn 6 (“uh, I didn’t get what you he needs to know whether the fire extinguisher
say”). In the same turn, he continues to explain was used on the engine that was allegedly on fire
about the noise he heard and how another air- (Turn 19). The controller then contacts the pilot
craft reported a fire and how he shut down the again (Turn 20; Excerpt 3B).

EXCERPT 3B
19 Truck: Oh thank you / uh I wonder if you could just pass the thing from uh the captain / we’re having
um a language barrier / I just want to know if they deployed their fire system on that engine //
20 Controller: Argentina 1301 heavy? //
21 Pilot: Go ahead for Argentina 1301 //
22 Controller: Yeah / I’m not sure uh if you were able to understand what the fire trucks were asking you
// but they <break> did you deploy any fire system for that engine? // when you had the indication /
I’m sorry / you didn’t have any indication but when you were notified of the fire did you deploy any
bottle to extinguish this fire? //
23 Pilot: Negative / negative // we haven’t reported an engine fire / we haven’t discharged any uh agents
to the engine because we had no indications of fire / we haven’t reported fire // uh there was an
aircraft / I think I think an American / on the taxiway that when we were trying to take off the engine
number two stopped by itself / and the American / I guess / on the taxiway saw a kind of flame
momentarily // so we haven’t reported //
…
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 649

26 Controller: Rescue Truck 1 / sorry / thank you // Argentina 1301 heavy / thank you very much / sir //
and uh as soon as they get the tug they’ll get you going to your gate //
27 Pilot: Thank you very much for you and thank you very much for the fire brigade / thank you so much!
// we haven’t discharged any agent / okay? //
28 Controller: You didn’t <break> you didn’t discharge any agent / thank you very much sir //
29 Pilot: Thank you ma’am //

In Turn 22, the controller elaborates on the though Truck attributes the communication diffi-
question that has remained unanswered three culty to “a language barrier” (Turn 19), we do not
times. She first prefaces her question by referring find any linguistic deficiency in the pilot; rather,
to the past communication difficulty (“I’m not we view the source of the difficulty residing in
sure uh if you were able to understand what the Truck’s not using more explicit AE terminology
fire trucks were asking you // but”). This preface and more importantly, not sufficiently mobilizing
may also serve to signal the importance of the up- pragmatic strategies to paraphrase or accommo-
coming talk. After repeating the question (“Did date, unlike the controller.
you deploy any fire system for that engine?”), she Conversely, native or fluent English-speaking
backtracks slightly to ask when the pilot was noti- interactants from inner-circle contexts overuse
fied of the fire and whether he “deploy(ed) any of plain AE and underuse of phraseology have
bottle to extinguish this fire,” this time explain- often been pointed out in the literature (e.g.,
ing the use of the bottle with an explicit syn- Kim, 2018; Kim & Elder, 2009). For example,
onym, extinguish, along with its common collo- Kim’s (2018) pilot informants in a Korean con-
cate, fire. The pilot then responds immediately text underscored the importance of using con-
to this rephrase of the key question in Turn 23 cise phraseology even in a nonroutine situation.
to mention that he did not use the extinguisher: It can be argued that particularly in some ELF
“Negative / negative (…) we haven’t discharged contexts, less verbosity, and most importantly,
any uh agents [content of the fire extinguisher] the use of the technical term, in this case ex-
to the engine.” The pilot offers his detailed ex- tinguish or extinguisher, would have contributed
planation one more time. Omitted Turns 24–25 to more efficient resolution of the communica-
consist of brief Controller–Truck exchanges. In tion breakdown, which persists from Turn 3 to
Turns 26, the controller wraps up the communi- Turn 23.
