In writing this review article we find ourselves working in a somewhat crowded space between the two related fields of language for specific purposes (LSP) and language socialization. Our review foregrounds language socialization perspectives (Duff, Reference Duff, Anderson, Kendrick, Rodgers and Smythe2005, Reference Duff, Duff and Hornberger2008; Roberts, Reference Roberts and Hinkel2005, Reference Roberts2010) because much teaching for the workplace occurs within or in close alliance with workplaces and so lends itself to the socially situated orientation that this field provides. We also focus on recent research into the nature of workplace language, especially research pursued for the explicit purpose of informing language teaching for the workplace.

We see four interconnected trends emerging from recent research on language teaching for the workplace, each of which we address in this review. First, a growing body of research uses situated, ethnographic methods of data collection for the purposes of describing workplace discourses in particular settings, understanding the social processes typical of these settings (e.g., Franklin, Reference Franklin, Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey2007), and highlighting the experiences of new workers in the workforce (e.g., Warriner, Reference Warriner2010). Second, research increasingly focuses on interpersonal, informal workplace communication (e.g., Yates, Reference Yates2008). This reflects an awareness of how important but challenging the language of routine interactions is for those seeking to participate in workplaces in which they are seen to be culturally or linguistically peripheral (Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005b). Such an emphasis stands in stark contrast to a traditional LSP focus on the technical, formal language of particular jobs or professions. It also lends itself to a focus on issues of language and power (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2001) and the intercultural dimensions of interaction (Tomalin, Reference Tomalin, Feng, Byram and Fleming2009). The third trend, and one that mirrors the attention to interpersonal communication in the workplace noted earlier, is toward pedagogic approaches that prioritize awareness raising (Newton, Reference Newton, Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey2007), including critical language awareness (Guo, Reference Guo2009) and development of analytic skills for unpacking and of sensitivity to the sociopragmatic dimensions of communication in particular workplace settings (Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005a; Riddiford & Newton, Reference Riddiford and Newton2010; Yates, Reference Yates2008). It should be noted that such developments aim to complement rather than replace learning of the specialized vocabulary and formal registers of a chosen vocation. The fourth and final trend involves research into the discursive requirements of the employment interview and the challenges that intercultural interviews pose, particularly interviews involving migrants or ethnic minority candidates. The growing body of research in this area is informed by critical perspectives (Roberts & Campbell, Reference Roberts and Campbell2006) and both draws on and contributes to all four of the trends just described here.

LANGUAGE, LITERACY, AND THE CHANGING NATURE OF WORK

Rapid social and technological change is transforming the face of work in Western societies. As Roberts (Reference Roberts and Hinkel2005) noted, this transformation includes a move toward high-technology manufacturing; service-oriented industries; and new forms of organization such as self-directed teams, more flexible work practices, more multitask working, and flatter organizational structures. These changes in turn produce new forms of workplace communication as people are required to adopt new ways of writing, speaking, and making meaning through multimedia and through an ever diversifying range of electronic communication tools (Vertovec, Reference Vertovec2007). An increasingly common feature of new electronic literacies is highly intertextual texts involving bits of text from different sources (Duff, Reference Duff, Anderson, Kendrick, Rodgers and Smythe2005) and linkages across different media. Duff (Reference Duff, Duff and Hornberger2008) saw implications for language and communication in which

Contradictions emerge as workplaces become increasingly multicultural and multilingual (Vertovec, Reference Vertovec2007), while simultaneously experiencing the homogenizing pressure of English as a lingua franca. Many multinationals have adopted a policy of using English for company communication, a policy that has had a marked impact on demand for workplace language programs (Chivers, Reference Chivers2010). For example, Rakuten, Japan's top online shopping site, switched its in-house language from Japanese to English, a decision explained in the following way by Chief Executive Hiroshi Mikitani:

Indeed, as Duff (Reference Duff, Anderson, Kendrick, Rodgers and Smythe2005) has noted, English is now the international norm for electronic intercultural communication among nonnative users of English. These changes, coupled with an increasingly globally mobile workforce across all sectors of the economy, ensure growing demand for workplace training and language courses. In many cases these link directly to the workplace through job internships and integrative cooperative experiences, on-site training, and professional development, all of which reflect a trend toward what Vertovec (Reference Vertovec2007) described as a blurring of distinctions between (higher) education and work. This trend is particularly important for the teaching of language for the workplace. As Roberts (Reference Roberts and Hinkel2005) noted,

Burt and Mathews-Aydinli (Reference Burt and Mathews-Aydinli2007) identified a number of potential advantages of in-situ learning including ease of scheduling, authenticity of content, and cultivation of a positive work environment. They also noted significant challenges, including unrealistic expectations about language development, learner discomfort when classes are viewed as projecting a deficit attitude, demands on teachers to be knowledgeable about both language pedagogy and workplace-specific tasks, tension between training and education goals, and lack of opportunities for gaining credentials.

