Informal language learning

The notion of informal learning was first introduced by Marsik and Watkins (2001):

Informal learning, a category that includes incidental learning, may occur in institutions, but it is not typically classroom‐based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner. Incidental learning is defined as a byproduct of some other activity, such as task accomplishment, interpersonal interaction, sensing the organizational culture, trial‐and‐error experimentation, or even formal learning. Informal learning can be deliberately encouraged by an organization or it can take place despite an environment not highly conducive to learning.

(Marsick and Watkins 2001, p. 12)

We find this definition particularly relevant to this chapter, which will demonstrate both how an organization can encourage informal language learning and how employees may choose to take advantage of various strategies available to them in their language acquisition. Among migrants living in the host country, such informal learning can potentially take place in all settings – including the organization in which they are working – beyond work socialization and formal English classes. Migrants develop a range of strategies through frequent trial and error for managing their L2 communication and improving their linguistic competence.

In linguistics, a growing body of literature on language learning and teaching beyond the classroom (LBC) has emerged (Benson 2011). Scholars have used various terms to define the learning that takes place outside the typical formal environment: nonformal, self‐directed, autonomous, and independent (Reinders and Benson 2017, p. 562). Richards (2015) examines various new platforms facilitated by technology and the media that provide rich opportunities for meaningful and authentic language use. Chatrooms, mobile apps (that can be used while waiting for the bus, for example), “language villages” (language experience with native speakers in a village setting), and tandem or online gaming are some of the affordances for out‐of‐class learning available to language learners. We can also add to that list face‐to‐face networking meetings organized via MeetUp sites, couch‐surfing events (sites for tourists and hosts offering free accommodation), and specific sites for finding language partners (e.g. italki). According to Richards (2015, p. 6), these modern and mobile resources can be more beneficial than those that are available in the classroom.

Social media has been identified as a key tool in second language development, drawing keen interest from scholarly research. Facebook in particular has gained momentum, embraced by students as a platform for informal English learning (Kabilan et al. 2010) and a medium for meeting and communicating with native‐speaker Facebook friends (Alm 2015). Other platforms, such as YouTube (Wan et al. 2014) or vlogs (Combe and Codreanu 2016), have also been recognized as Web 2.0 tools that are frequently used by language learners. In general, informal language learning via Web 2.0 tools is perceived positively, allowing learning in a relaxed atmosphere (Wan et al. 2014). Other informal methods used outside the classroom included the use of tablets (Chen and Kessler 2013) and digital gaming (Chik 2014). Finally, media exposure, such as watching subtitled movies, has been reported to be a successful tool in language acquisition (Kuppens 2010). Although the literature has listed numerous advantages of language learning outside the classroom, not all such learning experiences are associated with successful language development. There is no empirical evidence that Facebook friendships are useful for formal language learning. While this body of research is relevant, it tends to treat such language‐learning opportunities as a supplement to formal class learning. Beyond these platforms, there are other undocumented settings for second language learning which have not been studied (Reinders and Benson 2017).

Language and work

Business scholars (e.g. Vecchi 2014) are also interested in the topic of language and English language in the context of multinational companies, including its management implications, has received scholarly attention. “Company‐speak,” a simplified, highly technical, and culturally hybrid language (Aichhorn and Puck 2017a, p. 400), which dominates in workplaces where individuals from many linguistic and cultural backgrounds work, has been a subject of research. Although this internal corporate language of an organization is developed to act as a bridge, it also can be a barrier – with anxious language users reluctant to use it (Vecchi 2014; Aichhorn and Puck 2017b). A different body of literature examined language in the context of low‐paid sectors, such as services, agriculture, and food processing, in a number of Anglo‐Saxon countries. Typically, these sectors rely on employing a large number of migrant workers. Opportunities to learn or practice English seem to be severely constrained in many such contexts, in contrast to multinational businesses. Piller and Lising (2014) analyzed the role of English language among Filipino workers in the meat industry in Australia. While English skills were irrelevant in the recruitment process, migrants were hoping to improve their English after arrival but did not succeed in it due to their shiftwork and little opportunities for speaking at work or mingling with the community. In their study on Mexican migrants in the US, McConnell and LeClere (2002) noted that working in agriculture was not conducive to language learning. Similarly, taking up a job in a large garment factory in Montreal, Canada did not result in English learning, despite its policy of mixing ethnic groups (Premji et al. 2008).