cation by thanking the pilot and confirming the
earlier arrangement for a tow truck. In Turns 25
and 27, the pilot also thanks the controller repeat- DISCUSSION
edly and reconfirms through self-repetition that
he did not use a fire extinguisher. This indicates The use of pragmatic strategies in R/T com-
that the pilot has understood the crux of the ques- munications described in the previous sections
tion. The controller reads back the key informa- displays similarities as well as differences with
tion with thanks in Turn 28. The exchange wraps that seen in ELF. One outstanding commonality
up smoothly when the pilot returns the thanks. is explicitness, enhanced for interactional ef-
This excerpt shows how communication diffi- fectiveness. As explained earlier, the prescribed
culties persist when the use of lexical and syn- discourse of R/T communications institutionally
tactic paraphrases (“Did you deploy the fire sup- demands readback of formally delivered infor-
pression on the number two engine?” “You did mation to ensure comprehension and preempt
or you did not deploy the fire uh system on that potential problems. A lack of precision in com-
engine?”) fail to elicit the desired information in munication is directly related to potentially fatal
Turns 3, 5, and 7. It is only when the AE synonym accidents, and the consequences of communica-
extinguish is used (along with its collocate fire) in tion errors in R/T communications are extremely
Turn 22 (“Did you deploy any bottle to extinguish high; “Unlike social conversations or intellectual
this fire?”) that the negotiation finally succeeds. discussions, inaccuracy and misunderstandings
The controller’s careful prefacing of the issue with in aviation R/T communications represent a
background information (“I’m not sure uh if you danger to human lives” (ICAO, 2010, p. 3). A
were able to understand what the fire trucks were similar transactional focus in discourse diverging
asking you // but […] when you were notified of from the ‘let-it-pass’ strategy (Firth, 1996) is
the fire”) may also have contributed to the nego- also observed in Tsuchiya & Hanford’s (2014)
tiation of meaning in addition to her attempt at study, in which safety in the construction industry
paralinguistic accommodation seen in her slow- appears to override other concerns. Therefore,
ing down and speaking calmly and patiently. Al- this level of redundancy, which we may call
650 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
‘super-explicitness,’ may be needed only rarely explicitness, specificity, and clarity of message,
in other interactional ELF talk routines (Cogo we choose to classify them as accommodation
& House, 2017). Partial or total repetition, strategies, as they serve to reinforce solidarity
paraphrasing, clarification requests, and overt and promote alignment with social, institu-
questions were extremely common in our R/T tional, and professional practices of the aviation
data, used for both resolving and preempting community. Other accommodation strategies
communicative turbulences as in existing aca- and collaborative discourse characteristics—
demic or business ELF research (see Cogo & including backchanneling, discourse markers,
House, 2017, for examples of such studies). simultaneous talk, and completion overlaps,
Notably, however, explicitness can be temporar- which are often found in academic or business
ily put on hold if the information does not receive ELF—were not compatible with the prescribed
first priority. For example, the high degree of ex- R/T discourse and thus noticeably absent from
plicitness typically demanded in R/T communi- the data discussed here.
cations is not achieved in Excerpt 1. There might Stepping back, how does globalization in avi-
be noncomprehension with the expressions dan- ation affect how we conduct research in prag-
gerous goods and hazardous material, and this in- matics? In what ways does the context of avia-
formation is not provided immediately. The con- tion engender new ways of conceptualizing ELF
troller does not insist on it after asking for it three and pragmatics? Given the reality of today’s lin-
times in vain, presumably acknowledging that the guacultural (super)diversity, high mobility, and
pilot is categorizing the level of urgency based frequent contact, one-to-one correspondence be-
on the degree and consequences of the problem. tween a language and a speech community is no
Thus, Excerpt 1 demonstrates how a request for longer tenable (Li, 2018), even though it contin-
important information can be dropped, at least ues to be assumed in some cross-cultural or inter-
temporarily, when the priority is deemed to ex- language pragmatics research.
