The interface between

language and aviation:

A sociolinguistic perspective

Ramsey Ferrer
Faculty
ramsey_ferrer@dlsu.edu.ph
Institute of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Philippine State College of Aeronautics
 Outline of presentation

1. History of Aviation [English]

2. Theoretical and Methodological Appraisals on Aviation [English] Research
3. Status of Aviation [English] Research in the Philippines
4. Future directions for sociolinguistics research in aviation
The interface between
language and aviation:
A sociolinguistic perspective

AN OVERVIEW
 Research on Aviation English
Focus on error analysis (analytical tool)

English language implementation constrains the language itself.

Native speakers VS Nonnative Speakers

 'Cockpit English' (Nevile, 2004)

'ATC-English (Breul, 2013

Pilot English; ATC English

not a stable variety (Canagarajah, 2013)

aviation English has no native speakers (Seidlhofer, 2012)
 I argue that aviation English is a generic term to represent
a specialized language through which speakers, either native or
nonnative, are held accountable for its use which may pose
tensions in naturally occurring situations while maintaining a
transactional communication

Phase I ‘Call up’ - the initial call or
contact of controller and
identification of the aircraft
Phase II special request of the pilot
BASIC AVIATION PHRASEOLOGY PATTERN
RP-C1117 AND MANILA TOWER 118.1
28-Jan-17
0829
16 RP-C117 : RP-C One-One-One-Seven, final runway one-three
22 TWR. : One-One-Seven continue approach

Phase III instructions for flight and air

23 RP-C117:
traffic advisory services and 33 TWR :
acknowledgment from the pilot;
Phase IV the completion or final
instructions from the controller. 39 RP-C117:
Continue approach
RP-C One-One-Seven wind one-zero-zero
degrees, one-five knots runway one-three
cleared to land
Cleared to land, One-One-One-Seven

(Ferrer et al., 2017)

 Sociolinguistic Studies on Aviation [English]

Pazyura (2016) explored the social factors that influence the use of certain
lexical units and different functional styles, to characterize social factors that explain
the appropriate language selection in a dialogue, to identify similar and different
features between professional communication by air traffic controllers and pilots and
common everyday communication
 Theoretical notions of the FACE (Goffman, 1967) and
(im)politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987)

• Ishihara and Lee (2021) revealed that a potential refusal of pilots' request,
overriding the suggestion of controllers, intimidate themselves (Estival et al., 2016;
Monteiro, 2019) and thus genuine impoliteness (Bieswanger, 2013; Monteiro, 2019)
and mock impoliteness tend to occur predominantly on radiotelephony
communication.

• Ishihara & Prado (2021) revealed that accommodation strategies can be beneficial in
nonroutine situations that ensure an explicit, specific, and clear message has been
communicated in radiotelephony .
 Gile’s Accommodation theory
• accommodation strategies may be employed by pilots and controllers who either
converge or diverge toward the speech as they may feel the need to increase to
which they are perceived to be socially attracting others

• distinctive interpretation of style-shifting in pilot-controller communication

• Ishihara and Lee (2021) and Ishihara and Prado (2021) on negotiation of meaning
and pragmatics in radio telephony
• linguistic features and practices constitute aviation English in the realm of English
as a lingua franca that has a stable variety?
Aviation English, Community of Practice, and Identities

a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) despite

being linguistically and culturally diverse, are engaged where specific
linguistic or non-linguistic resources are used and shared (Garces-
Conejos Blitvich and Sifianou, 2019; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet,
1992) in the community they build
Aviation English, Community of Practice, and Identities

a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) despite

being linguistically and culturally diverse, are engaged where specific
linguistic or non-linguistic resources are used and shared (Garces-
Conejos Blitvich and Sifianou, 2019; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet,
1992) in the community they build
 Aviation English, Community of Practice, and Identities
Bates and O'Brien (2013) and O'Brien and Bates (2015)
- identity of aviation students while being engaged in a community where a commonly shared
linguistic practice develops such identities – novice (professional) identity

Ferrer (2020)
- nuances of storied experiences of Filipino ab initio pilots and how they pre-constructed and
re-constructed their identities throughout their survival in a highly competitive aviation
program
- Filipino ab initio pilots shaped their identities throughout their journey and reshaped such
in the context of a pandemic
- These dimensions were vital in the survival journey of Filipino ab initio pilots to show
resilience towards achieving their personal, institutional, and social goals and commitments
- the present engagement of Filipino ab initio pilots as characterized by fluidity bridges the
identity gap reconstruction that relates them to a broader aviation community.
 Aviation English, Community of Practice, and Identities
- limiting the style in communication can be a negotiation strategy to be as informative
as possible rather than a form of adherence to social norms and expectations
- Such phenomena may index affiliation and in-group membership (Cogo, 2009);
Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018) or professionality or professional identities (Bates & O'Brien,
2013; O'Brian & Bates, 2015) rather than any socio-demographic profile (e.g., gender,
age).

