The multilingual workplace realities of Polish truckers: A case study in the Netherlands

2.1 Lingua franca as the common ground

In Western Europe speakers in a multilingual situation frequently switch to English to find common ground with their interlocutor through a lingua franca. Correspondingly, in the last 30 years research into English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) has been a very active field of study. The first studies “envisaged the possibility of identifying and maybe codifying ELF varieties” (Jenkins 2015: 77), for instance to describe Dutch speakers’ version of English. However, scholars eventually agreed that “ELF, with its fluidity and ‘online’ negotiation of meaning among interlocutors with varied multilingual repertoires, should not be considered as consisting of bounded varieties, but as [an] English that transcends boundaries, and that is therefore beyond description” (Jenkins 2015: 55). From the initial focus in ELF research the emphasis on English as a lingua franca has shifted towards the multilingual context of lingua franca interactions. Several ELF scholars recognize the importance of multilingualism in lingua franca practices and research (e.g., Jenkins 2015; Mortensen 2013, 2017; Pitzl 2018; Seidlhofer 2009); yet English remains the fundamental language. For instance, Jenkins (2015: 77) emphasizes that in lingua franca situations, English is “now conceived as one among many other languages, one resource among many, available but not necessarily used”. After all, a situation in which people switch from their mother tongue to a lingua franca is by definition a multilingual situation.

At the same time, the inclusion of languages other than English inevitably increases the number of variables and thus the complexity of theorization. With this in mind, Pitzl (2016: 298) proposes the ‘Individual Multilingual Repertoire’ (IMR), which consists of “all the linguistic resources a person has at their disposal”. These repertoires develop during a lifetime, and are affected by numerous factors such as education, experiences, and personal interests. In a contact zone the IMRs of the interlocutors will overlap to some extent, resulting in a ‘multilingual resource pool’ (MRP) that is shared by the involved individuals (Pitzl 2016: 298). Pitzl argues that “[t]he bigger the multilingual resource pool (MRP) that speakers share, the greater will be the likelihood for code-switching into particular (local) languages, the greater will be the likelihood for more extensive code-mixing and multilingual practices” (Pitzl 2016: 298). In other words, the probability that IMRs can be effectively used in creative and unexpected ways increases when interlocutors have more resources in common.

In this era of globalization, European logistics professionals often have several languages in their respective IMRs and collective MRP. It is likely that drivers will share a repertoire with local logistics professionals in the form of a lingua franca such as English or German; however, an IMR does not necessarily contain these languages. The specific languages in an IMR will differ from one individual to another. Moreover, the proficiency of the languages in an IMR will range on a broad spectrum, from linguistic knowledge which is limited to logistics jargon to near-native proficiency in one or more languages. Repertoires are formed in various ways; for instance, through formal education, or from experiences with interlocutors who are considered foreign by the speaker. In this contribution we consider a language to be ‘foreign’ when it is not the native language of the speaker. Although experience in interaction with foreigners does not necessarily lead to high proficiency in the foreign language(s), it can increase the availability of distinctive utterances that can be used in particular work situations that occur in different linguistic settings. Still, even limited proficiency in one or more languages may be useful in workplace interactions in the logistics sector. This brings to mind the sociolinguistic stance which is elegantly formulated by Blommaert: “People use all there is to use in making sense; they use explicit linguistic resources as well as implicit, sociocultural ones”, (2010: 178). Therefore, allowing professionals to utilize their entire IMR will increase their ability to successfully interact with a wide range of interlocutors.

2.2 Language barriers

Tenzer and her colleagues (2014: 509) define language barriers as “obstacles to effective communication, which arise if interlocutors speak different mother tongues and lack a shared language in which they all have native proficiency”. Lingua franca use and extensive IMRs may at times facilitate interaction, yet interactions are composed of much more than just words. Speakers need to be aware that the words they are using might have different meanings in different contexts. Linguistic subtleties, either verbal or non-verbal, enable people to pass along information, if only they know how to present the message. Communication and media scholars Couldry and Hepp (2017: 30) remark that:

We learn not only the basic communicative signs, but also patterns of how to communicate: the way to ‘question’, to ‘answer’, to ‘discuss’, etc., is based on certain social patterns – ‘rules’ based in institutional facts – which we learn during our socialization. Such patterns can have a high level of complexity, including ‘schemes’ showing how to articulate a ‘speech’ in a correct way or how a multi-layered ‘dispute’ should take place. But regardless of how complex these patterns are, they are built on the basis of forms of communication that remain in place independently of the concrete contents of communication (2017: 30; original italics).

