769
1 INTRODUCTION
The maritime industry remains, and will likely
continue to be, one of the most internationalized
sectors of the global economy in the current century,
and its role in global trade and logistics continues to
grow (United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, 2023). At the same time, international
shipping has become a site of intense intercultural
interaction. Ships have become mobile organizations
consisting of crews from various nationalities and
speaking different languages. Professional contacts
between crew members play a crucial role in ensuring
the safety of ships. Large-scale technological and
regulatory innovations, the digitalization of
international shipping, improvements in crew training,
and provisions of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
for Seafarers (STCW) have given a new impetus to the
requirements for the linguistic and intercultural
competencies of seafarers (International Maritime
Organization, 1978, 2022; United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development, 2023). A review of recent
studies from 2019 to 2025 revealed that English was a
lingua franca in international shipping, but its role in
practical communication was ambiguous. On one
hand, there was a unified exchange of messages, which
may have been facilitated by standardized professional
language. On the other hand, studies revealed that
lexical-grammatical training did not eliminate practical
problems of misunderstanding in real-life conditions
on the bridge and in the engine room (Tenieshvili,
2021).
From a historical point of view, maritime
communication has developed in an environment of
continuous intercultural communication, which is a
Maritime Sector as a Space for Intercultural Interaction:
Historical and Sociolinguistic Factors Shaping
Professional Communication
N. Moroshan, O. Tymofyeyeva, I. Tatarko & S. Chyzh
Danube Institute National University “Odesa Maritime Academy”, Izmail, Ukraine
ABSTRACT: This study provides an interdisciplinary analysis of the maritime industry as a background for
intercultural communication and professional communicative competence. The rationale for this study is based
on the context of globalization, the increase in multinational crews, and the increasing significance of the human
factor in navigation safety. In fact, although standardized language procedures are in place according to
regulations such as the STCW Convention and Standard Marine Communication Phrases, communication is a
major cause of incidents. The study provides for a historical-comparative, sociolinguistic, and discourse analysis
of IMO documents and case studies of communication-related accidents. It provides for a three-level model of
maritime communicative competence: historical, linguistic, and social. The findings of the study reveal that
communicative competence is affected by factors such as globalization, the lingua franca effect of the English
language, hierarchical structures, and cultural differences. It provides a framework for understanding maritime
communicative competence and its implications for maritime education and English language training.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 20
Number 3
September 2026
DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.03.23
770
distinctive feature of maritime professional culture. In
contrast to the majority of other professional fields,
maritime activity has been a transnational
phenomenon since the early days of seafaring, uniting
people of different linguistic and cultural traditions. In
such a setting, the communication patterns of sailors
have evolved into a flexible system of communication,
utilizing not only verbal means of information
exchange but also nonverbal cues and professional
symbolism. It is precisely this historical specificity of
the maritime environment that contributed to the
formation of a unique type of professional discourse,
which combines linguistic, organizational, and cultural
elements of interaction (An et al., 2022).
However, contemporary research in this area
reveals that the effectiveness of communication in
multinational crews is likewise subject to influence by
other sociocultural factors, such as cultural models of
communication, hierarchical structures, and
organizational culture in the crew. The findings of
empirical research in the field of maritime safety also
support the view that language difficulties, differences
in understanding professional roles, and differences in
understanding authority are significant factors in the
process of information transfer in critical situations. In
this context, communication difficulties in
multinational crews are seen as a significant expression
of the human factor that could influence safety in
maritime navigation (Veltsin et al., 2025; Pauksztat,
2021; Xi et al., 2025).
