An Ethnographic Study of the Oral Communication Skills of Civil Engineers at their Workplace.

By: Jamiah Abdul Manaf Jabatan Bahasa Moden

FPPSM Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Abstract

This is a qualitative study where the researcher used an ethnographic approach to analyse the English speaking skills of three Civil engineers in their natural engineering context in Malaysia. Recurring formal and informal communicative events were selected to be studied. For formal interactions, Progress Meetings that were attended by the clients, contractors, and sub-contractors were chosen for detailed descriptions, explanations, and analyses whilst conversational interactions were chosen for informal interactions. Three types of data-collecting methods were used in this study i.e. observations, ethnographic and semistructured interviews, and questionnaires. These were done in an attempt to gather a more comprehensive data, which is representative of the natural behaviour of the members of the speech community. However, this study depended heavily on one type of data-collecting method i.e. the observation method. The other methods were used to supply information that could not be gleaned from mere observations and also to compare one source of information against another for triangulation purposes. The overall findings suggest that the engineers assume a great deal of mobility and are not expected to be assigned to just a single project or department. Thus, their communication responsibilities are not limited to other engineers that share their background, training and field of specialty. They must also be able to work and communicate with people and groups of different backgrounds and agendas such as architects, managers, draftspersons, etc. The roles, which the engineers assume, and the status that are accorded to them and the role-relationships with the other participants heavily influence the communicative patterns in meetings and conversational interactions.

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Ethnography is a field of study that describes and analyses culture while linguistics is a field, which describes and analyses language codes. The ethnographic style of fieldwork research was developed originally by anthropologists who were interested to study a society, or some aspect of a society, culture or group in depth. Although the ethnographers and linguists had been aware of the interrelationship of culture and language, their descriptive and analytic products had failed to account for such a relationship. This omission called for an approach, which would deal with aspects of communication, which escaped both anthropology and linguistics in the past. Consequently, Dell Hymes (1962) launched a new synthesizing discipline, the ethnography of communication. It addresses a new order of information in the structuring of communicative behavior and its role in the conduct of social life. The ethnography of communication, according to Trudgill (1989), studies the norms of communicative conduct in different communities, and deals with methods for studying these norms. Saville-Troike (1989) goes on to say that ethnography of communication not only describes and understands communicative behavior in specific cultural settings but also formulates concepts and theories upon which to build a global metatheory of human communication. In order to understand both the specific and the general, a broad range of data from a large variety of communities is needed.

1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of the study is to describe, explain and analyze the oral communication of three Civil engineers in conversational interactions and in meetings in their working environment.

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS i. What are the communicative events that necessitate the use of oral communication skills in

English for the engineers?

ii. What are the main topic areas involving oral communication skills in English which the engineers have to deal with?

iii. Who are the engineers' main interlocutors in oral communication in English?

iv. What are the problems that are faced by the engineers when they communicate in English?

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY The focus of this study is on the conversational interactions and meetings that take place in the natural setting. The data has been collected from interactions that take place in both the subjects' and clients' working areas such as meeting rooms, departments, site offices, site areas, etc. However, conversational interactions that are carried out in hotels, eateries, cars and in their homes are outside the scope of this study. The study is also limited to one channel of communication, that is, face-to-face interactions. Telephone conversations are not possible because of the inability of the researcher to listen in to the other person speaking at the other end of the line.

2

Speech may be conducted largely, if not entirely, in English or largely, if not entirely, in Bahasa Melayu such as in formal meetings with clients and expatriates. In some cases both languages are used by the same speaker within the same utterance. In other interactions, English is used by some speakers while Bahasa Melayu is used by some other speakers. Since the purpose of this study is to describe, explain and analyze the oral communication in the English language, the data collected is limited to the interactions that are conducted entirely or largely in English. However, interactions with a fair mixture of both languages are also recorded since it is quite a common occurrence in the organization that is being studied. This may be done when the researcher discusses one of the features of the spoken language i.e. code-switching. Interactions uttered entirely or largely in Bahasa Melayu are also recorded when some relevant references can be made to the use of the language such as to drive home the point that the engineers may conduct their interactions with participants occupying the lower end of the organizational structure entirely or largely in Bahasa Melayu. In studying the various social, cultural and situational constraints on communicative behaviour, both verbal and nonverbal codes are significant in the message form, message content and act sequence components of communicative events. However, the nonverbal code, such as paralinguistic and prosodic features, is not going to be analyzed in this study. But the researcher may refer to them whenever appropriate. The researcher shares the same opinion as Morais (1994) in her postgraduate work entitled "Malaysian Business Talk - A Study of the Patterns of Conflict and Non-Conflict in Verbal Interactions." Both are of the opinion that non-verbal communication is important and it ought to be studied and researched separately. Furthermore, the meanings carried by non-verbal communication may be connotative rather than denotative. In other words, they may convey a wide variety of meanings. The focus of this study is on oral communication. However, the researcher will at times refer to written communication when it further explains or elaborates the oral interactions.

2.0 Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction The focus of the ethnography of communication is the speech community. Speech community has been defined in many ways by different researchers as shared language use (Lyons, 1970), shared rules of speaking and interpretation of speech performance (Hymes, 1972), shared attitudes and values regarding language forms and use (Labov, 1972), and shared sociocultural understandings and presuppositions with regard to speech (Sherzer, 1975). Saville-Troike (1989) defines speech community as the following:

"...the way communication within it is patterned and organized as systems of communicative events, and the ways in which these interact with all other systems of culture."

(pp. 3) Difficulty in defining speech community can be attributed to the various scopes, which a 'community' may have according to the following criteria:

i. It is a group within a society, which shares something in common (e.g. religion, ethnicity, age, occupation, etc.).

ii. It is a physically-bound unit of people having a full range of role opportunities (e.g. nation, organization, school, etc.).

3

iii. It is a collection of similarly-situated entities that have something in common (e.g. Western World, United Nations, developing countries, etc.). Thus, any community in a complex society may be considered part of another larger one, or subdivided into smaller groups. While one can focus on a school, an engineering firm or a factory, an integrated ethnographic approach would require relating such subgroups to the social and cultural whole, with its full complement of roles.