EVIDENCE-BASED WORKPLACE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Research into workplace discourse is increasingly focused on the workplace as a holistic communicative environment and on the communicative ideology of the workplace, rather than on needs analysis and course evaluations as in earlier studies (Roberts, Reference Roberts and Hinkel2005). This change reflects the influence of the growing field of language socialization research focused on the workplace (Duff, Reference Duff, Duff and Hornberger2008). The range of settings being researched in this way has expanded to include physics labs, hospitals, legal practices, hairstyling salons, call centers, manufacturing plants, professional workplaces, and government and civil service (Duff, Reference Duff, Duff and Hornberger2008). This trend for situated research dovetails nicely with a call from applied linguists for content in workplace language programs based more firmly on empirical and ethnographic description and analysis of patterns of actual language use in specific workplaces and sectors (Duff, Reference Duff, Anderson, Kendrick, Rodgers and Smythe2005; Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005b; Holmes & Riddiford, Reference Holmes, Riddiford, Bhatia, Cheng and Du-Babcock2009; Newton, Reference Newton, Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey2007; Yates, Reference Yates, Martinez Flor and Juan2010b). It also concurs with the opinions of employers according to a recent study involving a survey of 245 supervisors and executives in 24 U.S. manufacturing companies with at least 150 employees. The study found that a number of companies were dissatisfied with the results of English language classes because the classes focused too much on decontextualized language study and failed to address language needs directly relevant to the workplace (Duval-Couetil & Mikulecky, 2006, cited in Burt & Mathews-Aydinli, Reference Burt and Mathews-Aydinli2007).

Yates (Reference Yates, Martinez Flor and Juan2010b) called for “an approach to instruction that draws on empirical evidence from a range of perspectives so that non-native speakers can understand patterns of language use, how these relate to cultural values, and how individuals actually draw on them in context” (p. 109). Similarly, Duff (Reference Duff, Anderson, Kendrick, Rodgers and Smythe2005) argued for shaping workplace literacy education through “situated research,” which seeks to understand the social practices accompanying texts and that exposes students to “the specific genres that fulfill particular communicative functions within particular settings” (p. 358). For example, research by Waldvogel (Reference Waldvogel2005) has shown how the conventions for e-mail correspondence, including level of formality, times when e-mail is used in preference to face-to-face conversation, and ways of signing off an e-mail, vary tremendously across workplaces. Similarly, Holmes and Stubbe (Reference Holmes and Stubbe2003) showed how humor and small talk are used differently across workplace communities of practice and how these and other features of workplace talk reflect and construct social values such as those concerning power and status. Duff (Reference Duff, Anderson, Kendrick, Rodgers and Smythe2005) eloquently outlined the purpose and vision underlying this approach:

Ethnographic approaches to data collection serve this purpose well, as reflected in some recent studies (Arakelian, Reference Arakelian, Feng, Byram and Fleming2009; Franklin, Reference Franklin, Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey2007; Vickers, Reference Vickers2007; Warriner, Reference Warriner2010). These studies share a commitment to understanding the experience of new workers in specific multicultural and multilingual work settings in order to assist them to participate fully in their chosen places of work. Warriner (Reference Warriner2010), for example, used ethnographic methods such as participant observation, interviews, and document collection to explore the relationship between work processes and learning processes in the lives of three refugee women transitioning from an adult ESL (English as a second language) program into work in a North American city. She found that while the women successfully entered the workforce and moved from peripheral to legitimate membership of the communities of practice, their low-skill menial jobs were likely to exclude and marginalize them from participation in other more economically and socially advantageous workplace communities.