The historical development of maritime
communication is linked to intensive cultural
exchanges between different civilizations. For instance,
as early as the Age of Discovery in the 15th-17th
centuries, maritime expeditions involved people of
diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and this
gave rise to the requirement for simplified forms of
mutual understanding. In many cases, communication
occurred in the form of professional jargon, simplified
linguistic structures, and features of what may be
referred to as maritime lingua francas. In the
Mediterranean, Lingua Franca Mediterranea, also
referred to as Sabir, was commonly used. This
language is a mix of Italian, Spanish, and Arabic and
has been widely used as a means of universal
communication among sailors, traders, and workers in
Mediterranean ports. (Tenieshvili, 2021; Riyanto et al.,
2023). Historical experience in seafaring has shown
that the form of professional communication in
maritime activities has a distinctly intercultural
character and has evolved as a flexible form of
interaction between diverse linguistic and cultural
traditions. It is this historical tradition that has become
the foundation for the emergence of the modern form
of Maritime English and standardized forms of
professional phraseology in global maritime
communication. (Xi et al., 2025).
Effective communication on board depended on
knowledge of specialized phrases, as well as on
adapting language to the intercultural context. Human
factors research has highlighted the importance of
communication breakdowns in incidents and
accidents. In 2019-2020, the team confirmed that low
levels of understanding, a lack of clarifying questions,
and behind-the-scenes communication patterns led to
increased risk on board, even when formal procedures
were in place (Teperi et al., 2018). These studies
confirmed that the STCW and the Standard Maritime
Communication Phrases (SMCP) were a necessary but
not sufficient condition for effective professional
communication. The modern maritime industry is
under pressure from a highly globalized economy
driven by labor mobility and more complex operations
(United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, 2023), and professional maritime
communication is one of the key factors in ship safety.
The rise of multinational crews, the digitization of
navigation systems, and a significant increase in crew
workload require that information exchange and crew
productivity in coordinating actions during critical
situations reach new levels.
Recent studies show that human and
communication practices directly contribute to an
increased risk of incidents and accidents (Farjami, 2025;
Misztal & Hatlas-Sowinska, 2025). Communication
effectiveness may also be adversely affected by fatigue
and long hours of work, leading to misunderstandings
and delays in carrying out orders (Lasmoles, 2025). On
the other hand, safety culture and strategies for crew
resource management affect openness to
communication and openness to feedback (Veltsin et
al., 2025). The aspect of professional communication in
the workplace is very important in modern times,
especially in the maritime industry, as most crew
members come from diverse cultures. It was revealed
in various studies that communication effectiveness
may be affected by the perception of “risk,” hierarchy,
and authority, as well as the reliability of subordinates
in clarifying and supporting their requests (Pauksztat,
2021; Khan et al., 2026). The process of communication
in global teams occurs at the daily level between formal
processes and social interactions at the informal level
(Gekara & Sampson, 2020; Riyanto et al., 2023).
Studies on maritime accidents revealed that
communication failures, misunderstandings, and
cultural ignorance may be major contributory factors to
maritime accidents (Gabedava & Hu, 2025). Today,
there are several regulatory frameworks, including
standard phrases for maritime communication
(International Maritime Organization, 2001) and the
requirements of the STCW, as well as strategic
programs for human factor development
(International Maritime Organization, 1978, 2022,
2025). Experience shows that seafarers require
intercultural training, digital learning tools, and
creative approaches to develop their communication
skills (Türkistanli, 2024; Heering, 2025; Simanjuntak et
al., 2025).
Modern maritime professional communication is
increasingly defined as a complex socio-technical
system, and linguistic, cultural, and organizational
elements contribute to a safe working environment
(Gekara & Sampson, 2020; An et al., 2022; Xi et al.,
2025). The overall crew structure and social elements
have likewise proven to be very important. It has been
observed that differences in cultural backgrounds, how
people perceive hierarchy, their willingness to
disregard orders or report errors, as well as different
approaches to shared responsibility, influence
seafarers’ communication (Veltsin et al., 2025).
Traditional approaches to language teaching, which
have focused on explaining vocabulary and grammar,
should be supplemented with teaching methods
designed to develop critical thinking skills, encourage
771
active communication, and teach people to be sensitive
to cross-cultural differences (Guo et al., 2026).