2.1.0 PRINCIPLES IN THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION 2.1.1 Communicative Competence

Knowing only the language code is not what communicative competence is all about. A person must also know what to say, to whom, and how to say it appropriately in any given situation. Speakers who are communicatively competent are presumed to have both the social and cultural knowledge in order to use and interpret linguistic forms correctly. Saville-Troike (1989) defines communicative competence as the following:

"Communicative competence extends to both knowledge and expectation of who may or may not speak in certain settings, when to speak and when to remain silent, whom one may speak to, how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles, what appropriate nonverbal behaviors are in various contexts, what the routines for turn-taking are in conversation, how to ask for and give information, how to request, how to offer or decline assistance or cooperation, how to give commands, how to enforce discipline, and the like - in short, everything involves the use of language and other communicative dimensions in particular social settings."

(pp. 21) There is an interrelationship between communicative competence and cultural competence. This also means that a speaker usually brings into a communicative situation his or her total set of knowledge and skills. Aspects of culture that has strong influence on the communicative forms and processes are the social structure, the values and attitudes held about language and ways of speaking, the network of conceptual categories which result from shared experiences, and the ways knowledge and skills (including language) are transmitted from one generation to the next, and to new members of the group. Components of communicative competence include not only the paralinguistic and nonverbal phenomena but also knowledge of the full range variants in all elements, which are available for transmitting social and referential information. The other components are the ability to differentiate those variants, which serve as markers of social categories or carry other meanings and those, which are insignificant. Knowledge of what the meaning of a variant is in a particular situation is also a component. The phonology, grammar, and lexicon are only part of the elements in the code used for communication. Descriptive work on oral production usually describes and explains language as a unidirectional phenomenon. Troike (1970) finds it useful to distinguish between receptive and productive dimensions when discussing communicative competence. In his opinion, effective communication is definitely a result of shared receptive competence. He adds that in order to communicate appropriately, a person has to understand a wide range of language forms although he or she may lack the ability to produce them. In other words, members of the speech

4

community may understand varieties of a language, which differ according to the social class, status and role, region, sex, age, and ethnicity of the speaker. However, only a few may be able to speak them all. The same observation can be made of the multilingual speech communities. Although they usually share receptive competence in more than one language, the ability to speak to one or the other varies. In conclusion, communicative competence involves the communicative knowledge and skills for contextually appropriate use and interpretation of language in a community although these vary among its individual members.

2.1.2 Descriptive and Analytical Units Hymes (1972) suggested three discrete units in order to describe and analyze communication. For the purpose of this study they are defined as follows :

i. Communicative Situation The context within which communication occurs is defined as the communicative situation. The situation remains the same even with a change of location. On the other hand, the situation may change even in the same location. This happens when different communicative events take place in the same location at different times.

ii. Communicative Event A single event is defined by a unified set of components throughout. It begins with the same general purpose of communication, the same general topic, involving the same participants and maintaining the same rules for interaction in the same setting. A communicative event comes to an end when there is a change in the major participants or their role-relationships.

iii. Communicative Act The communicative act can be defined as a single interactional function such as a referential statement, a request or a command. It can also be in the verbal or nonverbal form.

2.2.0 COMPONENTS OF COMMUNICATION For the purpose of this study, analysis of a communicative event is done by describing salient communicative components. It is based on the model propagated by Saville-Troike (1989). The components are as follows:

i. Genre or type of event Genre answers the question "What kind of communicative event is it?"

ii. Topic or referential focus Topic answers the question "What is it about?"

iii. Purpose or function Purpose answers the question "Why is it happening?"

iv. Setting Setting answers the following questions: a. Where and when does it occur? b. What does the setting look like?

v. Key or emotional tone of the event.

5

Key describes the tone, manner, or spirit in which the act is done (Hymes, 1972). A particular key may be associated with a particular function of language use, role-relationship between participants, or message form or content. However, it can also be an independent variable with respect to the other communicative components. It is, thus, crucial in ethnographic description and analysis because it can override the meaning of an event.

vi. Participants This answers the question "Who is taking part in the event?" A description of the participants has to be given. This includes a general background on their age, sex, ethnicity, social status and role, role-relationship with the other participants, etc. The information gathered is important because it relates the participants to the language and culture of the speech community under study.

vii. Message Form Although there are other modes of verbal communication such as the written language, the scope of this study is only limited to the verbal/vocal type of communication, that is, the spoken language. The researcher feels that the other modes ought to be studied and researched separately. In any conversational interactions, what are actually said exemplify the message form. It also includes the nature of the language code such as the choice of the language and the variety used by the participants.

viii. Message Content 'Successful communication' can be achieved by correctly conveying and interpreting the message form. In ethnographic description and analysis, message form and message content cannot be easily separated because of their close interrelationship. Message content is defined by Saville-Troike (1989:150) as "what communicative acts are all about, and to what meaning is being conveyed." In a face-to-face conversation meaning is derived not only from verbal and nonverbal message form and content, but also from the information and expectations which participants bring to the communicative event. Thus, in most events, it is very difficult to analyse any subsets separately for the various elements mentioned above are processed simultaneously.

ix. Act Sequence This communicative component includes "information about the ordering of communicative acts within an event" (Saville-Troike 1989:152). Goffman (1971) defines it as follows :

"...the sequencing of action in which the move of one participant is followed by that of another, the first move establishing the environment for the second and the second confirming the meaning of the first."

(pp. 149)

Description of a sequence may be done by explaining the functions of the communicative acts. In addition, typical examples of the message form and content have to be included. This description accounts for the regularity of patterns in recurring events.

x. Rules for Interaction For this communicative component, Saville-Troike (1989:154) includes "an explanation of the rules for the use of speech which are applicable to the communicative event." Rules here refer to the appropriate behavior of the participants in line with the values that they share with the other members of the speech community. The rules may also come in the form of laws or policies or they may just be held unconsciously.

xi. Norms of Interpretation After gathering all the information about the communicative components mentioned above, the norms of the interpretation component "should provide all of the other information about the speech community and its culture" (Saville-Troike 1989:155). This information is needed in order to understand the communicative event.