For instance, “thank you” could be interpreted as sarcastic rather than as an expression of gratitude, based on the tone and facial expressions of the speaker. Paul Grice (1975) argues that competent speakers know how messages should be presented to their interlocutor, and how to interpret and act upon response messages. Langlotz (2009) argues that meaningful lingua franca interactions may be troublesome, because a speaker’s perception of a context, as well as the repertoire to communicate about that context are likely to differ from the perception and repertoire of their foreign interlocutor. Similarly, Mortensen (2017: 275) points out that “[s]haring semiotic resources does not merely concern physical access to the same signs, whether verbal or not, but also access to a shared understanding of the typical meaning of these signs”. Thus, in a context where people face linguistic obstacles, people need to overcome a range of language barriers to negotiate shared meanings.

Furthermore, culture and context play a major role in multilingual communication, even when an interaction might seem trivial. “All communication involves participants, settings, purposes, linguistic and other communicative medium choices, none of which are culturally neutral” (Baker 2015: 12). People interpret situations according to their own cultural norms, and they refer to the scripts or schemata that they consider appropriate to handle such interactions (Baker 2015; Piller 2017). The individual differences in interpretation, which are influenced by a person’s culture, add another level of complexity to multilingual interactions.

In a situation where people are pressed for time it might seem efficient to take the individual’s linguistic and cultural complexity out of the equation. In this case, Hofstede’s well-known dimensional concept of culture quantifies cultural orientations based on a person’s nationality comes to mind (Hofstede 2011). Then again, some scholars assert that it is counterproductive to enter interactions based on a static and homogenous image of an interlocutor’s way of interaction (e.g., Blommaert 2010; Holliday 2011; Pennycook 2010; Piller 2017). These images, commonly known as stereotypes, “are beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of members of certain groups” (Hilton and von Hippel 1996: 240). Although stereotypes help impose order on the social world, at the same time, they may hinder flexible thinking (Pickering 2001: 3). When it comes to intercultural communication competences, business communication scholars Kassis-Henderson and her colleagues (2018: 306) argue that even though it is easier to comprehend a different culture when it is depicted as a homogenous and static phenomenon, this oversimplification of cultural traits “often results in stereotyping, which tends to magnify the very factors that challenge communication”. They plead for an approach which allows for the recognition of individual differences, or the “various layers” in one’s language repertoire (Kassis -Henderson et al. 2018: 306). Similarly, Mills (2017: 28) argues that even though we might perceive the beliefs and values of a certain group as homogenous “we are doing so at a stereotypical, ideological level. These ideological beliefs are not necessarily ones that all of the members of that culture will draw on in their own linguistic repertoire”. When the assessment of an interlocutor relies too heavily on the generics of stereotypes rather than the ‘individualized view’ of an interlocutor, this tends to lead to over-adjusting, which negatively affects a conversation (Dragojevic et al. 2015). In over-adjusting a speaker ignores the actual competencies of an interlocutor, and uses strategies like unnecessary repetitions, slow speech and exaggerated intonation. A fixed image of a foreign interlocutor’s linguistic abilities thus impedes meaningful and effective conversation.