Tucio and Garcia (2020) on the hypothetical use of the personal hypothetical 'I would’
is interpreted as a multi-dimensional role of flight instructors' as opposed to an ordinary
classroom instructor.
Aviation English, Community of Practice, and Identities
 Language, Culture, and Communication

Hazrati (2015) emphasized a need for intercultural awareness and intercultural

communicative competence among aviation personnel, including pilots and air traffic
controllers

Drawn from the ICC model of Chen & Starosta (2004), Ferrer, Velayo, Cello, Quinilayo &
Gonzales (2016) investigated the intercultural sensitivity (affective process),
intercultural awareness (cognitive process), and intercultural adroitness (behavioral
process) of thirty flight attendants (PAL, CebPac, AirAsia).
-the least accordant is the intercultural awareness
 Politics in Aviation English Testing
English language proficiency requirement in the Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO
Document 9835)

Language and power interplay in aviation English testing

- aviation language tests lack reliability and validity and potentially have dangerous
consequences
- Alderson (2011) reported that most tests developed and were sold with no proof of
validation, reliability, or quality and were still used to license aviation personnel.
 Politics in Aviation English Testing
• Are pilots and controllers meeting such rating scales? Are the key features of
effective communication demonstrated against the prescribed language rating
scale?
• Kim’s (2018) grounded ethnography analyzed a recorded radiotelephony
discourse between a Russian pilot and a Korean controller.
- Russian pilot was viewed as having limited English proficiency, but his strategies
were intelligible, demonstrating his professional role had received positive
feedback.
- Korean controller was not evaluated with limited proficiency but was criticized
for his lack of professional knowledge.
 Politics in Aviation English Testing

• Choi (2018) argued that there must be separate test instruments for Korean
pilots and controllers because their job description differs from one another.
• For instance, pilots acknowledge and comply with the controller's issue (e.g.,
commands, instructions)

Aviation English is constituted through a special variety of linguistic resources that are employed by
aviation personnel regardless of their native language, but this cannot undermine the occurrences of
putting privileges on the native speakers as elucidated in Alderson (2011).

e.g. US pilots paid only $2 to have their license stamped

 Concluding Remarks
• There has been a scarcity of literature to establish the sociolinguistics research in
aviation.
• Moreover, studies on language and aviation have revealed the prominence of
conversation analysis of radiotelephony communication .
• Theoretical concept of the 'face' and (im)politeness, studies on meaning negotiation
have revealed pragmatic strategies which place accommodation strategy as beneficial in
an ELF paradigm situated in the context of aviation.
• studies on the interface between language and aviation have gone beyond a
conversational/ discourse analysis.
• Studies have been extended to critically examine the politics that operate at individual
and institutional levels in an aviation context.
 Why is there a need for a sociolinguistic
perspective on aviation English research?
 Future directions for
(sociolinguistics) research in aviation

• How English is commodified in aviation contexts

• How a demographic profile (e.g., gender, age) is represented or indexed in
aviation contexts
• how other internal and external socio-cultural factors (e.g., language attitude,
styles) may affect the aviation communication
 Future directions for
(sociolinguistics) research in aviation

Issues related to the use of English...