6

2.3.0 VARIETIES OF LANGUAGE

Members within each community have a variety of language codes and ways of speaking. Their communicative repertoire not only include all varieties, dialects or styles used in a particular socially-defined population but also the constraints, which govern the choice among them (Gumperz 1977). Differences in settings in which communication takes place, the purposes of interaction, regional and geographic boundaries, ethnicity, social class, status, roles which speakers assume, sex, age and personality influence the nature and extent of the language diversity used by the speakers. To identify the language varieties of any community, ethnographers have to observe and describe the actual differences in pronunciation, grammar, lexicon, and styles of speaking and other communicative behaviors. Saville-Troike (1989) notes that the identification depends on the differences, which are recognized by members of a group as conveying social meaning of some kind. The communicative repertoire also includes the variety of possible interaction strategies. The interaction strategies are usually used to establish, maintain or manipulate role-relationships. Speakers' choices of interaction strategies provide a dynamic connection between the language code, speakers' goals, and the participant's structure in specific situations.

2.3.1 Language Choice Speakers must select the code and interaction strategy that they are going to use in any specific context. The selection is not easy since varieties of languages are available within the communicative repertoire of a community. In addition, subsets of varieties are also available to its subgroups and individuals. With all these choices, part of the speakers' communicative competence includes knowing the alternatives and the rules for appropriate choice. Accounting for the rules for such decision-making is part of the task of describing communication within any group, and of explaining communication more generally. To describe and explain the distribution of means of communication Fishman (1971, 1972) developed the concept of "domain". He defines it as :

"...a socio-cultural construct abstracted from topics of communication, relationships between communicators and locales of communication, in accord with the institutions of a society and the sphere of activity of a speech community."

(1971, pp. 581)

Domains can be influenced by several factors like the general topic under discussion (e.g. work, family, religion), the role-relationships between the participants (e.g. Contractor - Client, Project Manager - Project Engineer, Lead Discipline Engineer - Senior Designer), and the setting of the interaction (e.g. meeting room, construction site, office ).

i. Topic In multilingual contexts, the topic is usually a very important determinant of language choice. Bilinguals are often more conversant in some topics when they use their mother tongue compared with when they use their second language. In other words, they are only familiar with the

7

vocabulary of one language or feel it is more 'natural' to use that particular language for a specific topic. This may be because they do not know the necessary vocabulary in their second or first language or because they feel it is more appropriate to use their mother tongue when discussing or broaching certain topics. Furthermore, appropriate choice of language may also be influenced by the setting (for example, location and time of day) and the participants (for example, their age, sex, and social status ).

ii. Choice of Varieties Choice of varieties within a single language is also determined by the same factors. The regional variety selected by the speaker from his or her communicative repertoire depends on the geographic area and subgroup of the population that the speaker wishes to identify himself with. The selection may also be done because the speaker is traveling from one area to another. Choice of channel may depend on the settings of interactions, age, goals of interactions, etc. For example, distance, or the need for recording, may determine whether oral or written channels are used.

iii. Choice of Register Choice of register depends on the topic, setting, and on the social distance between speakers. The choice of appropriate language forms depends on several factors such as what comes before and after a communicative sequence, or the information, which crops up within the communicative event. This information may change the relationship of participants. Basically the questions of language choice that ethnographers are seeking answers to are: who uses what language or variety of languages, with whom; about what; in what setting; for what purpose; and in what relationship to other communicative acts and events. Relating patterns of language choice within a speech community to these dimensions of context are discovering and describing rules of communication.

2.4.0 CODE VARIATION

2.4.1 Code-switching Codes is defined by Saville-Troike (1989) as different languages, or varieties of the same language. Gumperz (1976) defines code-alternation to change in language according to domain or at other major communicative boundaries, and code-switching to change in languages within a single speech event. Situational code-switching takes place when there is a change of topics or participants, or any time the communicative situation is redefined. Metaphorical code-switching occurs within a single situation but adds meaning to such components as the role-relationships, which are being expressed. Bloom and Gumperz (1972) note that code-switching may be quite unconscious. Code-switching may also occur because the participants would like to create a more informal and closer relationship. Jong A. Kiem and Morroy in Saville-Troike's "The Ethnography of Communication" (1989) report that some participants regard switching languages as a verbal strategy. This strategy is

8

applied in order to soften or strengthen a request or command. In other words, repeating the same message in two different languages may intensify or eliminate ambiguity. According to Saville-Troike (1989), switching may also be used within a humorous event. It may also be applied to indicate that a referentially derogatory comment is not to be taken to heart. She also adds that switching may occur because of a real lexical need. This may be due to the bilingual speaker knowing the phrase only in one language, or if the phrase cannot be satisfactorily translated into the second language. The other reason for code-switching according to Ellen (1984) may be to exclude other people within hearing from following the communicative event or speech act. This may or may not be considered rude. He adds that code-switching may also function as an avoidance strategy. This may be the result of incomplete learning of certain forms in one of the languages. According to Hammersley and Atkinson (1983), sometimes code-switching may function as a repair strategy. When the speakers realize that they have been using an inappropriate code, they code-switch. They also believe that code-switching adds to the verbal strategies that speakers have at their command. It is also part of the speakers' communicative competence.

2.4.2 Style Shifting Style shifting refers to the change in language varieties that involves changing the code-markers only. Code-markers are variable features, which are associated with social and cultural dimensions as age, sex, social class, and relationship between speakers. Style may shift from formal to informal and vice-versa. It can also shift situationally from male to female, or adult to child, or personal topic to work-related topic. Style shifting may also involve grammar and lexicon.

2.5.0 FACTORS INFLUENCING LANGUAGE VARIETIES The varieties of language are usually associated with the following factors :

i. Setting The setting or scene for the interaction influences the language varieties more than the participants of the events. The varieties of the language include the concept of register and it can be differentiated from one another primarily on the dimension of relative formality. The physical setting of a communicative event may bring a different variety of language although the purpose of the interaction and the participants involved are still the same. Primary markers that can be observed are the voice level and nonverbal behaviors. The choices of lexical and grammatical structures along a polite-casual, impersonal-personal, or public-private dimension are also usually involved. All of the above code-markers may be generally classified under formal-informal ( Brown and Fraser 1979 ).