In contrast to other low‐paid sectors popular with a foreign workforce, such as agriculture, construction, processing and factory work, service occupations attract individuals with various backgrounds, driven by an opportunity to advance their language skills (Janta et al. 2012; Lugosi et al. 2016). The service sector has a number of distinctive characteristics. It has been labeled as a “stopover,” a “refuge sector” (Szivas and Riley 1999), and a transient industry, accommodating individuals with various skillsets. On the negative side, it is widely considered to be a low‐paid and low‐skilled industry. The so‐called “turnover culture” provides many opportunities for jobs, making it an industry easy to access through informal methods of recruitment. On the other hand, it has an eye‐catching side, attracting young people, with its glamorized image of celebrity chefs, trendy clubs, boutique hotels, or luxurious airlines.

There are a number of characteristics that make the service sector particularly conducive to learning. Lugosi et al. (2016) compared working dynamics in two low‐paid sectors – hospitality and processing – pointing to the opportunities (or lack thereof) that both sectors offer in terms of interaction and networking among their foreign employees. Scholars of the sociology of work have developed two concepts important in understanding the social features of this sector. The notion of “the service triangle” (customer, worker, manager) explains the complex relations between the three groups, where in some situations, the interests of two different groups can align together against one, for example, managers' and customers' interests may align against workers (Lopez 2010). Korczynski (2003) has coined the term communities of coping to refer to the tight relations that employees develop among themselves in order to deal with work tension caused by managers or customers. Many small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMSs), for example, restaurants, have a particular workplace culture with a mixture of work and social interaction pervading daily lives (i.e. Kim 2009). In short, service employees tend to develop strong ties in the teams in which they work, and for various reasons. This, in turn, has consequences for migrants' language development.

Communication strategies in second language learning

Since the early 1970s, the notion of communication strategies (CS) has been a major theme in the literature on second language learning. In their comprehensive review article of CS history, definitions, and taxonomies, Dörnyei and Scott (1997) noted that CS were originally defined as verbal and nonverbal strategies of coping with language deficiencies, for example strategies to overcome certain crises (Tarone 1977, p. 195) or “plans for solving […] a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (Færch and Kasper 1983, p. 36). CS can be understood as “a plan of action to accomplish a communication goal” (Dörnyei and Scott 1997, p. 179). Our research here can be understood in reference to the broad concepts of communication strategies. By adopting widely used CS taxonomies, we propose a new one (a 2 x 3 matrix) that focuses specifically on L2 learning in a work context. First, Bialystok's (1983) term L2 strategies and Willems's (1987) achievement strategies, we relabel here as high interaction style, understood as a specific communication style used in L2 communication. Second, Bialystok's (1983) L1 strategies and Willems's (1987) reduction strategies, we relabel low interaction style, pointing to the methods of L2 language avoidance by turning to L1 or using nonverbal communication. Apart from the high–low interaction style distinction, we also note the importance of the presence of “others” in language learning, following Tarone's (1977) term appeal for assistance. We find this aspect important not just in L2 strategies, but also in L1 strategies (communication avoidance), and for that reason we see it as a separate category important for both high and low interaction strategies. Further, we distinguish between native and non‐native speakers who take part in easing communication problems. Finally, we provide an additional category (timeline), classifying learners by their fluency, from beginners to advanced language users (see Table 15.1).

Strategies used by businesses

The majority of the workers in the service sector possess limited English skills. This has been reported in the US (i.e. Madera et al. 2014), the UK (Lyon and Sulcova 2009; McDowell et al. 2007), and Ireland (Wickham et al. 2008). Co‐ethnic recruitment practices mean that many workers of the same nationality work together, which is not conducive to foreign language learning. As we have mentioned, lack of sufficient language skills is to some extent acceptable for the companies themselves. In the context of the Irish hospitality industry, Wickham et al. (2008) noted that English language competence appears not be a requirement for basic jobs, although it was considered important for jobs higher up the scale. There is some limited evidence that businesses, typically SMSs employing undocumented migrants, are more ready to take those who do not speak English “too well” (i.e. Kim 2009), as such employees tend to be less demanding. In such environments, migrants may not be encouraged to speak or improve their language skills at work.