Concerning the regulatory context, the IMO report
and the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development analysis for the period 2020-2023
emphasize the need to develop training programs for
workers that address the human factor and
intercultural risks (International Maritime
Organization, 2022; United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development, 2023). This led to research
projects from 2019 to 2024 incorporating accident
analysis into their studies. Discursive analysis of
bridge communications was integrated into research
and the development of educational programs focused
on professional communication and communication
skills (Tenieshvili, 2021). However, a review of
literature from 2019-2025 showed that there are still a
few critical gaps to be filled in this field of research.
Firstly, there was a lack of comprehensive
interdisciplinary models that integrated the historical
development of maritime professional communication
with current linguistic and social contexts. Secondly,
there was a lack of research that integrated qualitative
interviews with seafarers, correlational research of
incidents, and quantitative research of practical errors.
Thirdly, such risks of intercultural communication
must be clearly articulated in any training programs
and guidelines.
In this context, the purpose of the current study was
to investigate the historical, linguistic, and social
factors affecting the development of professional
communication in the maritime industry and to
propose a conceptual model for the interplay between
these factors in line with the existing challenges and
regulations in the industry (International Maritime
Organization, 2022; United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development, 2023). This purpose was
derived from the identification of the research gap in
the development of a safe and efficient maritime
system and the needs of the industry.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
From the point of view of cultural studies, the maritime
space has been traditionally seen as a zone of high
levels of intercultural interaction. The historians of
maritime culture note that the culture of mariners has
been a professional subculture with elements of
national traditions, professional culture, and symbolic
practices. In this subculture, specific forms of
communication were created on the basis of the
principles of efficiency, clarity, and hierarchical
coordination. In the culture of mariners, specific forms
of communication were created: maritime signal flags,
semaphore, and professional phraseology. In this
regard, the system of Maritime English and SMCP can
be seen as a product of the historical development of
professional maritime culture.
In modern scientific research, maritime
communication is considered a sophisticated socio-
technical system in which various linguistic, cultural,
and organizational elements interact with one another.
This understanding is based on the notion of a
globalized production environment of maritime
transportation, in which the efficiency of professional
communication is influenced not only by technical
regulations but also by the social and communicative
competencies of seafarers (Gekara & Sampson, 2020;
An et al., 2022). Within this understanding, a
considerable volume of modern scientific research is
concerned with the functions of Maritime English in a
globalized maritime transportation system, in which
English acts as a working lingua franca of international
maritime communication. From an empirical
perspective, it is evident that the efficiency of
professional communication is to a great extent
influenced by the ability of seafarers to apply the
standardized phraseology of Standard Marine
Communication Phrases in realistic working
conditions of maritime navigation and management
(Tenieshvili, 2021).
At the same time, it is emphasized in modern
literature that knowledge of standardized phrases is
insufficient for ensuring effective communication in a
multinational professional environment. An
examination of actual communication practices on
board vessels shows considerable deviations from
normative speech patterns, such as the use of
simplified varieties of English, code-switching
between languages spoken by crew members, and the
contextual adaptation of standard phrases to the actual
situation. These phenomena are associated with
various levels of linguistic proficiency, cultural factors,
and the nature of professional communication in a
multicultural crew setting (Pauksztat, 2021).
The results of the systematic reviews of the current
literature similarly indicate that, in addition to the
language proficiency of the personnel on board, the
key elements of effective communication on a vessel
include the intercultural competence of the personnel
and the capability to establish a closed-loop
communication process, i.e., confirming the receipt
and understanding of the command. The lack of proper
attention to these issues can result in communication
failures, delays in executing the operations, and an
increased risk of maritime incidents, as demonstrated
by numerous scientific papers on the human factor in
maritime activities (Xi et al., 2025).
Studies of professional communication in the
maritime sector have examined the use of English as a
lingua franca of shipping, the impact of multinational
crews on comprehension and safety, regulations
governing language teaching and learning, and social
aspects (hierarchy, cultural norms, gender differences).
An analysis of the current literature revealed
documented scientific findings and gaps. First, several
studies have highlighted the presence of English as an
operational lingua franca in onboard communications
and the situation from a practical application
perspective. James et al. (2018) conceptualized English
as a lingua franca as functional rather than “standard”
English, as is typically the case in maritime settings.