Another issue in multilingual interaction is that even when people master the necessary linguistic resources they might lack the register which is considered appropriate, as pointed out by Couldry and Hepp (2017). Norms and social practices which are informed by cultural background, but also by differences in role-specific viewpoints. When people get to know alternative viewpoints this might adjust their take on matters; however, initially, they will draw from the norms and social practices that they are already used to. Piller (2017) argues that communication issues may arise regardless of linguistic issues within a multilingual context. She notes that “in interactions there are often simply different interests at stake and interactants may not actually want to understand each other” (Piller 2017: 84). Guido’s (2016) research provides an example of a misunderstanding between a Nigerian immigrant and an Italian volunteering tourist, that arises from the individual viewpoints (tourist vs. immigrant) during the interaction. The tourist’s choice to maintain her viewpoint derails the interaction, even though both speakers are proficient enough to speak in English. The diversity of multilingual business environments also provides plenty of examples of this sort. Studies show that employees might choose a range of strategies to handle unclear or inconvenient information. For instance, Marschan and her colleagues found that international employees sometimes will ignore information which is written in English as a lingua franca, like in their case of the Spanish employee who receives English information from the Finnish headquarters (1997: 593). There are plenty of other examples of this kind of misunderstandings in the literature on business communication (e.g. Angouri 2013; Peltokorpi 2007; Wilczewski et al. 2018).

In the context of this study the truckers and the logistic staff at the companies share the goal to transfer goods. In the process of reaching this goal these people’s practices are likely informed by their IMRs, as well as past experiences and stereotypes in situations where they have to communicate with interlocutors who were foreign to them, and to decide how to conduct themselves. Section 3 explores historical events, language education, and language use in the workplace for Poland and the Netherlands to provide context about the linguistic backgrounds of the Polish international truckers and their Dutch clients.

3.1 Polish truck drivers

Within the context of the European road haulage sector there are large differences in the language proficiencies of Polish international truck drivers. An important factor is the dominant position of the Polish language in Poland. Polish has gained this position throughout Poland’s turbulent history in which independence was gained and lost several times. This historic turmoil has left its traces in the linguistic differences between the cohorts in the Polish population. Under the Soviet regime, Russian was taught obligatorily as a second language; education in other languages was quite rare (Gonerko-Frej 2014; Reichelt 2005). Simultaneously, the Iron Curtain severely limited contact with people from Western Europe. So the cohort of drivers who grew up under the Soviet regime most likely lacks formal education in any Western European languages. Since Poland regained independence, the most common foreign languages in Polish education are English, German, and Russian, with Polish as the main language of instruction (Otwinowska 2015). English is an elective language, which is chosen by nearly 90% of Polish students (Kasztalska 2014). Then again, Gonerko-Frej (2014: 165) stresses that current methods cause linguistic insecurity, as students are expected to speak in a native-like manner, which is very hard to achieve. Moreover, Otwinowska (2015) asserts that English education is often more directed at passing exams rather than to prepare students for interactions. Therefore, the younger cohort might also not be optimally prepared for interactions in ELF situations either.

In practice, drivers frequently transit from national to international roads with limited proficiencies in Western European languages (e.g. English or German). Several studies show that this practice is adopted in a range of sectors, the expectation to learn the relevant skills ‘on the job’ is not exclusive to the logistics sector (e.g. Canagarajah 2013; Piller and Lising 2014; Wilczewski et al. 2018). In this case, since there is a significant difference in wages between national and international driving, young truckers are likely to expand their driving beyond the Polish borders. Of course, truckers may acquire an additional language at any stage of their career, regardless of the languages that they acquire in formal education. In fact, the number of multilingual interactions, and the visibility of foreign languages in Poland has increased since the fall of the Iron Curtain, so languages other than Polish can be experienced more often. As a result, truckers might be more aware of the advantages of expanding their IMR with multiple languages. Hence, in line with several studies which illustrate various biographical junctures at which people may decide to acquire an additional language (Pujolar and Puigdevall 2014; Walsh and O’Rourke 2014), a driver’s decision to embark on an international career may trigger the need to acquire additional language skills.

3.2 Dutch warehouse workers

The Dutch have held the opportunities of multilingualism in high regard, particularly for the purpose of trade. Ammon and McConnel (2002) argue that the Netherlands owe their economic success to cross-border transactions that require the German, French and English language. The prominence of English dramatically increased after WWII, as ‘the language of the liberators, the money providers and progress’ (Ridder 1995: 44). Since then the consumption of the English language and culture has immensely increased in the Netherlands. The preference for the English language in Dutch society is also reflected in education. Although German and French are still present in secondary schools, English is the only compulsory foreign language in Dutch education (Edwards 2016). The prominence of English in education supposedly yields a high proficiency in English among the Dutch, whereas competence in German and French usually remains comparatively modest (Nortier 2011). Correspondingly, most Dutch people consider English as imperative for their international business, which comes at the expense of German and French proficiency (Edwards 2016).