Empirical studies in the service sector have identified a number of strategies used by companies in order to ease communication issues between staff members. For example, following a large influx of migrants after the 2004 enlargement of the European Union, who filled the industry shortages in Ireland and the UK, companies located in remote areas supported migrants with language provision (Devine et al. 2007; Baum et al. 2007). Nevertheless, such support often turned out to be ineffective due to migrants' irregular working hours (shiftwork), and inability to regularly attend language classes. In their study conducted in an Orlando hotel in the US that employed a large proportion of Spanish‐ and Haitian‐Creole‐speaking employees, Chen et al. examined various communication strategies utilized by the hotel. The company produced a daily one‐page “Hot Sheet,” summarizing the main events of the day, company newsletters, and wall posters. While the Hot Sheet was produced in three languages, other items were in English only. Meetings also took place in English, with bilingual employees acting as unpaid translators. While the company put in place certain strategies to manage communication problems, interestingly, some local employees felt that too much effort was being made to accommodate the non‐English speaking workers (Chen et al. 2011).

There is also evidence that management assigns jobs according to employees' language level, allocating “behind‐the‐scenes” types of jobs (such as housekeepers or kitchen porters [KPs]) for those with limited English fluency. Zampoukos and Ioannides (2011, p. 30) note the division that management creates by directing those less‐competent speakers to non‐customer facing jobs: “Effectively, these persons are barred from the higher profile front‐end positions involving face‐to‐face encounters with customers (e.g. reception). Rather, they make do with behind‐the‐scenes, invisible (to the tourist) tasks.” In a study conducted in remote areas in UK hospitality companies, it was noticed that specific jobs had particular associations with the fluency in English. A hotel worker from Poland reflected that:

My colleagues keep questioning why I have to work in the housekeeping department yet my English is comparatively good. Unlike my colleagues still learning the language, I do realize that I stand a better chance of getting a job elsewhere, in a restaurant or retail.

(Baum et al. 2007, p. 234)

There is also evidence that migrants, those more determined, move between jobs over time. For example, they may enter the workplace as kitchen porters, but gradually move to jobs that require customer interaction (Janta et al. 2012).

In many workplaces, in the service sector and beyond, the ethnic divisions of labor are sometimes (re)produced through spatial and task divisions (Lugosi et al. 2016). In other words, it is not uncommon to see one ethnic and linguistic group working, for example, in the housekeeping department. This, of course, may result in migrants' segregation and limit opportunities for social interactions, networking, and learning. In order to avoid it, some companies introduce policies on mixing ethnic groups as well as imposing an English‐only rule: In a study of a large London hotel, McDowell et al. (2007) pointed out that an English‐only rule was enforced – workers were being issued instructions on the use of language. However, it was also noted that own‐language use was utilized in specific situations. Workers used their own language to share jokes, make remarks about managers and guests, and in general to evade disciplinary control. Overall, the available studies point to relatively little support for migrants' language development from companies.

Learners with high interaction style

Ellis (1994) identifies social need as an important factor in language acquisition; learners learn best in a natural setting when they have a clear social need for second language acquisition. In line with such an argument, many migrants choosing to work in the service industry believe that rapid language learning can take place in this particular work environment and that consequently they will improve their social status and succeed in the host labor market. In the UK, many employees have had tertiary education (Janta et al. 2011), and such jobs may therefore seem “undesirable,” representing a clear mismatch between their educational level and their current occupation. Migrants, however, accept these low‐skilled jobs with a view to improving their language, with low pay being less important (Wickham et al. 2008). Such high motivation typically characterizes highly skilled individuals as well as students. Their focus on their career seems to be the driving force for improving their English language skills. Easy access to the job market in the service sector makes this option particularly attractive for young individuals, as explained by a female migrant, returning from the UK to Poland:

[employment in hospitality] It's the fastest job to find for foreigners – without experience, any documents, without special education. I didn't have any great work experience and I didn't feel strong enough in the language to look for some other, more ambitious jobs. I was positively shocked to know that I could get the chance to work in the kitchen, without any experience. In Poland – it'd seem impossible or strange.