ist elsewhere—in this case, safe emergency land- In discussing theories of globalization, Cogo
ing. Still, explicitness was compromised only after & Dewey (2012) contended that ELF is not
three attempts and this fact indeed helps to high- merely a product of globalization but also serves
light the importance of explicitness strategies in as a medium through which globalization op-
R/T communications. erates and develops. In our case, while English
Furthermore, our analysis revealed that explic- serves as a medium for intercultural aviation com-
itness strategies alone may not be sufficient in munication, it simultaneously enables and pro-
overcoming communicative difficulties in R/T. motes the process of globalization, contributing
While disambiguation and explicitness may be to heightened engagement, contact, interdepen-
prerequisites in most of the contexts analyzed dence, (super)diversity, and hybridity within the
in this article, Excerpt 3 shows how some ac- AE community. Thus, AE can be viewed as a regis-
commodation strategies—such as prefacing re- ter of English to which no one is native but which
quests, providing grounders, slowing down, and one must acquire within the community of prac-
enunciating—may also facilitate comprehension tice, as stated earlier and elsewhere (e.g., Estival
and lead to cooperative operations. Moreover, et al., 2016).
certain paralinguistic features, including the calm As global standards and local practices are in-
and respectful tone illustrated in Excerpts 1 and terwoven in the use of AE, we argue for the value
3, may also assist pilots in overcoming nervous- of investigating AE in its specialized context as
ness in the asymmetrical interactions in which part of ELF research. While AE interactions share
controllers potentially exercise power over them the dynamic, adaptive, and cooperative nature of
in determining their course of action. Conversely, academic and business ELF, distinctive features
the lack of accommodation in Excerpt 2 does of the AE community’s practices also surface in
not appear to generate constructive solutions. Be- this study. Thus, investigation into AE can further
cause controllers and pilots may not only have enrich ELF pragmatics research, providing more
different linguistic and cultural backgrounds but contextualized complexities unique to this spe-
also possess different sets of professional com- cialized register.
petence in aviation, the careful sharing of rele-
vant information may be conducive to enhanced LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND
awareness of the mutual goal of smooth and safe SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
aeronautical operations.
While these collaborative strategies demon- In this study, we have discursively explored how
strated especially in Excerpt 3 also promote aviation specialists in ELF contexts engage in the
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 651
negotiation of meaning and what factors may fa- As regards general ELF pedagogy, we recom-
cilitate or hamper this process. We consider it mend teacher-guided analysis of authentic ELF
valuable to examine the nature and process of conversations. For example, students can learn
such negotiations in their discursive context be- how to improve their negotiation of meaning by
cause, as argued earlier, meaning is not inherent disambiguating or enhancing explicitness of their
in individual linguistic forms but co-constructed own and others’ production while maintaining
through joint negotiation. However, since neither the flow of the talk (Cogo & Pitzl, 2016; House,
ELF nor AE is a unified linguistic entity, our analy- 2012). Interactants will also benefit from en-
sis is strictly bound by the context of the reported hanced accommodation skills with which to gauge
cases and should therefore be viewed as only a pre- and adjust to others’ communicative repertoires.
liminary effort examining the pragmatic workings Components of effective instruction in pragmatic
of AE (following Kim, 2018; Kim & Elder, 2009). or interactional competence include pragmatic
Although our corpus includes pilots represent- awareness-raising, contextualized input selected
ing a range of linguistic backgrounds and cultural from ELF corpora, explicit pragmatic analysis, in-
contexts, future studies should continue to exam- teractive practice, feedback, and reflection (Kaur,
ine R/T communications in wider geographical 2019).
locations and aviation contexts. Moreover, our in- With reference to the professional training
terpretations are supported by collaborating pi- of aviation professionals specifically, commu-
lots, but no controllers were consulted. Although nication strategies already constitute part of
our ELF pilots fly internationally and did not ap- that training (Kim, 2018; Kim & Elder, 2009).
pear to have major linguistic challenges, this may Perhaps such training should be informed and
not hold true of aviators in training or those op- enhanced by the set of strategies successfully
erating in other regions where English is scarcely employed by ELF users and implemented with
used outside of the aviation context. all stakeholders in ELF and non-ELF contexts.