9

Physical setting that may determine the appropriate language variety used by participants include the size of the room and the seating arrangement. The language variety used may increase or decrease the social distance between speakers. This is especially so when the level of formality in language use does not coincide with level of formality in the setting. In some communities a particular setting is required for a particular event to take place. Thus, more often than not the choice of language variety suits the event.

ii. Purpose The purpose of the communicative event determines to a large extent the choice of language or variety of language used. In other words, different varieties of language and patterns of language are used for different occupational, educational, or governmental purposes.

iii. Ethnicity According to Saville-Troike (1989), ethnicity markers in English are most likely to be at the levels of phonology, vocabulary, and overall style. However, grammatical markers are usually associated with social class and educational level on a standard-nonstandard dimension. Ethnic differences in style, like many other variables, may be modified in accordance with the situation. Unlike using a foreign language, using an ethnically-marked variety of language generally requires being born into group membership, unless the intent is to ridicule or joke, which is often the case. On the other hand, individual speakers born into the ethnic group or the entire group membership can generally succeed in eliminating all ethnic markers in their speech if they desire to fully assimilate into the dominant group. The other alternative for the minority group is to develop both marked and unmarked varieties. The shift between these varieties depends on the target group identification in specific situations.

iv. Social Class, Status and Role The means of communication within the total linguistic repertoire may be greatly influenced by the social class, status, and role of the participants. Thus, when describing and analysing the patterns of language use in the speech community, ethnographers have to determine what subgroups are pigeonholed to differential status and prestige. They must also understand the criteria that are used within the community for defining subgroup membership. Social class may be defined primarily by wealth, birthright, occupation, or by other criteria specific to the group under investigation. Status, however, is usually determined by social class membership. Age, education or marital status are also pertinent in placing a speaker to his or her rightful status. Role refers to the position(s) an individual holds in the speech community and the responsibilities and expectations that come with it or them. When social class, status and role of an individual are sharply defined in a rigidly stratified community, the choice of language is also explicitly differential. On the other hand, when the community is less rigidly stratified, the community members have a wider range of socially marked speech.

10

v. Role-relationships

Although it is true that many aspects of language use consistently mark a particular role, the roles which individual speakers take on and the status they are accorded are generally dependent on their relationship to other participants in the communicative event. Role-relationships may also be marked by the order in which participants speak, eye contact or avoidance, and body position. In a cyclic or interaction event with several people in sequence, such as greetings, introductions, or thanks, the order of address may mark deference or closeness. Relative status in particular role-relationships often involves some consideration of certain factors and the relative importance of such characteristics as age, sex, occupation, kinship, and social class in the determination differs in different speech communities. Their relative salience is interesting not only for discovering patterns of language use in interaction, but also as potential indicators of the community's social organization and cultural values.

3.0 METHODOLOGY The data for this study was obtained through two stages. They are the pre-fieldwork and fieldwork stage.

3.1.0 PRE-FIELDWORK The pre-fieldwork stage is very crucial because in undertaking an ethnography of communication, one of the first tasks is to define tentatively the speech community to be studied. In order to gather preliminary information, the researcher approached the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM) since it is a qualifying body for professional engineers in Malaysia.

3.1.1 Gatekeeper

The Institution is one of the few professional engineering institutions in the world which represents all disciplines of the profession and thus able to take a broad view of the professional scene. The Institution was formed in 1959 and is one of the affiliates of the Malaysian Professional Centre. As of 1996, IEM serves more than 14,000 members in Malaysia and overseas and the communities in which they work. Within IEM, the researcher's vital contact was the Deputy President of the Council Members for session 1995/96. In a face-to-face interaction with the gatekeeper, the researcher explained at great length about the topic and purpose of her study. She discovered that his idea on engineering parallels that of Wakelin (1992) in his article entitled "The Education for Engineers - Fit for Management?" According to him, engineering is one activity, which ranges in a more or less continuous fashion across the entire spectrum of academic knowledge and physical effort. He added that engineering may involve labourers, tradesmen, foremen, technicians and professional engineers. The academic distinctions between them are not divided into clearly defined, separate levels of skill but form a continuum, it being possible for any persons of sufficient ability to transfer from one activity to a higher level activity with proper training. It is very important to note that at this juncture the researcher was going

11

about her task of selecting the speech community to be studied without any preconceived categories and processes. She was approaching it with an openness of discovery instead. After an intensive brainstorming session with the Deputy President who was actually functioning as the gatekeeper, he suggested that what the researcher most probably needed to study was a group of engineers whose communicative skills affect the performance of their jobs. He thus introduced a few engineers whom he thought may meet the requirements of the study.

3.1.2 Negotiating Access and the Problems From the outset, the researcher had always made it a point to meet potential subjects who had been suggested or introduced by the gatekeeper in their natural settings. In order to gain their trust and confidence she had to be truthful about the purpose of the study and about the conditions of the research. Since the researcher was not the only one who had to decide on the suitability of the subjects, the onus was on her to convince the potential subjects to cooperate with her. Furthermore, the researcher had to be seen willing to subject herself to personal and professional 'interrogations' by the potential subjects to convince them of the researcher's integrity and commitment. Once she had tentatively decided on the suitability of the subjects, the researcher ventured to their workplace as part of the filtering process before finally confirming on their suitability.

3.1.3 'Shadowing' the Engineers The researcher managed to gain access to two engineering organizations before finally deciding on the third one. Firstly, she met the first gatekeeper, the Assistant Personnel Manager, in her office. After going through the preliminary rounds of explaining the purpose and conditions of the research, the gatekeeper and the researcher scanned through the list of engineers employed by the organization. They short listed five potential subjects out of seventy. The selection was based on several criteria, which was necessary to control any extraneous influences. The subjects had to be from the same organization, have similar qualifications and years of working experience and be of the same age group, ethnic group and gender. To further 'fine tune' her selection, the researcher was introduced to the second gatekeeper, the Operations Manager. Since he was in charge of all the engineers employed, the researcher was able to discuss in finer detail the selection process. It is very important to mention here that the researcher was increasingly zooming in on the subjects. Apart from meeting the criteria mentioned above, the subjects had to be doing the same tasks. In other words, their job functions must be the same. However, according to the gatekeeper, the researcher should select a sample that is as representative as possible of the population of engineers. Furthermore, he cautioned that it was almost impossible to have more than one engineer doing the same job at the same time within the same organization. He further short listed three subjects from the list of seven. They, most importantly, occupy boundary roles, which means they have positions in the organizations that require an ability to interact with a variety of groups in order to ensure the success of their project (Newstrom and Davis, 1993). Fresh graduate engineers were not chosen because of their lack of knowledge and experience. They work under the