(Filimonau and Mika 2019, p. 13)

Highly motivated learners use a number of strategies to facilitate their language acquisition, intentionally seeking learning opportunities (see Table 15.1). We call this style high interaction style because of the effort put in L2 communication. The first strategy focuses on learning genre – learning occurs through reading and memorizing a particular social script. For example, Janta et al. (2012) in their study on English language learning among Polish migrants in the UK service sector noted that migrants‐to‐be or new employees sought advice from their fellow nationals using online discussion fora and a popular site for English learners in Poland: ang.pl. The exchanges between new and experienced migrants were particularity helpful for those who were awaiting their first job interview with a British employer or were about to start a job in a café or restaurant. Their queries were about the use of typical vocabulary when interacting with customers. Some detailed examples of phrases typically used in the service sector in British English as well as generic social conventions that are followed in a British restaurant were listed as follows:

“What can I get you? What would you like? Can I take your order? Are you ready to order yet?” “I'll be here with you in a minute. Is everything okay so far?” and advised further that if there is an empty plate on the table, one can say: “Are you done with it, please?”

(Janta et al. 2012, p. 435)

It is worth memorising some basic phrases. I can give you some examples. Hi, would you like a table for 2/3/4.? Maybe this one? Or the one over there? (you should always suggest a few;)) … Later on we pass a menu. After a while we ask politely: Are you ready to order or shall I come back? After serving a meal we say to a customer “enjoy your meal” :) and later we need to do a so‐called backcheck and we ask: “Is everything ok with the food? Are you ok with drinks?” Obviously with a big smile:) When the customer pays, we need to thank him and when he leaves we need to thank him again, invite him for next time and wish him a good day :)

(Janta et al. 2012, p. 435)

Online platforms such as discussion forums, social networking sites, various applications, and sites dedicated specifically to language learning can play a key role in migrants' language learning (Richards 2015). The above quotations demonstrate that such learning online included not only the typical vocabulary and set phrases used when interacting with customers; it also provided important cultural lessons. Verbal communication – the frequent use of polite “thank you” – was part of the appropriate social script that needed to be followed in the employee–customer interaction. Interestingly, “instructors” also reminded learners that nonverbal communication – body language (smile) – was an important part of the convention. Overall, we can assume that this online setting for learning is a motivating and supportive environment for migrant‐learners. A comprehensive list of industry phrases acted as “first‐aid devices” (Dörnyei and Scott 1997) in managing migrants' linguistic deficiencies.

In their study on the management perceptions of employing Eastern European workers in Cheshire, UK (Lyon and Sulcova 2009, p. 22), business owners noted that limited English skills were strongly related to the lack of specific cultural clues and migrants' culture, which made them sound “more abrupt than British employees.” Indeed, the directness for which Eastern Europeans in particular are reputed was frequently mentioned in relation to the limited English language skills. For example, McDowell et al.'s (2008) study cited a reflection from the Head of Housekeeping of a large high‐end London hotel, who commented on the typical style of communication among the Eastern Europeans:

The main problem is language barrierasnd also cultural barriers sometimes, because perhaps what I consider to be rude or abrupt, another person might not see that as being rude or abrupt because that's the way they would generally converse with each other.

(McDowell et al. 2008, p. 12)

Migrants' limited language skills, or their “broken English,” was a result of communication differences, with Eastern Europeans sounding abrupt, rude, brusque, or impatient. Ogiermann (2009) examining politeness among various languages, including English and Polish, concluded that direct requests dominate in Polish as opposed to conventional indirect requests in English. Ogierman showed that politeness featured strongly in English language – emphasized in the phrases recommended by the experienced language users. In English, “polite” words such as “thank you” and “please” are used frequently. In fact, in British English they are used as a matter of routine, much more than in American English (Murphy 2016). In order to fulfill customers' expectations, current or future migrants are instructed to use such polite words much more frequently that they would in their native language. It is also interesting to note that some language learners may not be prepared or willing to include such linguistic politeness in their communication. As pointed out by Ellis (1994, p. 190), “it takes learners a long time to learn the sociocultural rules underlying the performance of specific illocutionary acts. Many learners may never do so.”