Transition into full participation in the workplace is also investigated by Vickers (Reference Vickers2007). She carried out a detailed analysis of the interactions that led to the socialization of a peripheral, nonnative speaker member (named Ramelan) of a team of engineering students in a capstone design course into core membership of the team. Socialization relied on three main factors: access to observation of core members interacting; guidance from core members both in the lab and in the team meetings; and opportunities for successful participation in the work of the team. Vickers argued that Ramelan's language behavior changed (i.e., he adopted the team's way of talking) as a “product of learning to think, design, and talk like a competent engineer” (p. 637).

A related approach, appreciative inquiry (Hammond, Reference Hammond1996), acknowledges that the precise form that effective communication takes depends on who is talking to whom, and in what kind of context; it depends on what each is trying to achieve in the interaction; and it depends on their workplace culture or the interactional norms of their particular community of practice. As its name suggests, appreciative enquiry focuses on the skills and strategies that underpin successful communication. Holmes et al. (Reference Holmes, Joe, Marra, Newton, Riddiford, Vine, Candlin and Sarangi2011) reported on a research project being carried out by the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project using this approach to identify features of successful communication at work. When workers from different social and cultural backgrounds engage in workplace interaction, there is considerable potential for mismatches in their assessments of the relative importance of some of these components, which can result in misunderstandings, including unintended offence (Clyne, Reference Clyne1994; Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005a). This research has led quite naturally toward an exploration of the lessons that could be learned about successful interaction for the benefit of new employees in a workplace, especially those who may be fundamentally disadvantaged when they join a new society because of their lack of social power as well as their unfamiliarity with societal norms. Consequently, this kind of approach is designed to explore ways to empower these people, rather than attempt to make them fit (cf., Eades, Reference Eades2004; Pennycook, Reference Pennycook, Davies and Elder2001; Rampton, Reference Rampton, Coupland, Sarangi and Candlin2001). Such approaches help people to undertake their own sociolinguistic analyses of the relative weight of dimensions such as power, social distance, and formality, for example, in order to decide how to relate comfortably to others at work. Let us give an example of how this might be applied to classroom practice. A class is given in which a challenging workplace scenario is created that requires the students, in a particular workplace role, to respond to a situation via e-mail. In their roles, the students each craft and send an e-mail to their teacher. The replies are collated by the teacher and shared with the students in a subsequent class along with the teacher's response to the same scenario and perhaps responses from others beyond the class. These are discussed and compared with the purpose of identifying different language choices, why these were made, and what impact they might have. From this discussion, students develop awareness of the repertoire of discursive options available to them and what impact these options are likely to have. And so rather than describing and learning to replicate workplace genres as in a more traditional LSP approach, this approach encourages a critical and constructivist engagement with the process of learning ways of communicating at work.

WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT?

The following sections survey scholarship on four aspects of the content of workplace language courses: employability skills, interpersonal communication, intercultural and critical language awareness, and teaching focused on the employment interview. This list is necessarily selective. We think, however, that it captures the more important and interesting areas addressed in recently published research in this area.

TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL, INTERACTIONAL TALK

The second trend is that research into language teaching for the workplace is focusing on the nature and roles of informal, interpersonal workplace communication. This reflects a trend toward less formal forms of discourse in Western workplace contexts and a shift in focus in language programs from front-of-house communication (such as service encounters and doctor–patient interactions) to nontechnical, social, interpersonal behind-the-scenes talk (such as on the factory floor or in an office) (Yates, Reference Yates2010a). More than ever in the workplace, success depends not only on the ability to perform work but also on managing social aspects of interaction at work in order to participate fully in the life of the workplace (Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005a). As Myles (Reference Myles2009) noted, “the formal systems of command with written memos, formal letters and supervisors’ orders have been replaced by multi-discipline or multi-function teams, which is much more dependent on informal, oral and interpersonally sensitive written forms, such as email messages” (p. 4). This trend is reflected in research on private discourse in the workplace, such as research on language in routine interactions (Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005b), on the discourse of particular workplace communities of practice (Myles, Reference Myles2009), and on speech acts (Yates, Reference Yates, Martinez Flor and Juan2010b; Yates & Springall, Reference Yates, Springall, Tatsuki and Houck2010).