12

direct supervision of the Senior Engineers. As a result, their work is mostly instructional with very little interactions with the other members of the community and the client. At the time of the study the three engineers were assigned to three different project teams. Project teams are established temporarily for a few months or up to several years. The subjects are assigned to a project for its limited life or as long as their specialty is needed on the project. As one project is completed, they move back to permanent positions in their department, or they are assigned to other projects. In fact, they can be assigned part time to two or more projects at the same time. The researcher managed to study part of the execution of the projects during the time she was with them. The length of time for data gathering in the field was limited by resource constraints and deadlines on the part of the researcher.

The researcher’s sample consisted of three engineers. From this point onwards they are

referred to as Engineer A, B and C.

All the engineers are Malay males who are in their thirties. A is 38 while B and C are each 34 years old. They had obtained their first degree abroad. All three possess a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering. A graduated from a United Kingdom university while B and C obtained theirs from universities in the United States. A has been working in the engineering profession for 12 years, B for ten years and C for 8 years. They are all Senior Structural Engineers within the organization. A and B are in the Civil/Structural Department while C is in the Construction Department. They were involved in different engineering projects and held different positions in the project teams when the researcher was conducting her research in their natural settings. A was functioning as the Lead Structural Engineer in his project team. On the other hand, B was functioning as the Project Manager in his project team. He was ultimately responsible for the management, direction and control of the project. Like A, B was also based at the Petaling Jaya office. C was the Site Manager for a construction project. Since the construction site was in the North, he naturally had his base there. He worked from the site office.

3.2.0 FIELDWORK The fieldwork was divided into three major activities :

3.2.1 Gaining Acceptance of the Community According to Fetterman (1989), an introduction by a member of the speech community is the researcher's best ticket into the community. An intermediary can open doors that are otherwise locked to outsiders. He adds that the closer the intermediary's ties to the community, the better it is for the researcher to make her entry. The trust the community places in the intermediary will

13

approximate the trust it extends to the researcher at the beginning of the study. A strong recommendation and introduction strengthen her capacity to work in a community and thus improve the quality of the data. In this study the researcher had selected one of the gatekeepers, that is, the Operations Manager to lend her support. He was not only responsible for the whole Engineering Department, but also had been working with the organization for fourteen years. Furthermore, he was well respected and well liked by the community members. This was evident from the term of address by the community members. He was addressed as "Pak (contraction of his name)" which in the Malay culture reflects deference and affection. He introduced the researcher to key members of the Engineering Department and encouraged them to cooperate with her. The other very important intermediary was A. He was also the Civil/Structural Discipline Manager. He did a thorough grand tour of the Engineering Department with the researcher explaining the physical and organizational layout of it. He also introduced her to community members that he thought the researcher would most probably come in contact with when doing her research later. Since it was unwise to take their cooperation for granted at this stage, the researcher made sure she answered any questions from curious or doubtful members frankly and clearly. Although selecting an integral and powerful member of the community is useful, establishing independence in the field is also important to avoid prematurely cutting off other lines of communication. Here, the researcher used the big net approach where she was mixing and mingling with everyone from the Operations Manager to the 'photocopy boys'. The researcher spent five working days at the setting making herself visible and yet non-disruptive. Her aim was to get the members be familiar with her presence and not feel threatened. Since the nature of their job does not allow them too much time to talk shop, the researcher found it useful to position herself at their coffee corner and in the prayer room where they were more relaxed and open. She also lunched and had tea with as many different members as possible. She found herself buying household products from some members and donating money for functions like weddings and farewell parties in order to assimilate within the community. No covert or overt tapings and recordings were done during this period. Any jottings were only done outside working hours and away from the natural setting. This was because the researcher did not wish to break their still fragile sense of security with her. However, towards the end of the week she started carrying a tape recorder around in full sight of everybody although she made sure they knew that no tapings were done. Again this was done in order to get them used to the sight of the tape recorder. The researcher had hoped that when the time came for the actual recording work later, they would behave in a relaxed and natural manner. The researcher also had to do extensive background study of the organization during this period. She also had to have some general ideas about the values, which guided cultural behavior in the community. According to Saville-Troike (1989), the knowledge would enable the researcher to behave appropriately , linguistically and culturally if she were to be genuinely accepted by them. For instance, almost all the Malay female employees in the speech community wore "baju kurung" to work. Therefore, the researcher also had to don her "baju kurung" throughout her study there for better integration. The techniques that the researcher applied during the one week trying to gain the confidence and acceptance of the community members may seem uncontrolled and haphazard. However,

14

ideas and behavior that were hazy in the beginning became more focused as time went by. Furthermore, it set the stage for more refined techniques for data collection.

3.2.2 Techniques for Data Collection

The data was obtained in the following way :

i. Observation Although the observation-participation method is more advantageous, it was not possible for the researcher to apply this method. This was because she did not have the necessary academic qualification to take on an appropriate role in the field except that of an observer. Hence, the observation method was chosen and it was the main data-collecting method.

ii. Interview The aim of the interview was to explain and put into a larger context what the researcher saw and experienced. Two types of interviews were employed here. They were the informal or ethnographic interview and semi-structured interview.

iii. Questionnaire The primary aim of the questionnaire was to substantiate the observation. Altogether 27 sets of questionnaires were distributed to the Engineers (3), their project team members (14), the Quality Assurance Manager who was deputizing as the Operations Manager (1), the sub-contractors (2), the Junior Engineers (3) and the clients (4) that were working closely with them (Refer Appendix 4). Four respondents did not return their questionnaires although the researcher had appealed for their cooperation repeatedly. They were one of Engineer C's clients and sub-contractors, Engineer B's Lead Structural Engineer and a Junior Engineer in the Civil/Structural Engineering Department. Distribution to the members was mostly done by hand in order to eliminate the distance between the questioner and respondents. As a result, misinterpretations of the questionnaires were lessened when the researcher was present to explain or clarify any ambiguities (Fetterman; 1989). In addition, some questionnaires were completed and handed in on the spot.