Of course, the presence of English native speakers at the workplace was greatly appreciated by learners and was utilized in a number of ways. Those less confident in speaking relied on listening to native speakers, a method that provided slower but less stressful development of language skills. We label this strategy active listening. Such strategy was particularly useful for the beginners, working for example as a kitchen porter:

This job [as a kitchen porter (KP)] was very useful to me in the situation I was at that time, because I didn't have to speak English, a good command of English wasn't required from me but I could listen. I was learning all the time, but I wasn't responsible for my bad English. I was going to school; I was slowly learning the language. I was also learning from chefs and other KPs and I was trying to take advantage of it as much as I could.

(Janta et al. 2012, p. 436)

Physical proximity to native speakers – chefs and other kitchen porters – working in a large kitchen was useful in familiarizing with the language, although the busy kitchen setting may have resulted in learning more informal vocabulary.

Employees who interacted directly with the customer had very different experiences. At times, the noise level and the demanding environment made communication challenging. Of course, in tourist places customers speak with very diverse and unfamiliar accents, contributing to the potential instances of miscommunication. Local guests can also pose communication challenges, speaking with various regional accents. Guests' attitudes are also important here. One of the waitresses working in the UK (Janta et al. 2011, p. 1331) reflected on the patience and understanding that guests demonstrated toward foreign employees when giving food orders. She noted: “I have never come across a bad reaction, even when they have to repeat the same thing four times.” Despite such positive feedback, the opposite reactions have been reported as well (see Lyon and Sulcova 2009).

While a learner may get by without knowing or using the sociocultural rules, a specific service vocabulary needs to be learned. In another empirical study, Lyon and Sulcova (2009) noted that hotel management in the UK highlighted that migrant workers had difficulties with understanding local terminology such as “pint of snakebite,” or eggs served “sunny side up,” which subsequently had a negative impact on service delivery. It is unlikely that such specific vocabulary is taught in a formal classroom setting. Other vocabulary can be learned much more quickly. For example, Janta et al. (2012, p. 436) in their study report how one of the Polish waiters working in the UK acquired his vocabulary:

My English was not on a level that I could chat with a customer. In fact, I did not know any vocabulary, so I took the menu and started learning words such as sausages, scramble eggs, [sic.] well, everything!

Interestingly, many of the service workers have only a basic understanding of English but typically become quickly involved in customer interaction. In line with the seminal research of Krashen (1989) on the input hypothesis, it needs to be stressed that such an intense, noisy, and demanding environment may be detrimental for lower‐proficiency learners, causing increased anxiety over language use. A study of a Spanish learner in Peru who learned Spanish “by using it” demonstrated that such effort can simply be exhausting (Stanley 2015). This source of language input may be overwhelming and demotivating for the learner but there are also benefits resulting from such learning experiences. A study by Lugosi et al. (2016) showed that comparing working relations in the hospitality and manufacturing sectors, interactions with native speakers, British workers, and customers with different accents were particularly challenging, but that this intensification of learning led to faster language acquisition.

In the literature on second language learning, the topic of error correction or negative feedback has generated an enormous amount of research, resulting in contradictory findings, including some pessimistic conclusions that not all learners will improve their performance via error correction (Aljaafreh and Lantolf 1994). Despite such conclusions, based mostly in language writing, more advanced learners in the context of service work employ negative feedback strategy while speaking. Proactive learners rely on support from their colleagues, typically native speakers, in correcting their errors. This becomes apparent in the remarks of a service worker named Marek:

The fact that I have learnt the language, I mean, I have improved my language, this is due to the hotel for sure, because it was my only job. [.] There was a head waiter who was correcting my English, what I say wrong, how I should say it [.], and I told him: “yes, this is exactly what I want you to do for me, keep correcting me!” And even now, when I speak to some Englishmen, those who I have a good contact with, I say, “look, if I say something wrong, please do correct me”.

(Janta et al. 2012, p. 436)

The above quote points to some level of trust, of course, that is needed in employing such strategy. While working as a waiter, Marek relied on the support of his colleague, a head chef. In his present job, as an assistant manager, he still benefits from the help of other colleagues in improving his speaking skills.

Finally, socialization – the fifth strategy in our classification – is a large part of the working culture in the service industry. In their study conducted in the UK among Polish workers Janta et al. (2011) examined three types of relations that migrants developed while working in the industry: the relations with host, home, and other nationals. Most of the respondents in the study reported that they socialized with British people, developing relations from superficial to more intimate contacts that sometimes led to friendship. Clearly, in these workplaces, relations often spilled over to the leisure domain. Social events such as birthday parties, summer events, or football matches were popular occasions which provided opportunities for socialization with native speakers and communicating in English. While this is typically expected in the context of service work, it also depends on the particular workplace. In the study conducted in a large Orlando hotel (Chen et al. 2011), it was found that migrants typically did not socialize outside the workplace. Creole‐speaking employees felt that conversations with other nationals were limited to topics related to the workplace.

All the strategies examined in this section – learning a genre, active listening, interacting with a customer, socializing, and negative feedback – point to a high determination among employees who demonstrate both effort and desire to improve their level of English by deliberately seeking learning opportunities.

Learners with low interaction style

While at one end of the spectrum we could speak of a group of individuals displays a high level of motivation to learn and practice the language in the service work context, the other end of the spectrum could be defined as a group showing less or no motivation to communicate in English. Low or no motivation to learn the host country language is displayed by an attempt to communicate in L1 with one's own fellow‐workers only, using them as interpreters, and taking advantage of company materials produced in multiple languages. In other words, splitting into groups based on own language is a strategy that migrants use. In the context of an Orlando hotel (Chen et al. 2011), use of a so‐called “cheat sheet,” containing common phrases in all three languages was one of the strategies among Spanish‐ and Haitian‐Creole migrants. The same study reported that Spanish‐ and Haitian‐Creole‐speaking employees relied on support from bilingual employees to receive information (Chen et al. 2011). The handouts distributed during formal meetings were later translated by their fellow‐nationals or taken home to be translated by family members. One ethnic group seemed to be a close‐knit group, well‐informed about their fellow‐colleagues' language abilities and linguistic provision:

Creole‐speaking employees relied on a network of translators to spread information. They knew who could speak and understand English and who could not. So when the phone rang, it would be answered by a fellow Haitian who could speak and understand English.

(Chen et al. 2011, p. 344)

Typically, other fellow‐nationals were providing support in translation but also when interacting with the customers. As demonstrated, in a situation that required communicating with a customer, migrants were immediately able to find a competent English speaker. Of course, relying on interpreters is not without problems. As outlined by Premji et al. (2008), sometimes the exact meaning can be lost in translation, and this is particularly important when it comes to discussing private issues with a manager.

In other situations, nonverbal communication seemed to be a strategy of getting by in a workplace without speaking the language, as explained by a Spanish employee:

In my position there are many Haitians who work there and I communicate with them in the way they point out. [When] I speak to them, they speak to me in English and I understand many things in English. But many things that I do not understand they point them out to me […] and so I communicate with them (Spanish Focus Group).

(Chen et al. 2011, p. 345)

Clearly, nonverbal communication, such as eye contact, hand signals, and body language can be utilized for communication purposes in certain occupations only as they do not require any customer interaction. One explanation for migrants' language deficiencies can be the nature of particular jobs; the environment and intensive working conditions may serve as justification for not learning English at work (Lugosi et al. 2016). In some enterprises, the individuals get by with their native language only, typically working in the non‐customer‐facing jobs. In London SMSs, many workers from China and Korea seemed trapped after working in the kitchens for a decade (Wright and Pollert 2005). Such situations seem to be prevalent in small, ethnic minority‐owned restaurants, employing workers, often illegally, of the same ethnic group. Working with other ethnic fellow employees, speaking their native language every day combined with poor working conditions and work exploitation provided them with no opportunities, energy and time to acquire the language skills necessary for improving their personal situation.

The three strategies examined here under the umbrella of low‐interaction style – use of interpreters, use of cheat sheets, and nonverbal communication – point to managing L2 communication problems by turning to L1 or nonverbal communication. Interestingly, communication avoidance and withdrawal have also been recorded in other workplaces, outside the low‐paid sectors. A recent study conducted by Aichhorn and Puck (2017b) at a multinational company, where English is the official company language, showed that many individuals use communication avoidance and withdrawal. Communication apprehension is often increased in formal situations with superior–subordinate relations. This resonates with the service sector where in many instances communication involves a customer or manager and may result in increased anxiety about using the language.