More recent research has confirmed that formal
knowledge of English (certificates) does not necessarily
lead to effective communication in authentic contexts
(Tenieshvili, 2021). The real-world implication is that
crew language competence is multidimensional
(SMCP vocabulary, pragmatics, accent/intelligibility),
not merely grammatical.
Second, the link between communication barriers
and safety has been well documented through accident
772
case studies, incident reviews, statistical analyses, and
other methods. Language misunderstandings,
misinterpretations, and ineffective communication
may result in incidents or accidents. More specifically,
the importance of human factors research has been
emphasized with regard to the fact that languages
cannot be implemented in isolation and need cultural
and organizational integration for effective
implementation (International Maritime Organization,
2022). Third, there is a plethora of literature on training
methods (Maritime English training, simulation-based
training) that has clearly shown the effectiveness of
combining language training with scenario-based
simulators, the importance of genre-functional
training, and the need for SMCP in practical training.
However, quasi-experimental and RCT studies based
on real-life maritime conditions have been scarce.
Fourth, sociolinguistic studies have demonstrated
that hierarchical structures, cultural differences, and
gender factors contribute to the willingness to
communicate and other behavioral factors among crew
members. For example, in a multinational crew, junior
or less trained crew members might be reluctant to
pose more questions due to fear of losing face or even
being subject to punishment, as suggested in the
interviews and ethnographic studies conducted by
Narayanan et al. (2023). Other issues regarding gender
integration and language marginalization were raised
as well. Fifth, regulatory texts were examined several
times. Some observers praised the standardization
process, acknowledging that regulatory requirements
sometimes did not lead to effectiveness in practice.
Moreover, other studies emphasized the need to
update methods for testing communicative
competence with real-world work tasks (Pavlovskyi et
al., 2024).
One of the trends that has been particularly evident
in recent years is the emphasis on digital media and
distance communication (i.e., e-learning, online
learning, and VTS), a practice that has to some extent
overcome the limitations of in-person training and
raised new questions about the interactivity and
effectiveness of intercultural communication training
(United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, 2023). A critical analysis of the major
academic publications in the field of professional
communication in the maritime industry has revealed
a number of conceptual and methodological gaps that
still need to be addressed despite significant advances
in this field of research. First and foremost, various
aspects of professional communication in the maritime
sector (linguistic, normative, or social) have been
analyzed in isolation from each other, but this has not
resulted in a comprehensive and operationalized
approach that includes historical backgrounds,
linguistic practices, and mechanisms of social
interaction in a single analytical matrix.
Research on English as a lingua franca and research
on maritime English (Tenieshvili, 2021) have been
based primarily on language training and
standardization (SMCP). In contrast, studies on human
factors and safety (Teperi et al., 2018) have focused on
behavioral and organizational aspects. At the same
time, the literature has not proposed a structured
method by which these levels of analysis could be
linked to one another to quantitatively relate language
measures to social variables and the history of industry
transformations. The second research gap involves a
lack of empirical work in real-world work
environments. Many of the findings were based on
accident case studies, document analysis, and
laboratory simulations (Teperi et al., 2018). These
methods were useful for identifying common
communication errors, but did not include field data
from multinational crews located in different parts of
the world. There were too few samples in ethnographic
and interview studies (Narayanan et al., 2023), and
these studies had limitations that prevented the
transfer of findings to other international settings.
Further work of this kind requires an expanded
empirical base through more thorough
interdisciplinary research, both quantitative and
qualitative. A third limitation lay in the ambiguous
nature of the quantitative operationalization of
communication risks. Although scientific studies have
provided evidence that communication barriers are a
significant factor in maritime safety, they have rarely
used standards to assess “communicative
effectiveness” on board. Measures of
misunderstandings, the number of clarifying
questions, the time taken to respond to a command, or
the link between language errors and accidents were
not sufficiently systematized. The lack of standardized
assessment tools has limited the application of research
findings in maritime education and training. A fourth
gap was that the consideration of changes in maritime
English programs in the context of digitalization and
the growing multiculturalism of crews was limited.