3.2.3 Instruments for Data Recording The following instruments are merely extensions of the human instrument. They are aids to the memory by capturing the detail and flavor of the study and then helping to organize and analyze the data (Fetterman; 1989).

i. Diary Continuous diaries were written from observations and interviews before, during or after each session. The researcher also sketched the area's physical layout. She noted down the "What?" which described the purpose of the activity or discussion, the "When?" which involved the reference to the time and timing of the activity, the "Where?" which involved a designation of the location of the activity, the "How?" which involved a description of whatever logistics were entailed by the activity. The "What?", "When?", and "Where?" were usually recorded before the communicative events.

15

ii. Tape recorder The tape recorder effectively captured verbatim interactions while leaving the researcher free to follow the conversational flow. The recordings could also be analyzed over and over again. On the other hand, tape recorders could inhibit participants from speaking freely during the communicative events. This is because they were aware that their voices are identifiable. The researcher again emphasized on the confidentiality and anonymity of her recordings and transcriptions. On the whole the researcher felt that she had been quite successful in allaying their fear because during the initial stage of recordings, participants had often asked, "Are you recording?". However, once they had got used to the sight of her recorder, the same participants would ask, "Aren't you recording?"

4.0 FINDINGS

4.1 What are the communicative events that necessitate the use of oral communication skills in English for the engineers? The communicative events that necessitate the use of oral communication skills in English for the engineers can be divided into the following types of interactions :

A. Formal Interactions Formal events observed were meetings that were conducted internally and those conducted with the clients. Although informal interactions occur more frequently than formal meetings, meetings are necessary for many purposes such as to share information, seek advice, make decisions, negotiate, coordinate and stimulate creative thinking. Company policy and practise require that all meetings be conducted in English. Several types of meetings are usually conducted throughout the execution of a project. They are Project Planning Meeting, Kick-Off Meeting, Progress Meeting, Site Meeting, Co-ordination Meeting, and Project Closed-Out Meeting. However, in this study only the weekly Progress Meetings between the contractor and the client were described, explained and analyzed. The Progress Meeting was chosen because of the frequency of its occurrence when the researcher was gathering her data in the field.

B. Informal Interactions Informal interactions occur far more frequently than meetings. This finding is similar to Morais (1993). However, unlike her findings, English is spoken more in formal meetings compared with informal interactions. As explained before, the company policy requires all meetings to be conducted in the English language. In informal interactions, the language codes depend mainly on ethnicity, status, role and role-relationship. English is the only language spoken in the interactions with the expatriates in the case of Engineer A and B because the foreigners cannot speak any of the local language codes. Engineer C did not come into contact with any expatriates during the observation period. Engineer A interacts entirely in English with his team's Norwegian Project Manager, English Lead Process Engineer, Filipino Lead Instrument Engineer and the client's American Structural Advisor. Similarly, Engineer B interacts entirely in English with his German and Dutch clients.

16

All the engineers also converse mostly in English with participants of higher status and role. They are usually the English educated ones with senior positions in the organizations. However, English-Bahasa Melayu code-switching does occur during the interactions. Role-relationship also influences the language code used. This is especially true when the interlocutors are the clients. English is mostly, if not entirely, spoken by the engineers if the clients are comfortable speaking in that language. The verbal strategy applied here reflects the client-contractor relationship where the contractor plays a more subservient role. Another instance is in interactions with the engineers' superiors who speak in English. The engineers respond in English to them even though they belong to the same ethnic group because the role-relationship has more influence on the language code used compared with ethnicity. Like Morais' (1993) findings, standard Malaysian English is used more among participants of higher status and role and when talking to the expatriates who are their superiors, colleagues or clients. English-Bahasa Melayu code-switching occurs more frequently in interactions among the dominant group members in the organization. This is especially true among the engineers who received primary and secondary education in Bahasa Melayu. On these occasions their speech rate is faster and they also express themselves better than when they are speaking English. In other words, code-switching is to their advantage. On the other hand, Bahasa Melayu is mostly or entirely spoken in the Drafting Area where the participants are much less educated than the engineers and where their status and roles are more subservient to the engineers. It is, however, interesting to note that common technical terms are spoken in English even by those who are not proficient in the language.

4.2 What are the main topic areas involving oral communication skills in English which the engineers have to deal with? The topic areas depend on the purpose of the interactions. In formal interactions, that is, the weekly Progress Meetings and Site Meetings, the main topic areas discussed by the engineers are the progress of the projects, the problems that need both the prompt attention of the client and the contractor and the required action plans. All the engineers play an active role here (Refer to Chapter 4; Part 1 for elaborate ethnographic descriptions, explanations and analysis). Of all the three engineers, Engineer B, who is the Project Manager for his team, plays the most active role in formal interactions followed by Engineer C who is the Site Manager and Engineer A who is the Lead Structural Engineer. In informal interactions, discussions on technical matters are the main topic areas for all three engineers. For Engineer A, manpower requirements, project schedules for his discipline and technical matters are the main topic areas with the Project Manager, Project Engineer, Quality Assurance Manager who was deputizing as the Operations Manager, the other Lead Discipline Engineers and the client’s Lead Structural Engineers. Design drafting activities such as the technical accuracy of the drawings and the datelines for the drawings are the main topic areas with the draftspersons in his team. With Engineer B, technical clarifications, techniques of execution, design issues, reinforcement of design criteria, project schedule, construction cost, contractor's performance, day-to-day problems, and manpower requirements are the main issues with both the consortium's and client's Project Managers and his Lead Structural Engineer. Scope of work, technical engineering design issues and their datelines to be issued are the items mainly discussed with the Lead Structural and

17

the Drafting Co-ordinator/Supervisor and his designer. The actual project progress as opposed to the project schedule, co-ordination and mobilization of manpower at site, weather, construction cost are discussed with the site contractors and client's and consortium's Project Managers. As for Engineer C, who was based at the project site, the main topic areas with the sub-contractors and his Site Supervisor are the actual progress status versus the planned progress, techniques and executions of the actual site work or construction job, manpower requirements, construction cost, weather, safety of the site workers and activities planned for the following week.