Three small-scale studies have shown that a focus on informal, oral communication is also seen as a priority by those required to use a second language at work. Myles (Reference Myles2009) interviewed four ESL interns (engineering graduates) and their associates (e.g., tutors, trainers, employers) over 6 months at a large computer software company. The workplace was described as having an “intensely oral culture” (p. 60) that required participation in social talk and the ability to use and understand colloquial expressions, cultural connotations, and different styles. Not surprisingly, the interns all reported that oral communication was the most challenging aspect of language use at work. Similarly, Qian (Reference Qian, Bhatia, Cheng, Du-Babcock and Lung2009) found that novice engineers in Hong Kong viewed the need to improve their oral English as more important than the need to improve their writing skills for technical report writing (see also Cooper, Reference Cooper, Byram and Flemming1998). Wood (Reference Wood2009) also reported how engineering students from non-English-speaking backgrounds often struggle to cope with the communication demands of an English-speaking workplace. By chance rather than design these three studies all focus on the engineering profession. Whether other professions manifest the same priorities is a matter for further research.

As this research shows, the sociopragmatic dimension of talk at work is particularly challenging for migrants or people functioning in a second language and culture. For instance, choosing an appropriate level of directness in status-differentiated interactions involving requests and refusals (Holmes & Stubbe, Reference Holmes and Stubbe2003) or participating in small talk (Holmes, Reference Holmes and Long2005b) requires sensitivity to cross-cultural differences in the way talk functions in different work settings. In the case of small talk, Holmes suggested analyzing small talk in local soap television shows (presumably focusing on workplace interactions in these shows) and performing role-plays as a way to sensitize new migrants in some of the ways that small talk functions in a particular cultural setting.

One approach to researching the sociopragmatic dimension of talk at work is to focus on particular speech acts, with requests being a particular favorite in recent research. Riddiford and Joe (Reference Riddiford and Joe2010) tracked the development of request strategies in English by skilled migrants enrolled in a blended classroom-internship workplace training program. Data collection involved pretest, mid-point, and posttest assessment using discourse-completion tests (DCTs) and role-plays; recordings of participants interacting in workplaces; and final interviews. The study found that both awareness of aspects of the sociopragmatics of requests in New Zealand English and communicative behaviors showed marked development over the 12 weeks. End-point DCTs revealed greater use of internal and external modifiers (e.g., openers such as I wonder if you could . . .? and preparators such as Can I have a quick word). End-point role-plays showed greater responsiveness to addressees through small talk, increased use of personal names, and more turn-taking. Riddiford and Joe argued that these gains point to the benefits of three salient features of the program: (a) explicit pragmatic instruction alongside workplace placement, (b) opportunities to analyze recordings of authentic workplace conversations, and (c) sufficient time to develop awareness of sociopragmatic features of workplace communication in a particular setting.

Also focusing on request speech acts, Wigglesworth and Yates (Reference Wigglesworth and Yates2007) investigated how native English speakers (NESs) in Australia and nonnative English speakers (NNESs) enacted a range of complex role-play requests. The aim was to identify the pragmalinguistic devices and sociopragmatic values underpinning NESs’ performance, to identify what learners find problematic about the task, and, from both these sources, to suggest priorities for teachers preparing learners for similar complex request situations in the workplace. The authors found that in contrast to the NNESs, the NESs “asserted solidarity rather than acknowledged hierarchy” (p. 793) in their request strategies. They did this through, for example, using down toners (e.g., “This is bit of a problem.”); hedges (e.g., “I could be wrong, but I think it's a bad idea.”); and other pragmatic devices to establish rapport, informality, and apparent egalitarianism. The value of this research is that it offers insights that can assist both native and nonnative English speakers in hierarchical workplace relationships to understand and adapt to differences in each other's discourse style in relation to this important and potentially face-threatening speech act.

Speech acts have also been a focus of materials developed for teaching workplace communication in English to migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Yates and Springall (Reference Yates, Springall, Tatsuki and Houck2010) drew on Wigglesworth and Yates's (Reference Wigglesworth and Yates2007) research, discussed earlier, to propose an approach to designing materials for the purpose of equipping adult learners of English with successful request strategies for the workplace. Request speech acts warrant this attention because not only are they pervasive in the workplace, but they are also quite risky to perform (because they involve asking someone to do something) and, in English, involve a wide range of devices and strategies for mitigating imposition and building rapport. Riddiford and Newton (Reference Riddiford and Newton2010) also focused on speech acts in a book of teaching materials designed to prepare migrant professionals for a work placement and for eventual employment in their chosen professions (see also Holmes & Riddiford, Reference Holmes, Riddiford, Bhatia, Cheng and Du-Babcock2009). The book focuses on face-threatening speech acts such as requests, refusals, disagreements, complaints, and apologies. A unique feature of this book—and one that connects it closely to research—is that it incorporates (re)recordings and transcriptions of naturalistic, authentic interactions from various workplaces. This is different from the usual practice in workplace communication textbooks of using made-up or elicited samples of workplace communication. The process of obtaining and transcribing authentic workplace talk and selecting and adapting samples for use in a workplace language program is challenging. This is because, as Newton (Reference Newton, Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey2007) observed, the situated nature of workplace conversations makes for “complex, idiosyncratic, unruly conversational artifacts that belie the perceived ease with which we all carry out conversations in our native language” (p. 520).