In general, people are expected to have a sufficient level of English before they start their job; based on English acquired in education, the high visibility of English in Dutch society, as well as knowledge acquired during previous working experiences. Thus, often the level of their linguistic knowledge remains unquestioned upon entry into a new job. That said, in Edwards’ (2016: 74) study, most blue-collar workers feel that neither their work nor the English during their vocational training, which is supposed to prepare people for their linguistic career needs, contributed significantly to their English proficiency level. Moreover, Nickerson (1998) argues that additional language training is rather rare for most workers. Even though it is likely that numerous Dutch blue collar workers work with international partners it can be questionable whether all Dutch professionals are indeed as multilingual as they might be portrayed.

3.3 Summary

The socio-historical background of the Netherlands and Poland differs. Historically speaking, the Dutch have been sovereign since the end of WWII; whereas Poland regained its independence 44 years later. Such differences yield impacts on contacts with foreigners as well as upon the languages taught and spoken in both nations. Despite the major role of the English language in both nations, only the Netherlands obliges students to acquire English. Comparatively, in Poland, students are allowed to choose other foreign languages. So at least some of the future Polish truckers might not have studied English in school. Nonetheless, both nations include foreign languages, such as English and German in their education, and English is increasingly present in both societies, so it is likely that English will be increasingly available in multilingual interactions.

Clearly, the diverging sociolinguistic profiles can lead to contrasts in the languages that Polish and Dutch logistics professionals have available to them. These differences and the strategies to overcome them have been examined in an exploratory case study, which is described in Section 4.

4.1 Participants and research sites

The fieldwork for the case study was conducted at two Dutch warehouses during one regular working week. In 2017 the first author, who is a Dutch and Polish bilingual, observed the participants at the Logistics Department of a production plant, or at an external warehouse that cooperates with the production plant. Both companies were located in the Dutch province of Fryslân. Although these warehouses work with some dedicated Dutch drivers, the majority of the drivers are randomly appointed by the transport planners. In other words, there were no dedicated Polish drivers with whom the Dutch workers had established working relationships, but based on statistics (CBS 2018) and local expertise we were confident that a large number of Polish drivers would be passing through during the fieldwork. Our sample consisted of five Polish truck drivers (all men; age range 28–53) who drive internationally. These were all the Polish drivers who passed through these offices during this particular week, which was less than we had initially expected. At company A, nearly all Dutch employees (four men; age range 27–60) participated in the study. One employee was excluded, as he did not consent to being recorded. At company B two Dutch employees (both men; age 53 and 58) worked in the warehouse and took part in this study.

4.2 Methodology

This study took an ethnographic mixed method approach. The participants were observed during work-related interactions. The communication between the Polish drivers and the Dutch employees was observed from their moment of entry in the office, and on two occasions during their communication at the warehouse as well. Fieldwork notes were kept of all these observations. To ensure that the participants were unequivocally aware of the aim and nature of the study, they all received an explanation in their native language. The Dutch employees were informed about the data collection beforehand, and asked for their cooperation prior to the effectuation. All drivers were informed about the research after recording their initial contact at the counter, to minimize the influence on the initial interaction. We opted for this strategy as “[h]uman beings are inextricably part of their environment: they may behave differently (not typically or ‘normally’) in a controlled ‘laboratory’ setting” (Gillham 2000: 5). Thus, the researcher postponed the announcement of her research to the Polish drivers until the initial contact phase with the Dutch employees was completed. All participants were assured that whether they would participate or not, their business relationship would not in any way be affected. Furthermore, they were informed that they could have all or some of their data deleted from the record if they changed their minds about something they said or about their participation in general.