Recent studies (Misas et al., 2024; Dei et al., 2024; Dei,
2025) may emphasize the need for distance learning
tools, simulation tools, and computer communication
systems for this purpose, but the need for the
integration of digital technologies with intercultural
education may still be a real challenge. An analysis of
the reports and the materials from the IMO suggested
that the regulatory changes may not have been
matched with the adaptation of methodology in the
educational schemes.
The literature review provided a good foundation
for the theoretical implications of language barriers,
social factors, and regulations in the maritime industry;
however, it has not yet suggested a comprehensive
integrative approach to the problem. There was a need
for a clear approach to the development of a unified
and operationalized approach that would incorporate
historical, linguistic, and social factors, and the
development of quantitative measures for the
calculation of the risk of communication and the
validation of the same in the field. This is exactly the
aim that the study aimed to fulfill by developing an
integrated conceptual approach to the communication
of professionals in the maritime industry and the
development of tools for the same.
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research was interdisciplinary in nature, involving
historical-comparative, sociolinguistic, discourse-
analytical, and normative-analytical research
perspectives. The research method was used to carry
out more comprehensive research on professional
communication in the maritime industry as a multi-
level system in which historical contexts, linguistic
773
practices, and social factors may be interrelated. This
research method was three-tiered, involving an
interconnection of analytical approaches: a historical
normative analysis of the evolution of the international
maritime environment, an empirical analysis of
multinational communication, and an analysis of cases
in which communication difficulties were a serious
threat. This enabled its application at various levels of
analytical research: the macro-level, which relates to
globalization processes and the creation of an
international normative framework, the meso-level,
which relates to crew organization and role allocation,
and finally, the micro-level, which relates to linguistic
interactions in professional contexts. Due to the
complexity of this research, it was possible to integrate
the creation of maritime professional communication
as a systemic intercultural phenomenon.
The data set of this research was based on the
principle of multilevel representativeness and
comprised four data sets, which had been collected
with a focus on ensuring the coherence of normative,
empirical, analytical, and discursive aspects. This
allowed for an investigation of professional
communication in a multifaceted manner in the
maritime sphere, from institutional regulations to
actual interaction behaviors and high-risk situations.
The first set of modules comprised several global
regulatory documents, which provided a legal
framework for professional communication standards
in the sphere of shipping globally. This included an
investigation of the STCW and its regulations, as
updated by the Manila Amendments, Standard Marine
Communication Phrases, Human Factors reports by
the International Maritime Organization (2025), and
analytical reviews by the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (2023). This provided an
understanding of the level of formalization of
communication standards, the level of
institutionalization of English as a lingua franca, and
the importance of intercultural phenomena in the
formation of international standards.
The second section of this research included
empirical data, which was collected by conducting
semi-structured interviews with seafarers, deck
officers, marine engineers, and cadets from a
multinational crew. A total of 42 interviews were
conducted, and in addition to this, 18 interviews with
cadets from maritime academies during different
stages of their professional preparation, and a total of
12 interviews with instructors of the “Maritime
English” course, were conducted. It is worth noting
that the sample was developed based on purposeful
stratified sampling and snowball sampling, which
were designed to compare practices, educational
interests, and pedagogical approaches to
communication challenges. The sample was based on
certain criteria, such as working in a multinational
crew for ≥ 1 voyage, competency level verification,
and participation in navigation or engine operation,
and the results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of respondents
Group
n
Average duration of
service (years)
Type of fleet
STCW level
Officers
42
11.4
Tanker/Bulk/Container
OOW/Chief
Cadets
18
0.8
Mixed fleet
Cadet
Teachers
12
14.2
Maritime Academies
Assessor
Source: data from the interviews.
The interviews provided information about
individuals’ styles of communication, personal
experiences of language barriers, the role of
hierarchical models of interaction, and elements of
intercultural adaptation. The third part included
materials about cases of accidents and incidents. There
were 15 studies of cases of maritime incidents from
2005 to 2022, in which communication was one of the
main factors. The materials were based on reports from
the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) or
similar reports from national authorities. Reading such
materials enables one to reconstruct the
communication process preceding the accident, such
as, for example, behavioral patterns related to a failure
to acknowledge receipt of a command, a lack of
understanding of a given instruction, or a refusal to
engage in a dialogue aimed at clarifying something.
The fourth section consisted of materials from
professional discourse found in practical and
educational settings.
The material under analysis included transcripts of
radio conversations (VHF communication), extracts
from conversations during simulation exercises on the
bridges, and training materials on “Marine English.”
The material enabled a discourse analysis of authentic
linguistic interaction and a comparison between
normative requirements and language use. The choice
was based on the representativeness of professional
roles and country representation. The representatives
from nine countries took part in the research: the
Philippines, Ukraine, India, China, Turkey, Poland,
Greece, Romania, and Vietnam. The geographical
diversity enabled the characteristics of typical crews of
the present day to be captured.
The compiled body of sources served as the
foundation for interpreting maritime professional
communication as an integrated intercultural
phenomenon, operating within the context of
globalized shipping and intercultural information
exchange, in which professional communication is
understood as functioning on a global scale at the
maritime level. The compiled source base served as the
foundation for the development of information
systems on globalized maritime communication and
professional communication. The methodological
toolkit for this study was complex and encompassed
historical-comparative, discursive, sociolinguistic, and
analytical-normative methodologies, which facilitated
the conceptualization of maritime professional
communication as a multilayered system shaped by
historical changes, institutional standardization, and
sociocultural interaction. This set of applied methods
integrates analysis at the macro-historical level and the
organizational level within the micro-discursive level.
Using historical-comparative analysis to trace the
historical evolution of maritime professional
communication, this study focused on analyzing the
transition from the nationally oriented merchant fleets
of the 19th century to the modern globalized system of
international shipping in the 21st century. The
comparison was conducted by examining the stages of
development in the maritime industry alongside the
evolution of language policies, crew composition, and
regulatory standards for personnel training. The
analytical criteria included the dominant language of
international communication, the type of crews formed
(mono-national or multi-national), the degree of
774
formalization of communication standards, and, in
particular, what was taken into account in professional
discourse. The latter allowed the study to identify
patterns of informal multilingual communication that
transitioned into an institutional model of English as a
lingua franca. Discourse analysis of professional
communication was conducted using a functional-
pragmatic approach focused on the structural and
interactive properties of linguistic interaction. The
analysis focused on command-response patterns, the
frequency of requests for clarification, instances of
misunderstanding, intonational and pragmatic
markers of uncertainty, as well as deviations from the
standards of SMCP.
The historical-comparative analysis in this study
examines maritime communication not just as a
technical tool of professional activity but as a culturally
shaped practice that has evolved in tandem with the
transformations of the global maritime economy. The
passage from the national merchant fleet of the 19th
century to the current globalized fleet has entailed the
evolution of language policies, the establishment of
multinational crews, and the institutionalization of
international standards for professional training. In
this sense, the standardization of languages is
conceived as a reaction to cultural and social diversity
in crews. A methodological approach based on the
historical-comparative method was followed to
analyze the evolution of communication practices in
the maritime sector.
The research compared several stages in the
development of international shipping: the era of
national fleets of merchants, the era of multinational
crew formation, and the current globalized model of
the international shipping industry. Moreover, the key
factors for the analysis were language use in
professional communication, crew composition,
standardization of language use, and sociocultural
factors in the process of information transfer. This
approach enabled us to analyze maritime
communication as a technical tool of professional
interaction and a socioculturally determined
phenomenon developed along with the global
maritime economy.
The communication episodes totaled 126, obtained
from radio conversation transcripts and simulation
sessions. The quantitative measures were the number
of repetitions, the number of corrective comments,
response times to command words, and deviations
from standard wording. This made it possible to
identify general aspects of communicative behavior
and establish a link between linguistic deviations and
potential risks to maritime safety. In particular, the
sociolinguistic analysis sought to investigate the
influence of cultural, hierarchical, and gender factors
on the communicative behavior of crew members. The
focus was on variables such as the power distance
index, proactive tendencies toward clarification,
dominant communication strategy (directive or
cooperative), and linguistic confidence (self-
assessment of language proficiency). Thematic coding
qualitatively assessed the interviews and was then
compared with a correlation analysis of the
respondents’ cultural characteristics and the frequency
of recorded communication errors. This allowed for the
identification of statistically significant associations
between cultural power distance and the tendency to
avoid requests for clarification. Communicative
episodes were selected based on a duration of ≥ 20
seconds, the presence of a directive structure
(command-response), the presence or absence of
closed-loop confirmation, the international
composition of the crew, and the operational context
(navigational or engine interaction). The results are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Structure of the sample of communicative episodes
(n = 126)
Type of communication
n
%
VHF external
48
38%
Internal negotiations on the bridge
52
41%
Engine room
26
21%
Source: calculated by the authors.
The content analysis of the relevant IMO, STCW,
and SMCP regulatory documents helped to assess the
extent to which communication standards and
language competence requirements for personnel are
formalized. A total of 27 regulatory provisions are
directly or indirectly related to communication and
human factors. The empirical assessment of these
provisions revealed some inconsistencies in how they
align with empirical evidence from practice. There was
a discrepancy between institutional oversight and
what was considered to be actual patterns in language
interaction practice. The study used a case study
method to reconstruct communication scenarios in
maritime incidents with an emphasis on case studies.
For all cases, the type of communication error,
language barrier, hierarchy, and the presence or
absence of clarifying communication were identified.
The authors focused on recurring trends, especially in
the absence of a closed communication loop, where
systemic causes of communication breakdowns could
be understood. Descriptive statistics, correlation
analysis, and coefficient of variation were employed to
compare the occurrence of communication errors in
different groups.
In order to make a quantitative assessment and
validation, qualitative categories were transformed
into quantifiable indices. Indices: Clarification Index
(CI) = requests for clarification / total number of
directives, Closed-Loop Rate (CLR) = confirmed
commands / total number of commands, Deviation
Rate (DR) = number of deviations from SMCP / total
number of episodes. This was double-coded by two
researchers. Interscorer reliability: Cohen’s κ = 0.82.
This indicates a very high reliability. Qualitative
interview results were subject to thematic coding based
on Brown and Clark’s process. This process ensures a
systematic approach to coding qualitative data. This
multi-level methodological approach was employed to
ensure valid results, which were used to develop a
comprehensive model of maritime professional
communication as an intercultural phenomenon. A
post-hoc calculation of statistical power was conducted
using G*Power. For a medium effect size (d = 0.5),
when sample size = 126, power = 0.84. This is well
above 0.80. Evaluation of ethical standards: This was
conducted in line with international norms.
The research participants were made aware of the
purpose, objectives, and procedures involved in the
research for collecting the data and agreed to provide
their contribution to the research by giving their
informed consent. Furthermore, the information
775
provided by the research participants regarding their
personal information has been kept confidential. The
generalizations made in the text data regarding the
professional roles and affiliations of regions, along
with their locations, have been made without revealing
any information regarding individuals or vessels. The
research participants have the right to withdraw their
participation in the research at any time without any
specific reason. The interview results have been kept in
the form of encrypted audio formats. Only the research
team members have access to this information. All
maritime incidents have been analyzed based on
official reports. There has been no violation of official
or commercial confidentiality that can be considered in
this research.
The research has been conducted following the
guiding principles of academic integrity,
interpretation, and usage. However, this study had
several interpretive limitations. The sample of
seafarers, who came from nine countries, was not
necessarily representative of the global shipping
market, particularly in Latin America and West Africa,
so the geographical generalizability of the findings
may be limited. Additionally, some empirical data
relied on self-reports of language proficiency and
confidence in communicating with respondents and
may have been biased, as discussed above. Third, the
case analysis relied on official investigation reports: in
some cases, complete transcripts of the negotiations
were not available or were very limited. Fourth, none
of the variables, stress levels, climatic conditions, or the
technical condition of the equipment, could be
controlled under real-world conditions on the ship,
which led to indirect effects on communicative
behavior. However, the application of this approach
involved systematic, multi-level observation of
communication within a maritime professional
context.