But drawing on naturalistic data is not the only way of ensuring fidelity in materials design. Yates (Reference Yates2008) reported on a detailed and rigorous research project on the teaching of employability communication skills to adult migrants in Australia for the AMEP settlement program, out of which four sample teaching units were developed. In each unit, the samples of workplace language provided were based around role-plays carried out by NESs. Yates argued that this approach allowed the materials writers to maintain some control over the content of the dialogues, while also ensuring that the features they were interested in were included. Whether the data are naturalistic or elicited, a common feature of materials design in both approaches is a commitment to authenticating the language models being used and providing opportunities for learners to analyze, reflect on, and try out what they have learned. A contentious issue is the extent to which these approaches treat NES interactions as prototypical. How does this align with the increasingly multilingual and multicultural workplace (Kramsch & Whiteside, Reference Kramsch and Whiteside2008)? Does it assume that NESs are fully pragmatically competent, in contrast to NNESs, who might actually be fully proficient and even more pragmatically capable in some cases? And to what extent are NES interactional norms preferred or even achievable targets? Such issues are central to the critical and intercultural approaches to workplace language teaching discussed in the following section.

EVALUATING WORKPLACE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

A number of studies have investigated the effectiveness of workplace language teaching (Arakelian, Reference Arakelian, Feng, Byram and Fleming2009; Benseman, Reference Benseman2010; Ekkens & Winke, Reference Ekkens and Winke2009; Guilherme et al., Reference Guilherme, Glaser, Méndez García, Feng, Byram and Fleming2009; Riddiford & Joe, Reference Riddiford and Joe2010; Yates, Reference Yates2010a). Only one of these, Ekkens and Winke (Reference Ekkens and Winke2009), focused explicitly on the nature of evaluation of workplace language programs. Ekkens and Winke investigated the efficacy of standardized tests and alternative assessment in the form of learning journals for measuring learning in a 10-week workplace English language program. In this program 21 learners took the standardized tests (pre and post) and kept learning journals. Results of the two tests stood in stark contrast. Whereas the standardized tests showed marginal nonsignificant gains, the learning journals reported gains in listening and reading and demonstrated improvements in a range of other areas including performance on job-related English tasks, self-confidence, willingness to communicate, and motivation. This study highlights the mismatch between standardized tests of generic language proficiency and the goals of workplace courses, which are very often customized to address quite specific job requirements in particular workplaces. It also highlights the value of nonstandard forms of assessment for revealing a broader view of the learning outcomes of such programs.

Other studies focusing on the effectiveness of programs in delivering intended outcomes have been discussed elsewhere in this review. Two that have not been discussed warrant mention here. Yates (Reference Yates2010a) reported on an extensive investigation into the fit between the goals of an Australian migrant on-arrival settlement program and migrants’ real-world experiences. The research involved multiple forms of ethnographic data collection over a 12-month period, including interviews, classroom observation, analysis of classroom materials, samples of assessment, and recordings of participants in a range of settings outside the classroom. Yates found a generally good fit between the program goals and participants’ needs, as well as generally successful uptake of skills necessary for settlement and work in Australia.

Finally, Benseman (Reference Benseman2010) provided a short report on the effect of a language, literacy, and numeracy program in a New Zealand factory setting. Self-report data indicated transfer of skills was taking place through the program not only in terms of the improved ability of participants managing paperwork and accuracy and efficiency with measurements and calculations, but also in terms of oral communication at work, and beyond the workplace. Among the factors that contributed to these results, Benseman identified the priority given to teaching content based on both the company's and individual's needs analysis, and opportunities to contextualize the teaching content, use realia, and make concrete links between skills being taught and their application.