After giving consent to participate in the study, participants were invited to a semi-structured interview; participants were allowed to digress to allow for rich data. These interviews were recorded after participants provided signed consent, and all participants were assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. All interviews were conducted in Dutch or Polish (depending on the interviewee’s native language) by the first author. The interview questions, both Dutch and Polish, were inspired by Juhasz’s (2013) study of Hungarian truck drivers. Likewise, participants were asked to self-assess their language skills, to express how they perceive their interactions with their foreign interlocutors, and their attitudes toward those interlocutors. The fact that the participants were at work posed time-constraints for the interviews. Interview duration varied from 10 to 35 min and often was accompanied by conversations in a less formal setting. Nonetheless, the combination of both methods allowed the data to represent natural workplace interactions, and to disturb people’s work as little as possible, as recommended by Holmes and Stubbe (2015).

The combination of methods has several advantages. First, multiple sources of data grant triangulation. For instance, a comparison between the observed interaction and the statements in the interview enables a critical look at participant’s self-assessment. Second, the plurality of methods allows for multiple angles in which observations and expressed opinions may be interpreted, which facilitates a broader understanding of the context in which truckers operate. These advantages helped us to generate theories about how international truckers make sense of their world, corresponding with Bryman’s (2001) explanation of the qualitative approach.

5.1 Individual Multilingual Repertoire

All participants report abilities with at least one additional language in their Individual Multilingual Repertoire (IMR) next to their mother tongue. Accordingly, the drivers and the warehouse workers prefer to opt for a common language to interact with each other. Table 1 displays the languages that participants mentioned as part of their IMR, regardless of the degree of proficiency. Four of our participants mention their knowledge of Frisian, which is an autochthonous minority language in the North of the Netherlands. As a result of the varying proficiencies in these contact situations the language choice tends to alternate between English and German, depending on speakers’ abilities and preferences.

Despite the prevailing idea that English is the most crucial lingua franca in large parts of the world, including the Netherlands, results from the case study suggest that in the European logistics sector this might not always be the case. In this case study a higher number of Dutch and Polish speakers report knowledge of German rather than of English. Given that Germany is the neighboring country of Poland on the western border, drivers encounter the language quite frequently. Aron an experienced international driver with a reasonable proficiency in German, shares his experience in that he mostly encounters the German language in multilingual interactions:

[associated audio_001_mp3 with example (1)]

Three drivers indicate that they prefer to communicate in English, the remaining two prefer German; although their individual proficiencies vary. Then again, acquiring a lingua franca, such as English, might not solve all issues as drivers might still encounter less proficient customers (Van der Worp et al. 2017). Marek, a driver who is proficient in English, portrays several incidents in which his linguistic knowledge fell short in communicating with his client because of a lack of German proficiency. Other drivers said that they do not encounter any difficulties caused by the multilingual aspect in the interactions (discussed in Section 5.2.3).

Two Dutch staff members (age 60 and 45) also claim that even though they are able to use both English and German, they were more proficient in German than in English. This is more surprising given the supposed omnipresence of English in Dutch society, and the position that it has in education. For instance, Edwin, a blue-collar worker asserts that he uses English, German and Dutch to do his job, after which he mentions that it is easier for him to speak in German than in English. The observations show that during a conversation with an English-speaking driver, Edwin frequently code-switches to German, as do some of his colleagues. Moreover, on some occasions Edwin was observed to code-switch to Dutch while he speaks with a foreign driver; yet, it does not seem to affect the interaction with the driver as their interaction just carries on. In contrast, the youngest Dutch staff member argues that he can hardly speak German since most of his education focused on English. For him the use of German drastically increased since he started this job. He remarks that communication is tricky if a truck driver only speaks German.

An unexpected result is that few participants mention Russian. Interestingly, only a Dutch participant reports basic knowledge in Russian. It is likely that all of the Polish drivers had Russian classes back in school, yet none of them claim any proficiency in this language. Milan mentions that sometimes he interacts with Russian speakers, but then immediately dismisses his Russian skills claiming that he is ‘really bad at languages’, and that he remembers hardly any of the Russian classes. It is unclear whether the Polish and Dutch participants appreciate their Russian language skills in a different way, whether they try to ignore the Russian presence in Polish history, or perhaps the Polish drivers do not believe Russian to be relevant in the context of the interviews.

5.2 Differences in perception