• Sociolinguistic Factors in aviation English language
• Aviation English language testing and assessment
• Aviation English language training
• Aviation English language teaching and learning
• Aviation English and COVID-19
• Aviation English and Safety (and Security)
 References:
Alderson, J.C. (2011) The politics of aviation English testing, Language Assessment Quarterly, 8:4, 386-403, DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2011.622017
Bates, P. & O'Brien, W. (2013) ‘It's more than stick and rudder skills’: an aviation professional development community of practice, Teaching in Higher
Education, 18:6, 619-630, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.764862
Bieswanger, M. (2013). Applied linguistics and air traffic control: focus on language awareness and intercultural communication. In: Hansen-Schirra, S.,
Maksymski, K. (Eds.), Aviation Communication: between Theory and Practice. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 15e31.
Borowska, A. (2018). A Multilingual Speaker in Global Aviation Communication, Applied Linguistics Papers, 25(2), 11-19
Breul C. (2013). Language in aviation: The relevance of linguistics and relevance theory, LSP Journal, 4, 1, 71–86.
Brown, P, & Levinson, S. C., (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London, UK: Routledge.
Choi, J. (2018). Aviation English and test in Korea - Based on a survey for pilots and ATC. Korea Science, 26(1), 44-56.
De Costa, Peter I., Joseph S. Park & Lionel Wee. 2016. Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship: Implications for language education. The Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher 25(5–6). 695–702.
Du Bois, J.W. (2002) ‘Stance and Consequence’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans.
Emery, H. (2011). Testing Language for Specific Purposes (LSP): Reflections on the issues revisited from the perspective of a test developer. The case of a
viation English. Manuscript under review.
Estival, Dominique, Farris, Candace, Molesworth, Brett, 2016. Aviation English: A Lingua Franca for Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers. Routledge, Oxford.
Friginal, Eric, Mathews, Elizabeth, Roberts, Jennifer, 2020. English in Global Aviation: Context, Research, and Pedagogy. Bloomsbury Academic, London.
 References:
Gabryś-Barker, D. (2017), New Approaches to Multilingualism Research: Focus on Metaphors and Similes. In: D. Gabryś-Barker/ D. Gałajda/ A. Wojtaszek/ P. Zakrajewski
(eds.), Multiculturalism, Multilingualism and the Self: Studies in Linguistics and Language Learning, Dordrecht, 77–95.
Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon, New York.
Hazrati , A. (2015). Intercultural communication and discourse analysis: The case of Aviation English, 192, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Hyejeong, K. and Elder, C. (2009). Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: perceptions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
32(3), 1-23.
Inoue, M. (2004). ‘What does language remember?: Indexical inversion and the naturalized history of Japanese women’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(1): 39–56.
Ishihara, N. & H.E., Lee. (2021). Face and (im)politeness in aviation English: The pragmatics of radiotelephony communications. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 102-113
Ishihara, N. & M. Prado. (2021). The Negotiation of Meaning in Aviation English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Informed Discursive Approach. The Modern Language
Journal, 105(3), 639-654.
International Civil Aviation Organization 2004: Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements. Retrieved from
http://caa.gateway.bg/upload/docs/9835_1_ed.pdf
Karimia, P. & Sanavib, R.V. (2014). Analyzing English Language Learning Needs among Students in Aviation Training Program, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 94, 852-858.
Kim, H. (2018). What constitutes professional communication in aviation: Is language proficiency enough for testing purposes? Language Testing, 35(3), 403-426.
Krasnicka, I. (2016). English with flying colors: the aviation English and the international civil aviation organization. Studies in Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, 48 (58), 111-
124.
 References:
Lave, J., & E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimated peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Monteiro, A.L.T. (2019). Reconsidering the measurement of proficiency in pilot and air traffic controller radiotelephony communication: from construct definition to task tesign. Doctoral
dissertation. Carleton University.
Nevile M. (2004). Beyond the Black Box: Talk-In-Interaction in the Airline Cock- pit (Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis). Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Ltd.
O'Brien, W. & Bates, P. (2015) “Looking and feeling the part”: developing aviation students' professional identity through a community of practice, Teaching in Higher Education, 20:8, 821-832,
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1087998
Pennycook, A. (2012). ‘Lingua francas as language ideologies’. In A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (Eds.), English as an international language in Asia: Implications for language education.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 137–56.
Silverstein, M. (1979) ‘Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology’, in P.R. Clyne, W.F. Hanks and C.L. Hofbauer (eds) The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, pp. 193–
247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80-101
Tiewtrakul, T., & Fletcher, S. R. (2010). The challenge of regional accents for aviation English language proficiency standards: A study of difficulties in understanding in air traffic control-pilot
communication. Ergonomics, 53(2), 229–239.
Thurlow, C. & Aiello, G. (2007). National pride, global capital: a social semiotic analysis of transnational visual branding in the airline industry, Visual Communication, 305-44.
Tuccio, W. & Garcia, A. (2020). “I'd a set that back at the chocks”: The personal hypothetical “I would” in aviation flight instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 157, 53-67.
Schegloff, E. (2000). When 'others' initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205-243.
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). ‘Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca’. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–45.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, Q., Molesworth, B.R.C., & Estival, D. (2019): An investigation into the factors that affect miscommunication between pilots and air traffic controllers in commercial aviation. The
International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 1-11. DOI:10.1080/24721840.2019.1604138
THANK YOU!