Because AE is a professional register, all stake-
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS holders should share (renewed) awareness of the
global ownership of ELF, the legitimacy of diverse
Pragmatic competence is an indispensable forms and discourses, and a shared focus on
component of communicative and professional interactional effectiveness and rapport building.
competence, allowing us to prevent or success- For phonological training for aviation specialists,
fully resolve communicative difficulties (Kim, linguistic accommodation, including ‘passive
2018; Kim & Elder, 2009; McNamara, 2011; Vet- familiarization’ (i.e., receptive understanding of
torel, 2019). ELF researchers claim that the varied accents), has been called for (Bieswanger,
skilled adoption of pragmatic strategies in ELF 2019). As regards pragmatic and interactional
contexts requires adaptive and accommodative competence, there are parallel needs for training
capabilities that develop in response to the needs for pragmatic accommodation and negotiation
of diversified global contexts and argue for their of meaning through communication strategies
explicit and focused instruction (Cogo & Pitzl, (see Estival, 2019). Users of AE should also
2016; Sato et al., 2019; Seidlhofer, 2011; Taguchi develop pragmatic and linguistic awareness of
& Ishihara, 2018). However, the paucity of ped- how different cultures interact (Borowska, 2017),
agogical efforts to incorporate communication concentrating on effective communication. Some
strategies into the language-teaching curriculum authors have also advocated the teaching of in-
has been widely pointed out. In addition to the tercultural competence or awareness of aviation
lack of consistency in the syllabus in terms of community practices (Borowska, 2017; Monteiro,
the research-based treatment of communication 2019).
strategies, there often is a dearth of contextual- In addition to general English proficiency tests,
ized examples of pragmatic strategies in use and performance testing may be necessary for prag-
few opportunities to practice those strategies in matic and interactional competence (Kim, 2018).
interaction (Kaur, 2019; Vettorel, 2019; Vettorel & Studies such as this one and many more to be
Lopriore, 2013). Researchers working in AE echo conducted in wider contexts may also inform the
these concerns, especially with regard to the lack constructs upon which tests should be designed
of context-specific materials in existing AE text- (Monteiro, 2019). By considering the commu-
books (Friginal et al., 2020). Currently, there is a nicative needs of the ELF community, language
need for tailor-made, contextualized AE activities policy should reflect an updated view of its partic-
and perhaps a collective repository of such mate- ipants and therefore broaden its reach (Douglas,
rials. 2014; Estival, 2019).
652 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
CONCLUSION

As existing studies of ELF pragmatics are NOTE

conducted predominantly in academic and busi- 1 Although the pilot first says “Alpha” due to a slip of
ness contexts, our study can assist in expanding
the tongue, he self-corrects to say “Bravo.”
the realm of ELF pragmatics investigation by
exploring the professional domain of R/T com-
munications through corpus-informed discursive
investigation. Rather than analyzing strategies REFERENCES
in isolation, we investigated the complex dis-
cursive construction of meaning to uncover the Bieswanger, M. (2016). Aviation English: Two dis-
pragmatic strategies called upon to negotiate tinct specialized registers? In C. Schubert & C.
meaning successfully in the aviation context. Our Sánchez–Stockhammer (Eds.), Variational text lin-
participants have been found to use a range of in- guistics: Revisiting register in English (pp. 67–85).
teractional tactics both to boost the transactional Berlin: DeGruyter.
Bieswanger, M. (2019). How research on English as a
explicitness of their messages and to build inter-
lingua franca can help to identify and address new
actional rapport. However, R/T communications
training needs of the changing aviation community.
appear to be somewhat distinct from some ELF Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University Schol-
domains in terms of the extent of explicitness arly Commons. Accessed 5 September 2020 at
and the lack thereof given the shared knowledge https://commons.erau.edu/icaea-workshop/
built between the professionals. In our study, 2019/day-1/4
the level of precision in the discourse was found Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as
to be very high, requiring immediate repair as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving com-
well as proactive strategies to preempt potential municative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43,
communicative difficulties, as illustrated by the 950–964.
Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English
institutionalized use of readbacks. This may be
as a lingua franca (ELF) speech: A communica-
due to the unique characteristics of a domain
tive strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66,
in which communication is highly consequential 122–138.
and procedural. Misunderstanding has to be im- Borowska, A. (2017). Avialinguistics: The study of language
mediately rectified in favor of the joint enterprise for aviation purposes. Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany:
because this high-stakes enterprise is related to Peter Lang.
safety and therefore to human lives. Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF
Based on our findings, we propose the inclu- conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In
sion of research-informed instruction in prag- A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua
matic strategies in the training of all aviation spe- franca: Studies and findings (pp. 254–273). Newcas-
tle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publish-
cialists in ELF and non-ELF contexts as well as
ing.
performance-based assessment of pragmatic and
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analyzing English as a
interactional competence. We hope that this study lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London:
will stimulate continued investigation of the role Continuum.
of pragmatics in AE as a lingua franca and further Cogo, A., & House, J. (2017). The pragmatics of ELF.
contribute to enhanced practices in the training In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The
and testing of aviation specialists. Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp.
210–223). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Cogo, A., & Pitzl, M.–L. (2016). Pre-empting and sig-
naling non-understanding in ELF. ELT Journal, 70,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 339–345.
Cresti, E. (2000). Corpus di italiano parlato [Corpus of
The authors would like to thank Han Eul Lee spoken Italian] (Vol. 1). Firenze, Italy: Accademia
and Prado’s pilot colleagues for their assistance in della Crusca.
interpreting the data. The authors also express our Douglas, D. (2014). Nobody seems to speak English here
gratitude to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for today: Enhancing assessment and training in avia-
their insightful comments. All remaining errors are tion English. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching
theirs. This research was funded by the Grant-in-Aid for Research, 2, 1–12.
Scientific Research (C) offered by the Japan Society for Eckert, P., & McConnell–Ginet, S. (1992). Think prac-
the Promotion of Science (#15K02802). tically and look locally: Language and gender as
Noriko Ishihara and Malila Carvalho de Almeida Prado 653
community-based practice. Annual Review of An- language assessment (pp. 1607–1616). Malden, MA:
thropology, 21, 461–490. John Wiley & Sons.
Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a lingua franca in Kaur, J. (2011). Raising explicitness through self-repair
multinational corporations: Exploring business in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics,
communities of practice. In A. Mauranen & E. 43, 2,704–2,715.
Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and Kaur, J. (2019). Communication strategies in English as
findings (pp. 126–151). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: a lingua franca interaction. In M. A. Peters & R.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational innova-
Estival, D. (2019). Aviation English training for na- tions (pp. 1–5). Singapore: Springer.
tive English speakers: Challenges and suggestions. Kim, H. (2018). What constitutes professional com-
Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University Schol- munication in aviation: Is language proficiency
arly Commons. Accessed 5 September 2020 at enough for testing purposes? Language Testing, 35,
https://commons.erau.edu/icaea-workshop/ 403–426.
2019/day-3/10 Kim, H., & Elder, C. (2009). Understanding aviation En-
Estival, D., Farris, C., & Molesworth, B. (2016). Aviation glish as a lingua franca. Australian Review of Applied
English: A lingua franca for pilots and air traffic con- Linguistics, 32, 23.1–23.17.
trollers. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Konakahara, M. (2012). Reconsideration of communi-
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in cation strategies from English as a lingua franca
foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & perspective. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Educa-
G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage commu- tion of Waseda University, 20, 201–216.
nication: Applied linguistics and language study (pp. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Le-
20–60). London: Longman. gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of nor- bridge University Press.
mality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversa- Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of
tion analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259. language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30.
Friginal, E., Mathews, E., & Roberts, J. (2020). English in Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misun-
global aviation: Context, research, and pedagogy. Lon- derstanding in English as lingua franca communi-
don: Bloomsbury Academic. cation. International Journal of the Sociology of Lan-
Garcés–Conejos Blitvich, P., & Sifanou, M. (2019). guage, 177, 123–150.
Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity: A discourse
of Pragmatics, 145, 91–101. universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English
Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts Studies, 9, 13–40.
of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolin- McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2002). This that and the
guistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. other: Multi-word clusters in spoken English as vis-
House, J. (2010). The pragmatics of English as a lingua ible patterns of interaction. Teanga: The Irish Year-
franca. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across lan- book of Applied Linguistics, 21, 30–52.
guages and cultures (pp. 363–390). Berlin: Mouton McNamara, T. (2011). Managing learning: Authority
de Gruyter. and language assessment. Language Teaching, 44,
House, J. (2012). Teaching oral skills in English as a lin- 500–515.
gua franca. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Monteiro, A. L. (2019). Reconsidering the measurement of
A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teach- proficiency in pilot and air traffic controller radiotele-
ing English as an international language (pp. 186– phony communication: From construct definition to task
205). New York: Routledge. design. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Car-
IHLG. (2019). Aviation benefits report. Accessed 5 Septem- leton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
ber 2020 at https://www.icao.int/sustainability/ Pitzl, M.–L. (2009). “We should not wake up any dogs”:
Documents/AVIATION-BENEFITS-2019-web.pdf Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In A. Mauranen & E.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and
(2010). Manual on the implementation of ICAO lan- findings (pp. 298–322). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK:
guage proficiency requirements (ICAO Doc. 9835, 2nd Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
ed.). Chicago, IL: Author. Prado, M. (2019). A relevância da pragmática no ensino do
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an interna- inglês aeronáutico: Um estudo baseado em corpora [The
tional language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. relevance of pragmatics in the teaching of avia-
Jenkins, J. (2017). The future of English as a lingua tion English: A study] (Unpublished doctoral dis-
franca? In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), sertation). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo,
The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca Brazil.
(pp. 594–605). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Prado, M., & Tosqui–Lucks, P. (2019). Designing the
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of de- Radiotelephony Plain English Corpus (RTPEC):
velopments in research into English as a lingua A specialized spoken English language corpus to-
franca. Language Teaching, 44, 281–315. wards a description of aeronautical communica-
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2014). English as a lingua tions in non-routine situations. Research in Corpus
franca. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to Linguistics, 7, 113–128.
654 The Modern Language Journal 105 (2021)
Sachs, H., Jefferson, G., & Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Lec- Not ‘letting it pass.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 117–
tures on conversation (Vol. I & II). Malden, MA: 131.
Wiley–Blackwell. van der Bom, I., & Mills, S. (2015). A discursive ap-
Sato, T., Yujobo, Y. J., Okada, T., & Ogane, E. (2019). proach to the analysis of politeness data. Journal
Communication strategies employed by low- of Politeness Research, 11, 179–206.
proficiency users: Possibilities for ELF-informed Vettorel, P. (2019). Communication strategies and co-
pedagogy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8, construction of meaning in ELF: Drawing on mul-
269–296. tilingual resource pools. Journal of English as a Lin-
Scott, M. (2016). Wordsmith tools (Version 7) [Com- gua Franca, 8, 179–210.
puter software]. Stroud, OK: Lexical Analysis Soft- Vettorel, P., & Lopriore, L. (2013). Is there ELF in ELT
ware. coursebooks? Studies in Second Language Learning
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom and Teaching, 3, 483–504.
principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Weisser, M. (2018). How to do corpus pragmatics on prag-
Pragmatics, 6, 195–215. matically annotated data. Amsterdam: John Ben-
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua jamins.
franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy versity Press.
in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Wyss–Bühlmann, E. (2005). Variation and co-operative
Linguistics, 38, 80–101. communication strategies in air traffic control English.
Tarone, E. (2016). English as a lingua franca: Perspectives Bern: Peter Lang.
and prospects—Contributions in honor of Barbara Sei- Zhu, W. (2017). How do Chinese speakers of English
dlhofer. (pp. 217–225). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. manage rapport in extended concurrent speech?
Tsuchiya, K., & Hanford, M. (2014). A corpus-driven Multilingua, 36, 181–204.
analysis of repair in a professional ELF meeting: