507
1 INTRODUCTION
Language training, which is defined as a combination
of lexical and grammatical knowledge, reading and
speaking skills, and the uniformity of phrases within
the framework of the Standard Marine
Communication Phrases (hereinafter – SMCPs)
developed by International Maritime Organization
(hereinafter – IMO), is typically used to describe the
issue of professional communication in the maritime
domain. Simultaneously, the logic of maritime safety
turns communication into an operational risk
management mechanism rather than an extra
competency. In addition to transmitting information,
messages on the bridge, in VHF (Very High Frequency)
communication, or when interacting with a pilot also
initiate and coordinate actions that have financial,
temporal, and potentially critical ramifications. In
mixed crews with members who speak different native
languages, English serves as a lingua franca. However,
consistent cognitive circumstances for perception,
reaction planning, and real-time message accuracy
monitoring are not guaranteed when using it as a
working language. In a psycholinguistic context, the
Developing Professional Linguistic Competence
in Multilingual Ship Crews: A Psycholinguistic Approach
V. Zheliaskov, O. Soroka, O. Kolmykova, O. Demchenko & L. Turlak
Danube Institute National University “Odesa Maritime Academy”, Izmail, Ukraine
ABSTRACT: In multilingual crews of seagoing vessels, English functions as a lingua franca, and the security of
communication depends to a large extent on the use of standardized IMO SMCPs. However, communicative
failures occur not only due to insufficient language competence but also due to psycholinguistic limitations of
speech processing under conditions of navigational load, attention switching, and stress. The purpose of the study
is to identify psycholinguistic mechanisms that increase the risk of professional communication disorders on the
bridge. The study has an integrated analytical design and is based on a secondary analysis of empirical data: the
results of surveys of seafarers on the use of SMCPs and on hull-based studies of ship-based radio
communications. To interpret the discrepancies between the normative model of communication and actual
practice, a psycholinguistic model is applied, considering three key factors: processing load, attention switching
between communication channels, and stress-induced interference. The analysis showed that the regulatory
status of SMCPs is perceived differently by seafarers depending on the communicative context: they are more
often considered mandatory in external communication, while they are seen as recommended in internal one.
Corpus data show uneven use of protocol elements: the phonetic alphabet is almost always used, while message
and exchange termination structural markers are much less used. This indicates the degradation of
metacommunicative elements under the influence of operational load. The study confirms that communicative
failures in mixed crews are due not only to language competence but also to psycholinguistic limitations of speech
activity. A model of professional language competence of seafarers is proposed, combining language repertoire,
protocol-procedural competence, and cognitive control.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 20
Number 2
June 2026
DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.02.24
508
distinction between language as knowledge and
language as operational action under load is pivotal, as
speech depends on constrained working memory,
attention, and cognitive control resources, and is
particularly affected by stress and multitasking
(Canımoğlu & Yıldırım, 2023).
The IMO rules or Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping (hereinafter – STCW)
say that people must speak English at work and stress
the need for standardizing safe phraseology for
message exchange. In maritime education, this
frequently manifests as an ESP-oriented (Enhanced
Survey Program) Maritime English course, wherein the
SMCP is portrayed as a universal solution: by
standardizing the phrase repertoire, errors will be
eradicated. However, survey data on how seafarers
actually see and use the SMCP show that there is a lot
of variation in how they understand their status and
level of obligation. In particular, Farjami’s (2024)
findings indicate differences in the perceived status of
the SMCP in external communication and onboard
communication (optional, recommended, or
mandatory). Öztürk et al. (2024) also note seafarers
interpret requirements differently, even within a
standardized system, and therefore develop their
communicative strategies differently in situations
where the cost of error is high.
Even more indicative is the gap between the
normative repertoire and the actual use of protocol
elements observed in quantitative corpus analyses and
field research on routine communication. In the
aggregated data set used in this study as a secondary
empirical basis, a full closed loop sequence (repetition
plus confirmation) is observed in only a portion of
radio messages during icebreaker operations (Boström,
2021). In a pilot corpus analysis of ship–shore and VHF
communication, a closed loop is observed in 58.9% of
cases, while certain message-structuring markers
(message markers and prowords) appear at rates of
5.8% and 3.6% respectively, despite the 100% use of the
phonetic alphabet (Jurković, 2022). These findings
suggest that the issue lies not in the presence of
standardized phrases as training material but in the
psycholinguistic conditions under which they are
selected and used. The question, therefore, is which
protocol elements remain stable under workload,
which are the first to disappear, and why this occurs
(Pauksztat, 2021).
Within the scope of this article, the research
hypothesis is formulated as follows. Communicative
failures in multilingual crews are caused not only by
insufficient English proficiency but primarily by
psycholinguistic constraints of speech processing,
including processing load, attention switching, and
stress-induced interference. These factors are not
sufficiently accounted for in current ESP and SMCP-
oriented approaches and therefore remain poorly
trained as operational skills. This theory does not
disprove the need for language competency but shifts
the emphasis to the lack of performance conditions.
The same individual may demonstrate that they are
proficient in English enough to succeed in the
classroom. However, the chance of making a mistake
goes up a lot on the bridge, where incoming signals
have to be processed, several situational parameters
have to be kept in working memory, communication
channels have to be watched, and decisions have to be
made all at once.
To elucidate the research gap, it is essential to
underscore that the SMCP as a document is neither
“deficient” nor “inadequate.” The challenge arises
from the tendency of normative and instructional
design to regard the SMCP as the primary focus of
training, whereas the psycholinguistic conditions
influencing communicative actions during stress,
workload, and concurrent process monitoring are
seldom represented as training tasks (Farjami, 2024).
Consequently, the overarching suggestion to “enhance
English teaching” is methodologically deficient. It
doesn't say which risk mechanism is being talked
about, which training tool is being used, what the
conditions are, or what the effectiveness indicator is.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research design of this study is integrated and
comprises two interrelated components. The first line
is analytical and focuses on comparing the normative
layer (IMO and STCW requirements and the SMCP
logic of “standardization”) with empirical indicators of
how SMCP and protocol elements are actually used in
practice. The second line is psycholinguistic and aims
to operationalize mechanisms of workload, attention
switching, and interference as explanatory variables
for the empirical gaps identified.
The empirical data set includes the following
components: quantitative results of a survey study on
the use of SMCP in external and onboard
communication, showing the distribution of responses
across the categories optional, recommended,
required, and mandatory. It also includes summary
statistics from corpus and field research measuring the
implementation of specific protocol elements in routine
communication, including the frequency of closed-
loop sequences as well as markers of message
completion and structuring (Boström, 2020; Jurković,
2022). A controversial section of the analysis addresses
the SMCP’s status as an official IMO training manual.
SMCPs are typically included in maritime
communication training due to their regulatory
position and the lack of formal alternatives, which
influences the impression of accountability for the use
of Parts A and B.
The study investigates psycholinguistic risk factors
using a model that combines cognitive processes and
real communicative activity. Each risk is defined by
four components: the speech processing mechanism,
the operational parameters under which it occurs (such
as load or navigation context), the manifestation as a
communication error, and the measurable indicator
(Turna & Öztürk, 2024; Liu et al., 2025). This strategy
allows you to move from broad concepts regarding
language obstacles to particular ways to teach them.
Psycholinguistic risk factors are examined here as
observable mechanisms reflected in communication
behavior rather than as abstract cognitive constructs.
The first factor, processing load, arises when speech is
integrated with radio communication and navigational
control. Communication is simplified in these
situations: full closed-loop sequences are utilized less
frequently, protocol pieces are eliminated, or
509
incomplete confirmations take place. Attention
switching between different communication channels
(VHF, internal communication, pilot instructions,
navigation monitoring) is the second factor. This can
lead to response delays, errors in repeating numerical
data, or the loss of part of the message after
interruptions. The third factor is stress-induced
interference. When time is of the essence, there is a
greater chance of merging linguistic patterns, cutting
messages short without finishing them, and deviating
from the SMCP structure.
The regulatory status of SMCP is perceived
differently by seafarers, according to research; they are
frequently seen as required in external
communications (ship-to-shore, ship-to-ship), while
they are seen as advised in internal communications.
Therefore, the research examines both the protocol's
structure and the psycholinguistic elements that
influence speakers’ decisions to adhere to or simplify
standardized communications.
3 RESULTS
Survey results show that depending on the
communication situation, SMCP's perceived
normative status varies. SMCP is necessary for contact
with individuals outside the ship (ship–shore and
ship–ship), according to 65% of respondents.
Responses on communication on board, however, are
more diverse. For many sailors, SMCP is not
necessarily necessary, but rather advised or elective.
This distribution shows that different operational
contexts have different perceptions of the need to
follow conventional phraseology. The corpus and field
data demonstrate that certain aspects of the protocol
are not consistently applied in regular communication
(Declerck & Koch, 2022). Certain elements, such as the
phonetic alphabet, appear frequently, whereas others,
such as prowords, explicit closure markers, and
message markers, appear considerably less frequently.
Closed-loop communication is also observed only in
part of the exchanges reported in the analyzed datasets.
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of responses
regarding the perceived status of SMCP in external
communication. The results indicate that a notable
proportion of seafarers do not regard standardized
phraseology as strictly mandatory, suggesting
variation in how the normative force of the protocol is
interpreted in practice.
Figure 1. SMCP’s status in external communications
Psycholinguistic analysis is particularly interested
in onboard communication since it concentrates some
of the most difficult speech production settings. These
include maneuvering under time pressure,
coordinating among bridge team members, switching
between several information channels, and carrying
out navigational tasks simultaneously. Participants in
external communication typically have a certain
distance from one another, which slows down
engagement and permits more thoughtful message
construction. However, real-time interaction and a
significantly higher exchange density occur on the
bridge. Processing load may reach critical levels in such
circumstances, and any more codified speech
requirements may be viewed as additional workload.
The distribution of answers regarding the state of
SMCP in onboard communication helps to
demonstrate if the standard becomes a theoretical
norm that is frequently disregarded in practice or
whether it continues to be an operational instrument
under the most difficult psycholinguistic
circumstances (Figure 2).
Figure 2. SMCP’s status in onboard communications
The diagram demonstrates that the SMCP status is
even less evident in onboard communication than it is
in external communication. Nearly 10% of respondents
think the standard is optional, even on the bridge, and
the percentage of responses indicating mandatory
(48%) barely surpasses suggested (41%). According to
this distribution, seafarers may favor operational
efficiency above strict adherence to defined
communication structures, making protocol usage
easier when multitasking.
The second empirical focus is on how certain
aspects of protocolization are implemented in regular
ship-to-shore and VHF communication. According to
corpus research, individual protocol markers are
substantially less common than closed-loop
communication, which happens in 58.9% of cases.
While the phonetic alphabet is regularly employed at a
rate of 100%, the marker over appears in 8.9% of cases,
message markers in 5.8%, and prowords in 3.6% of
cases (Jurković, 2022). There is an obvious asymmetry
in this design. Spelling and the phonetic alphabet are
examples of elements that are rarely lost since they are
simple to automate and clearly serve to prevent
phonetic errors. On the other hand, components like
markers, prowords, and over that call for disciplined
turn closure and meta-communicative control of
message structure tend to disappear more frequently.
The data on the actual use of individual protocol
elements helps determine which components of
standardized communication remain stable under
510
operational workload and which are the first to
deteriorate, if disparities in how SMCP status is
perceived indicate a problem with the standard's
internalization. From a psycholinguistic perspective,
this issue is central to understanding the mechanism of
communicative breakdowns. The question is whether
the problem lies in a lack of knowledge of protocol
phrases or in the fact that some protocol elements
require a level of cognitive control that cannot be
maintained under conditions of parallel tasks. The
quantitative profile of how these elements appear in
real VHF communication makes it possible to examine
whether a systematic asymmetry exists between
automated components that are easily integrated into
speech and metacommunicative components that
require conscious monitoring of message structure
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. Implementation of protocol elements in routine
ship–shore and VHF communication
The visualization reveals a clear asymmetry in the
performance profile. The phonetic alphabet is
employed 100% of the time, while elements that govern
the exchange’s meta-communicative structure, such as
message markers and over, only occur in 5.8% and
8.9% of cases, respectively. Nearly half of interactions
lack full meaning verification since only 58.9% of
exchanges employ closed-loop communication, a
critical safety feature.
This imbalance reflects variations in the cognitive
demands of protocol parts. The phonetic alphabet may
be easily automated by letter-word substitution and is
a local talent that doesn't need monitoring the entire
message structure. Conversely, markers and over- or
closed-loop communication require keeping track of
turn completion, storing crucial parameters in working
memory, and upholding the communicative objective
at the message level. Due to competition for limited
working-memory and attentional resources, these
processes are more likely to worsen as processing load
rises. Since most seafarers speak English as a second
language, additional language-processing demands
may make this risk worse in multilingual teams.
The pattern can be understood as an interaction
between two levels of control from a psycholinguistic
standpoint. The first level includes linguistic tasks such
as vocabulary formation, pronunciation, and accurate
name and number representation. The second level is
procedural and includes confirmation loop closure,
turn completion monitoring, communicative intent
marking, and message structure maintenance. Because
it depends on central control mechanisms and the
coordination of several working-memory constraints,
this level is more susceptible to degradation under
increased cognitive load.
This increases the risk that two participants believe
they have reached agreement while in fact only part of
the parameters has been aligned. In multilingual crews,
this risk becomes even greater because additional effort
is required for language processing. This is especially
evident in communication under ELF, where the speed
of decoding and the accuracy of meaning integration
depend on accent, speech rate, familiarity with certain
syntactic patterns and the frequency of language
switching in practice.
Overall, a measurable difference emerges between
how the standard is institutionally defined and how it
is internalized and carried out as a behavioral protocol.
Indicators of SMCP status (optional, recommended,
required, mandatory) point to differences in how the
normative force of the standard is perceived. The
performance profile of protocol elements in routine
communication shows a resource-related loss of
metacommunicative components. Rather than
focusing only on criticism of ESP or SMCP, it becomes
necessary to propose a training framework in which
SMCP are treated as a tool for reducing cognitive
entropy, while psycholinguistic mechanisms required
for their stable execution under workload are also
trained.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Psycholinguistic constraints on the implementation of
standardized maritime communication
The regulatory logic of maritime communication is
based on reducing ambiguity. Standard phrases are
intended to limit variation in wording and thereby
lower the risk of misinterpretation. In training practice
this principle is often simplified into the assumption
that stable reproduction of SMCP automatically
ensures safe interaction. At the same time, the
standards define mainly the objective and the basic
framework of communication rather than the
psycholinguistic conditions under which it takes place.
In the STCW competency description, adequate
knowledge of the English language relates to the
capacity to comprehend communications and
information pertaining to ship operations and safety as
well as to effectively communicate with other ships or
shore stations (International Maritime Organization,
2025). The purpose of communication and the
situations in which it is employed are described in this
description, but it does not address how stable speech
performance should be maintained under navigational
workload, where communication is no longer an
isolated language exercise but rather one task among
several concurrent activities (De Bruin et al., 2025).
Different protocol components exhibit uneven
stability in actual interaction, according to empirical
evidence from corpus data. Elements that are easily
routinized exhibit high levels of compliance in
ordinary ship-shore communication, while elements
that necessitate control over the message's
arrangement are far less common. While closed loop
confirmation only occurs in roughly half of the
documented examples, the phonetic alphabet serves as
a very constant component, and markers used to
511
indicate completion or organize the exchange occur
even less frequently (Bailey et al., 2025). Speech
production tends to become more cost-effective under
operational pressure. Procedures that require speakers
to preserve the communication plan in working
memory and keep an eye on the order of protocol
stages emerge considerably less frequently than forms
that aid in preventing phonetic misinterpretation.
At this stage, the psycholinguistic dimension
emerges as a crucial element of explanation. Central
control, content preservation and updating, and
information integration in the “episodic buffer” all
function under constrained resources that must be
divided among conflicting activities, according to
recent evaluations of the multicomponent model of
working memory (Hitch et al., 2025). The burden
increases dramatically rather than gradually when
regular operating chores on the bridge are coupled
with the requirement to decode ELF speech with accent
variations in real time and then create a response.
Instead than focusing on the message's procedural
manifestation, some of the available resources are used
to preserve the communication context and keep an
eye out for potential mistakes.
Frequent switching between languages, registers,
and communication channels is another source of
workload for mixed crews. According to
neurophysiological study, language switching
enhances the need for top-down control and is linked
to stronger brain components connected with control
and error monitoring, as well as what researchers refer
to as “switching cost” (Cui et al., 2024). Bridge officers
frequently perform multiple tasks simultaneously,
including receiving instructions, monitoring
navigational data, and producing standardized
communication. These activities compete for limited
cognitive resources and become even more demanding
under accident or collision risk, when communication,
which represents one of the most vulnerable elements
of the safety system, may deteriorate. Research by Yin
et al. (2024) and Riyanto et al. (2023), who frequently
discovered human factors in assessments of marine
occurrences, is in line with this.
When taken together, the findings suggest that poor
English competence is not the sole factor leading to
communication problems at sea. Instead, they
represent psycholinguistic limits that arise when the
operational demand mandates standardized
communication. The SMCP's effectiveness is
determined by seafarers’ capacity to retain procedural
control over message structure amid multitasking,
attention switching, and stressful operating situations,
despite the fact that it provides an organized repertory
designed to eliminate ambiguity. Confirmation loops
and message architecture, two protocol components
that require greater cognitive control, are more likely
to fail in such scenarios. This conclusion suggests that
the safety function of standardized phraseology is
determined by both the cognitive context in which the
phrases are employed and the phrases' understanding.
4.2 A psycholinguistic model of professional language
competence for seafarers in mixed crews
The proposed concept defines professional language
competence in multilingual crews as the ability to
perform communication activities safely within
stressful, multitasking, and ELF interaction settings.
This technique emphasizes the consistency of speech
performance in operational circumstances, as opposed
to traditional training, which emphasizes vocabulary,
syntax, and the reproduction of standard phrases. The
model includes three components that are affected by
workload and stress: language repertoire, procedural-
protocol competence, and cognitive control resources
such as switching, inhibition, and mistake detection.
This approach helps to explain why persons who have
significant English ability in classroom settings may
perform inconsistently in real-world navigational
circumstances. The model’s components are connected
to observable indicators that can be used as criteria
during simulator-based training for educational
purposes. The model’s structure and instances of
indicators that can be used to gauge learning progress
are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Elements of the psycholinguistic model of
operational indicators and professional language
proficiency
Model component
Operational indicators in
simulation and training
Linguistic
Repertoire (ELF or
Maritime English)
Reduction of clarification
requests, accuracy in
repeating numbers,
courses and distances,
and a decrease in
semantic shifts in
message relay
Procedural-
Protocol
Competence
(SMCP, closed-loop
communication)
Proportion of closed-loop
communication in
messages; stability of
structural markers;
compliance with protocol
steps under time pressure
Cognitive Control
Resource
(switching,
inhibition,
monitoring)
Decreased error rates
under switching
situations, stable accuracy
during extra navigational
tasks, fewer protocol
failures, and shorter
response times during
channel switching.
Stress-Induced
Modulation
(interference)
Maintaining message
structure under time
constraints; less
condensed responses
without confirmation;
protocol stability in
collision risk
circumstances.
Table 1 shows that SMCP competency is redefined
rather than abandoned in this approach. Although the
standardized repertoire is thought to be a strategy for
lowering cognitive entropy, it only works when
trained control is present under workload. The focus of
schooling changes as a result. The goal is now to
replicate sentences as action with a specified structure,
temporal profile, and quantifiable safety criterion
rather than as text.
Instead of being offered as a substitute for current
standards, the application of this approach in maritime
academies should be connected to current courses and
competency criteria. A convenient starting point for
integrating a psycholinguistic viewpoint into lesson
design is provided by the fact that IMO Model Course
3.17 already included simulation of VHF
512
communication for distress and urgency signals
among the anticipated training activities (International
Maritime Organization, 2015). Programs can modify
the training approach while still adhering to current
standards thanks to this integration. In addition to
language output, simulation should be used to develop
the stability of protocol performance under cognitive
stress, including attention switching, situational
parameter maintenance in working memory, and error
monitoring.
4.3 Training implications of psycholinguistic model
Multilingual crews and the possibility of
misunderstandings with possibly hazardous outcomes
are the reasons for the need for standardization
(International Maritime Organization, 2001).
Secondary study of empirical data reveals that certain
protocol aspects are more stable in normal ship-shore
interactions, while others are less common. According
to corpus research, the phonetic alphabet is constantly
used in ship communication, however message
markers are used extremely infrequently (Jurković,
2022). These findings suggest that training should not
be framed simply as vocabulary expansion but as the
development of stable procedures for performing
communicative actions under navigational workload,
when attention and control resources are limited.
IMO Model Course 3.17 includes VHF
communication simulations as part of training in
message comprehension, accurate recording of critical
details and correct reporting of messages at different
levels of complexity (International Maritime
Organization, 2015). This element of the course makes
it possible to introduce psycholinguistic components
into a standard ESP and SMCP program without
changing the regulatory framework, while shifting the
internal logic of training. The phrase is no longer
practiced as a piece of text to be reproduced but as an
action carried out under time pressure, with switching
between communication channels and with the closed
loop maintained as a safety mechanism.
Table 2 presents a generalized training framework
that can be integrated into simulator-based sessions or
classroom activities with VHF role-play scenarios
when a simulator is not available. Each module
indicates which psycholinguistic mechanism is being
trained, which protocol-related outcome is expected,
and how it can be quantitatively recorded in the
assessment.
The proposed framework does not challenge the
SMCP and does not place psycholinguistics outside the
existing standards. On the contrary, it considers
standardization a tool for reducing cognitive entropy.
At the same time, it introduces what is often missing
from typical ESP/SMCP courses: systematic training of
cognitive control under load expressed through
measurable procedural indicators. For this reason,
assessment within this approach becomes meaningful
not when a student merely “knows the phrase”, but
when they are able to perform the protocol consistently
in situations of attention switching without losing
critical message parameters.
Table 2. Psycholinguistically Oriented Training Framework
(connection between SMCP and control mechanisms under
operational load)
Training
module
Psycholinguis
tic objective
Operational
training
task
Quantitative
outcome criterion
Regulatory
reference
1. SMCP
as a “
safety
procedur
e”
rather
than a “
text”
Reduction of
processing
load through
structural
standardizati
on
Practicing
standard
VHF
exchanges
using fixed
steps:
contact →
working
channel →
message →
confirmatio
n →
closing
Proportion of
complete exchange
cycles; proportion
of correct closings
SMCP:
requiremen
t for
accuracy
and clarity
(Internation
al Maritime
Organizatio
n, 2001)
2. Closed-
loop as a
core
safety
mechanis
m
Working
memory
support for
retaining
message
parameters
and error
monitoring
Repeating
key
parameters
(course,
distance,
time) with
explicit
confirmatio
n by the
addressee
Proportion of
messages with a
complete closed-
loop; proportion of
correct readbacks
Empirical
vulnerabilit
y of the
protocol:
uneven use
of elements
in routine
SSC
(Jurković,
2022)
3.
Attention
switching
between
channels
(bridge,
VHF,
pilot)
Training
attention
switching
without loss
of meaning
Scenario
with
controlled
interruptio
ns: channel
change,
new
instruction,
parallel
task
Response delay;
number of
meaning losses;
proportion of
omitted protocol
steps
STCW:
ability to
understand
and
communica
te safety-
related
information
in English
during
operations
(Internation
al Maritime
Organizatio
n, 2015)
4. Stress
and time
pressure
Prevention of
stress-
induced
interference
Short
“emergency
windows”
in the
scenario
(collision
risk / time
pressure)
requiring
protocol
compliance
Change in the
proportion of
closed-loop
exchanges under
pressure;
increase/decrease
in missed
confirmations
Human
factor in
maritime
incidents
(Hatlas-
Sowinska &
Wielgosz,
2022;
Nævestad
et al., 2023)
5. ELF
variabilit
y (accent
and
speech
rate)
Reducing
interference
through
training of
cognitive
control and
monitoring
VHF audio
segments
with
variable
accents;
tasks for
accurate
recording
and
reproductio
n of
parameters
Accuracy of
recording
numbers/coordinat
es; number of
clarification
requests;
proportion of
errors in critical
parameters
SMCP as a
shared code
for
multilingua
l crews
(Internation
al Maritime
Organizatio
n, 2001)
According to Hatlas-Sowinska and Wielgosz (2022),
the percentage of marine events related to human error
varied significantly between 2019 and 2022. This
variability supports the notion that safety depends on
both performance circumstances and knowledge. As a
result, it's critical to examine SMCP usage and protocol
513
elements in light of operational communication
concerns. Communication failures that might directly
result in problems or delay timely corrective action
include inaccurate parameter transfer and missed
confirmations. Longitudinal trends in human-error
statistics provide an essential measure of safety
stability in operating environments characterized by
workload, stress, and time restrictions (Gabedava &
Hu, 2025; Yin et al., 2025).
Figure 4. Human errors as the causes of maritime incidents
Figure 4 shows that, although its percentage varies,
human error continues to be a significant contributing
factor in maritime accidents. This variance suggests
that, in addition to training, the operational conditions
under which activities are carried out influence safety
outcomes. Increased operating strain and uncertainty
may have contributed to the very high level seen in
2021 (71.4%). Cognitive resources are depleted more
quickly in instances of increased workload,
unpredictable schedules, reduced personnel
availability, or external interruptions, increasing the
probability of errors in a variety of operational areas,
including communication.
These findings indicate that language education
cannot be limited to steady classroom environments.
The capacity to maintain protocol performance despite
time limits, stress, and task switching should be
considered when evaluating competency. As a result,
training components dealing with stress exposure and
attention switching should be seen as essential rather
than optional components of professional
development. As a result, enhancing communication
safety requires more than simply improving English
proficiency; it also requires integrating language
training with cognitive training that considers
communication as an operational activity with limited
cognitive resources (Zhou & Jiang, 2023). The risk
typology presented in Table 3 reflects this approach by
linking psycholinguistic mechanisms with observable
communication failures.
Risk in mixed crews frequently results from
circumstances when communication must function as
a procedure under workload, rather than only from a
lack of English. Because of this, SMCP cannot be
viewed as a one-size-fits-all solution that eliminates
communication errors. Evidence from a review
research demonstrates that depending on the situation,
practitioners' perceptions of the standard's status also
differ. This variation raises the possibility of
interference and meaning-related errors and has an
impact on how consistently the protocol is followed
(Farjami, 2024).
Table 3. Typology of psycholinguistic risks in bridge team
communication in mixed crews
Risk type
Psycholingui
stic
mechanism
Typical
communicative
manifestation
Empirical
indicator in
the data
Training
countermeas
ure
R1.
Protocol
erosion
under
load
Processing
load and task
competition
Omission of
structure
markers;
shortened
responses
without turn
completion
Low
proportion
of message
markers in
ship
communicat
ion
(Jurković,
2022)
Automation
of the VHF
exchange
structure as a
procedure;
training of a
“minimal
safety step
set”
R2.
Closed-
loop
breakdo
wn
Working
memory
limitations
and reduced
monitoring
Repetition
without
confirmation or
confirmation
without accurate
repetition
Uneven
distribution
of closed-
loop across
message
types
(Jurković,
2022); low
proportion
of the ideal
cycle in
ship-to-ship
communicat
ion
(Boström,
2020)
Training
readback as
a core safety
mechanism;
assessment
of the
proportion
of complete
cycles
R3.
Channel
switching
with loss
of
meaning
attention
switching
and
switching
cost
Response delays;
addressee shift;
errors in
parameter
reconstruction
Increased
need for top-
down
control
during
errors or
switching
(Cui et al.,
2024)
Scenarios
with
controlled
interruptions
; training
retention of
key
parameters
R4.
Stress-
induced
interferen
ce
stress-
induced
interference
Mixing of
templates;
increased
ambiguity;
omission of
protocol closing
Context of
the high
contribution
of the
human
factor to
incident
causes
(Hatlas-
Sowinska &
Wielgosz,
2022)
Short “stress
windows” in
the
simulation;
monitoring
protocol
stability
under
pressure
R5. ELF
variabilit
y and
interling
ual
interferen
ce
L1/L2
competition
and conflict
control
Increase in
clarification
requests; errors in
numbers/coordin
ates; ambiguous
formulations
Different
status of the
SMCP
among
practitioners
as an
indicator of
uneven
internalizati
on of the
standard
(Farjami,
2024)
Training
accurate
decoding of
critical
parameters
with
different
accents;
standardizati
on of
“critical
slots” in the
message
5 CONCLUSION
The article demonstrates that even in situations where
English serves as the primary working language,
professional communication safety in mixed crews
cannot be reduced to the general level of English
competence. Secondary investigation of empirical data
514
reveals that actual ship-shore communication protocol
components are executed in an unequal manner. While
parts that call for metacommunicative control of
message structure are far less common, some
components stay largely unchanged. Additionally, the
data demonstrates that practitioners understand the
standard's status differently even within an SMCP-
oriented approach. The consistency with which the
protocol is applied in practice is affected by this
variation. All things considered, the results validate the
hypothesis. In addition to lexical or grammatical limits,
psycholinguistic constraints of speech processing
under workload, attention switching, and stress-
induced interference are the main causes of
communicative failures in mixed crews.
The study creates a psycholinguistic model of the
professional language proficiency of seafarers.
According to this concept, competence is defined as the
combination of language repertoire, procedural-
protocol competence, and cognitive control influenced
by workload and stress. A training structure that can
be included into maritime education without deviating
from current norms is also suggested in the article. The
SMCP is still the standard communication code, but in
accordance with the tools outlined in IMO Model
Course 3.17, training is extended to cover attention
management, control procedures, and the stability of
protocol performance during VHF communication
simulations. This strategy also complies with the
STCW's mandate that officers communicate safely and
navigatively in English.
There are a number of limitations to this study. The
empirical material is secondary and depends on
information gathered using various techniques and in
different circumstances. Because of this, more testing
in a simulator-based quasi-experiment carried out
within a particular maritime education institution is
necessary for the suggested model and training
framework. Time pressure, channel switching, and
task variety might all be controlled with such a setup.
Additionally, it would enable the recording of closed-
loop performance, the accuracy of crucial message
parameters, and the use of message markers. However,
there is methodological justification for this article's
initial use of secondary data. It facilitates the
establishment of operational metrics that may
subsequently be investigated in primary experimental
research and aids in connecting the normative design
of communication standards to the real behavior of
speakers.
REFERENCES
Amundsen, I., & Noble, H. (2025). Are you simulator ready?
A study of maritime communication competence for
simulation-based learning. WMU Journal of Maritime
Affairs, 24, 363-379. .https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-025-
00376-7
Bailey, N., Winchester, N., & Ellis, N. (2025). What is your
intention? Tacit knowledge and community-based
learning for collision avoidance in the global maritime
industry. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,
77(2), 343-363.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2023.2213685
Boström, M. (2020). Mind the gap! A quantitative comparison
between of ship-to-ship communication with and the
intended communication protocol. Safety Science, 123,
104567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104567
10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104564.
Boström, M. (2021). Other-initiated repair as an indicator of
critical communication in ship-to-ship interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics, 174, 78-92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.007
Canımoğlu, R., & Yıldırım, U. (2023). Cultural diversity
onboard: A study about crew characteristics. Journal of
Marine and Engineering Technology, 3(1), 14-19.
https://doi.org/10.58771/joinmet.1295372
Cui, NY., Piai, V., & Zheng, X. (2024). Domain-general
cognitive control processes in bilingual switching:
Evidence from midfrontal theta oscillations. European
Journal of Neuroscience, 60(5), 4813-4829.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16466
De Bruin, A., Liu, C., Trenkic, D., & Coumel, M. (2025).
Bilingual language control during single-language
production: does relocation to a new linguistic
environment change it? Royal Society Open Science,
12(2), 241071. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241071
Declerck, M., & Koch, I. (2022). The concept of inhibition in
bilingual control. Psychological Review, 130(4), 953-976.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/rev0000367
Farjami, M. (2024). Wrong use of SMCP in marine
communication: A review study. Seatific Journal, 4(2), 88-
99. https://doi.org/10.29187/2792-0771.1028 .
Gabedava, G., & Hu, Y. (2025). Enhancing maritime safety
through linguistic analysis: a case study of
communication failures in maritime accidents. WMU
Journal of Maritime Affairs 24, 347-361.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-025-00371-y
Hatlas-Sowinska, P., & Wielgosz, M. (2022). Ontology based
approach in solving collision situations at sea. Ocean
Engineering, 260, 111941.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111941
Hitch, G. J., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2025). The
multicomponent model of working memory fifty years
on. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2),
222-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241290909
International Maritime Organization. (2001). Resolution
A.918(22): Adoption of the Standard Marine
Communication Phrases. Retrieved from
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Sa
fety/Documents/A.918(22).pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2015). IMO Model
Course 3.17: Maritime English. Retrieved from
https://www.amnautical.com/products/maritime-
english-2009-edition-model-course-3-
17?srsltid=AfmBOor5vwXcLgEa06PKcU17OvGh5VvXg
NWYVnJtUgKCMdus-dTk62I1
International Maritime Organization. (2025). International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Retrieved from
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/publications/
Documents/Supplements/English/QQQQD938E_supple
ment_January2025_PQ.pdf
Jurkovič, V. (2022). Authentic routine ship-shore
communication in the Northern Adriatic Sea area – A
corpus analysis of discourse features. English for Specific
Purposes, 68, 47-59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.06.002
Liu, L., Khan, R. U., Afzaal, M., & Asad, M. (2025). A corpus-
based quantitative risk assessment of language barriers in
maritime safety. Maritime Policy & Management, 1-35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2025.2507218
Nævestad, T. O., Størkersen, K. V., Laiou, A., Yannis, G., &
Michelaraki, E. (2023). Potential safety outcomes of
communication difficulties in mixed nationality crews: A
study of Greek and Norwegian vessels. Transportation
Research Procedia, 72, 2904-2911.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.836
Öztürk, O. B., Kartal, Ş. E., & Aydin, M. (2024). Investigating
the influence of human errors in master-pilot information
exchange on maritime accident risk during pilotage.
515
Ocean Engineering, 305(3), 118051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.118051
Pauksztat, B. (2021). Informal relations and communication
about work-related problems in two multilingual crews.
Marine Policy, 130, 103767.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103767
Riyanto, B., Nurmala, E., Agustina, I., & Maidari, S. R. (2023).
Indonesian seafarers’ intercultural communication
challenges with multinational crews. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 23(1), 76-
81.https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v23i1.92
Turna, I., & Öztürk, O.B. (2024). Exploring communication
barriers in bridge-teams: An innovative fuzzy-bayesian
approach. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, 13(3),
199-214. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.1509128
Yin, J., Khan, R. U., Afzaal, M., Almalki, H. M., Khasawneh,
M. A. S., & Sulaie, S. A. (2025) Quantitative risk
assessment of speech acts and lexical factors in maritime
communication failures and accidents. Safety Science,
191, 106968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106968
Yin, J., Khan, R.U., Afzaal, M., Nawaz, R., Shanshan, X., &
Jamal, A. (2024). A fuzzy Bayesian quantitative risk
assessment for language and communication induced
accidents in maritime operations. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 259, 107449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107449
Zhou, H., & Jiang, F. K. (2023). ‘The study has clear
limitations’: Presentation of limitations in conclusion
sections of PhD dissertations and research articles in
applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 34-
47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.001