4.3 Who are the engineers' main interlocutors in oral communication in English? The engineers' main interlocutors depend on their official roles in the projects and the stages or phases of the projects in execution. Some of the projects have a relatively temporary life where they are created to accomplish a task and then disbanded. During the observation period, the main interlocutors are the following :

1. Engineer A (Lead Structural Engineer)

i. Project Team Members

a. Project Manager b. Project Engineer c. Lead Discipline Engineers

- Mechanical - Process - Instrumentation

d. Junior Engineer e. Quality Assurance Manager who is deputizing as the Operations Manager f. Drafting Co-ordinator/Supervisor (Structural) g. Designer (Structural)

ii. Client's Project Team Members

Lead Structural Engineer

2. Engineer B

i. Project Team Members

a. Lead Structural Engineer b. Drafting Co-ordinator/Supervisor (Structural) c. Designer (Structural)

ii. Client's Project Team Members

Project Manager

iii. Consortium's Project Team Members

Project Manager iv. Sub-Contractor's Team Members

18

Senior Architect

3. Engineer C

i. Project Team Members

a. Senior Construction Manager b. Site Supervisor c. Quality Controller d. Building Supervisor

ii. Client's Project Team Members

Site Supervisor

iii. Sub-Contractor's Project Team Members

Project Manager

5.1.4 What are the problems that are faced by the engineers when they communicate in English?

Engineer A does not have any problem when interacting with both local and foreign participants who belong to the higher status and role groups such as the Project Manager, Project Engineer, Lead Discipline Engineers and the General Manager. However, those of lower hierarchy such as the Junior Engineers and Drafting Designers feel that clarity in his work instructions is lacking. As for Engineer B, generally the interlocutors feel that lack of clarity in his explanations and instructions is a problem. For Engineer C, English-Bahasa Melayu code-switching is an effective verbal strategy for him when communicating at site because his problem is in the vocabulary area. In other words, his lexical inventory is insufficient for him to converse in English satisfactorily and effectively. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that although all the engineers speak with incomplete sentences most of the time, this is not a hindrance factor in the comprehension of the message by the other interlocutors. Events that precede the conversation are critical in the understanding of the message sent to interlocutors. This is also true when technical drawings or documents are used as references during the events. Correct grammar and tenses are not that important when mutual understanding can be aided by artifacts like the drawings and documents. In other words, linguistic features in its most correct form are of secondary importance compared with the engineering content. This finding is supported by Seliman (1996), who recommends that the "focus of the communication is on engineering content and not on form (genre, grammar)" in her study entitled "The Genre and the Genre Expectations of Engineering Oral Presentations Related to Academic and Professional Contexts".

5.2.0 Conclusion From this study, which looked into how three mid-level engineers communicated not only with professionals in their own discipline but also with those in other disciplines, it could be seen that the engineering content still proved to be more important than effective communicative skills.

19

The engineers need to be absolutely accurate in their technical information. However, an engineer with good communicative skills does have a distinct advantage over those who do not. Hence training engineering students to be good in communicative skills in English is important.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research (Qualitative Research Methods Series, 6) Newbury Park : Sage Publications

Agar, M. 1986. Speaking of Ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage. Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J., eds. 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. London

: Cambridge University Press. Bell, J. 1993. Doing Your Research Project. Buckingham : Open University Press.

20

Brown, P. and Fraser, C. 1979. Speech as a Marker of Situation. In Scherer, K.R. and Giles, H., eds. Social Markers in Speech. London: Cambridge University Press.

Brumfit, C.J., ed. 1984. Common Ground : Shared Interests in ESP and Communication Studies. Oxford : Pergamon Press.

Dubois, B.L. 1986. "Needed : EST Public Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English." English for Specific Purposes 5, no. 1, pp. 73-80.

Estad, T. and Ferryman, M. 1990. The Communication Situation Faced by Engineers in Singapore. In Nerney, P., Ng, M. and Lee, Kok Cheong, eds. Working Papers on Language. 3. Singapore : English Language Proficiency Unit.

Ellen, R.F. 1984. Ethnographic Research : A Guide to General Conduct. New York : Academic Press.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. U.K. : Longman. Fetterman, .D.M. 1989. Ethnography : Step by Step. (Applied Social Research Methods

Series, 17). Newbury Park : Sage Publications. Fisher, B.A. 1974. Small Group Decision Making : Communication and the Group Process.

New York : McGraw-Hill. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language

Learning. Newbury House. Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public : Microstudies of the Public Order. New York : Harper

and Row. Gumperz, J.J., and Hymes, D., eds. 1986. Directions in Sociolinguitics. The Ethnography of

Communication. New York : Basil Blackwell Inc. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 1983. Ethnography : Principles in Practice. New York :

Tavistock. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. 1987. English for Specific Purpose. A Learning-Centred

Approach. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. 1984. Interface : English for Technical Communication. U.K. :

Longman. Jacob, E. 1987. Qualitative Research Traditions : A Review (Review of Educational Research)

57/1 : 1-50. Kirk, J. and Miller, L.M. 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (Qualitative

Research Method Series, 1). Newbury Park : Sage Publications. Lyons, J. ed. 1970. New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth : Penguin. Maanen, J.V. 1988. Tales of the Field : On Writing Ethnography. Chicago : The University of

Chicago Press. Manning, P.K. 1987. Semiotics and Fieldwork (Qualitative Research Methods Series, 7).

Newbury Park : Sage Publications. McAlister, J. and Madana, G. 1976. English for Electrical Engineers. London : Longman. Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Murphy, H.A. and Hildebrandt, H.W. 1988. Effective Business Communications. Singapore :

McGraw-Hill Book Co. Newstrom, J.W. and Davis, K. 1993. Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Inc. Sanford, A.C.; Hunt, G.T. and Bracey, H.J. 1976. Communication Behavior in Organizations.

Columbus : C.E. Merrill.

21

Saville-Troike, M. 1989. The Ethnography of Communication. An Introduction. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.

Seliger, W. and Shohamy, E. 1989. Second Language Research Methods. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Selinker, L.; Tarone, E. and Hanzeli, V. (eds.). 1981. English for Academic and Technical Purposes : Studies in Honour of Louis Trimble. New York : Newbury House

Sherzer, J. 1975. Ethnography of Speaking. Austin : University of Texas. Sherzer, J. 1983. An Ethnographic Perspective. Austin : University of Texas Press. Spradley, J.P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Spradley, J.P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Troike, R.C. 1970. Receptive Competence, Productive Competence, and Performance. In

Alatis, J.E, ed., Linguistics and the Teaching of Standard English to Speakers of Other Languages or Dialects. Washington D.C. : Georgetown University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research : Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5). Newbury Park : Sage Publications.

Zimmerman, D.H. and West, C. 1975. Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation. In Thorne, B. and Henley, H, eds. Language and Sex : Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass. : Newbury House.

ARTICLES Amyotte, P. 1991. "A Communication Course for Engineers". Engineering Education, no. 2

(May/June) : 436-438. Andrews, D.C. 1975. "Teaching Writing in the Engineering Classroom". Engineering

Education 66, no. 2 (November) : 169-171. Baumgardner, R.J., Chamberlain, D., Dharmapriya, A.T. and Staley, B.W. 1986. ESP for

Engineers : Two Approaches, in Tickoo (34) : 93-104. Bhatia, V.K. 1994. ESP and the World of Professions : Bridging the Gap or Making Inroads?

ESP Malaysia 2, no. 1 : 19-31.

22

Carmi, Shlomo and Aung, Win. 1993. "Launching Leaders". Engineering Education (March) : 44.

Chenea, P. 1977. "What Industry Looks for in Graduate Engineers". Engineering Education 68, no. 2 (November) : 172-173.

Cheung, D. 1988. The Communication Needs of Engineers in Industry : Survey and Analysis.

Singapore : Nanyang Technological Institute. Elms, D.G. 1992. “Formation of the New Engineer.” AEESEAP Journal of Engineering

Education 22, no. 2 (September) : 1-5. Feinberg, S. 1979. “Feedback on Format Improves Technical Writing.” Engineering

Education 69, no. 4 (January): 339-342. Ferris, D. and Tagg, T. 1996. Academic Oral Communication Needs of EAP Learners : What

S-M Instructors Actually Require. Tesol Quarterly 30, no.1 (Spring). Finniston, M. 1980. Engineering our Future : Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the

Engineering Profession. London : HMSO. Gladwin, C.H. 1989. Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling. Qualitative Research Methods

Series 19. California : Sage Publications, Inc. Hornberger, N.H. 1994. Ethnography. Tesol Quarterly 28, no. 4 (Winter). Johns, T.F. and Dudley-Evans. 1980. An Experiment in Team Teaching Overseas Postgraduate

Students of Transportation and Plant Biology. ELT Documents 106. London : The British Council.

Kiyama, K. and Nold, E. 1979. “Engineering Students Teach Each Other to Write.” Engineering Education 69, no. 4 (January) : 334-337.

Koh, M.Y. and Cheung, D. 1986. “Communication Skills for Engineering Undergraduates : A Discipline Language Integrated Approach” in Tickoo (ed.) Language Across the Curriculum. RELC. Anthology Series 15. Singapore : RELC.

Lancaster, O.E. 1978. “Do we Believe in Communication?” Engineering Education 68, no. 2 (November) : 172-173.

Leesley, M.E. and Williams, M.L. 1979. “Improving the Writing of Freshman Chemical Engineers.” Engineering Education 69, no. 4 (January) : 337-339.

M.Ali A.Razak. 1992. “Country Report : Malaysia. Industrial Technology Development and Engineering Education - The Way Forward.” ASEESEAP Journal of Engineering Education 22, no. 1 (March) : 17-19.

Mathes, J.C., Stevenson, D.W. and Klaver, P. 1979. “Technical Writing : The Engineering Educators’ Responsibility.” Engineering Education 69, no.4 (January) : 331-334.

McAlister, J. 1984. “Why Engineers Fail.” Machine Design. February : 477-9. Meyer, R.F. 1992. “Who Owns the Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum?” AEESEAP

Journal of Engineering Education 22, no.1 (March) : 108-112. Neu, J. 1986. “American English Business Negotiations : Training for Non-Native Speakers.”

English for Specific Purpose 5, no.1, pp. 41-58. Nerney, P. et tal. Eds.1990. Working Papers on Language. No. 1. Singapore :National

University of Singapore. Raudsepp, E. 1989. “How Engineers Get Ahead and Avoid Obsolescence.” Machine Design

(January) : 107-111. Sides, C.H. 1980. “What should we Do with Technical Writing?” Engineering Education

(April) : 741-743.

23

Smith, L.H. 1989. “Is Consultancy for You?’ Machine Design (February) : 87-90. Strevens, P. 1972. Technical Technology and Scientific English (TTSE).” English Language

Teaching 27(3). Sylvester, N.D. 1980. “Engineering Education must Improve the Communication Skills of its

Graduates.” Engineering Education April : 739-40. Tadmor, Z., et al. 1987. “Communication Skills, the English Language and Managerial

Skills.” Engineering Education 78, no.2 (November) : 115. Tebeaux, E. 1980. “Technical Writing is not Enough.” Engineering Education (April) : 741-

743. Wakelin, B. 1992. “The Education for Engineers-fit for Management?” AEESEAP Journal of

Engineering Education 22, no. 1 (March) : 71-75. Wankat, P.C. and Oreovics, F.S. 1994. “A Different Way of Teaching.” American Society for

Engineering Education (January); 15-18. Woods, D.R. and Feuerstein, I.A. 1980. “On Teaching Technical Communication.”

Engineering Education (April) : 745-749.

UNPUBLISHED WORK

1. Leong, M. 1992. The Oral Communication Needs of Diploma in Executive Secretarial Science Students of Institut Teknologi Mara. Dissertation presented for the Master’s of Education of the University Malaya, Malaysia.

2. Morais, E. 1993. Malaysian Business Talk. A Study of the Patterns of Conflict and Non-Conflict in Verbal Interactions. Thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of University Malaya, Malaysia.

3. Seliman, S. 1996. The Genre and the Genre Expectations of Engineering Oral Presentations Related to Academic and Professional Contexts. Thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Stirling, U.K.

24