A historical-comparative approach, discourse
analysis, sociolinguistic methods, content analysis of
regulatory documents, and analysis of accident cases
covered aspects at the macro level of processes in the
context of globalization, the meso level of the crew’s
organizational structure, and the micro level of
interaction between linguistic instances. Quantitative
and qualitative data methods enhanced the reliability
and validity of this study’s results; correlation analysis
and thematic coding likewise provided empirical
validation of the claims made in the study. The
interrelated nature of the study laid the foundation for
an integrated analytical protocol regarding the
interdependencies of historical, linguistic, and social
factors in the maritime industry and opened new
avenues for conceptualizing professional
communication as a multifaceted intercultural
phenomenon in the context of globalized shipping.
4 RESULTS
The findings of the present study revealed that the
evolution of professional communication in the
maritime context is the result of the combined
influence of three sets of factors, namely, the historical
developments in the international community of
mariners, language standardization, and the
sociocultural composition of multinational crews. This
allowed for an empirical verification of the
multidimensionality of this phenomenon and for an
integrated approach to modeling the interactions
between these factors. Context as a historical
dimension in the formation of professional
communication. Comparative studies of history and
data indicated that maritime communication was still
predominantly national, and language barriers were
addressed through specific means (namely,
interpreters or lexical selection) as late as the mid-20th
century.
After World War II, with the expansion of global
trade and containerization, there was a significant
increase in the number of multinational crews. The
share of ships with a mononational crew decreased
from approximately 72% in the 1960s to less than 25%
by the 2000s. An analysis of United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development and IMO studies showed
that the period from 1978 to 1995 (when the STCW was
adopted and revised) played a crucial role in the
institutionalization of English as a lingua franca. The
need for English proficiency was explicitly or implicitly
stated in 87% of the regulatory requirements
concerning safety and navigation of the STCW. This
evolved into the SMCP system of standardized phrases
due to historical factors that established a structural
necessity for linguistic unification. To provide a
structured overview of the evolution of professional
communication, four regulatory and historical stages
of its development were identified (Table 3).
Table 3. Stages of transformation of maritime professional
communication
Time
period
Types of crews
Dominant
language
model
Regulatory
status
Communicative
logic
Before
1978
Mostly mono-
national
National
languages
Lack of global
standardization
Informal,
multilingual
1978-
1995
The growth of
multinationality
Transition
to English
Adoption of
STCW (1978)
Transitional
model
1995-
2010
Multinational
crews
Maritime
English
First revision of
STCW
Standardized
2010-
2025
Globalized
crews
SMCP +
ELF
Manila
Amendments;
Human Element
Reports
Sociotechnical
model
Source: Authors' systematization based on the International
Maritime Organization (1978) and United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (2023).
Table 4. Structure of communicative deviations in the
analyzed episodes (n = 126)
Indicator
Frequency
(%)
Absolute
value
Use of English in VHF
100 %
126
Use of English in internal negotiations
94 %
118
Deviations from SMCP
38 %
48
Repetition due to incomplete
understanding
27 %
34
Clarification requests
19 %
24
Code-switching
11 %
14
Formally correct but pragmatically
problematic commands
43 %
54
Source: compiled by the authors.
The analysis and quantification of 126
communication episodes, including VHF radio
exchanges and intra-ship negotiations conducted on
the bridge, showed a quantitatively confirmed picture
of the functioning of English as a professional lingua
franca at different stages of the process. English was
776
used in 100% of external radio exchanges and in 94% of
intra-ship negotiations between officers of different
nationalities. The remaining 6% of internal
communicative acts occurred when, for some other
reason, the crew switched to their native language in
their informal or operational interactions. The collected
data are presented in Table 4.
The collected data indicate that the standardization
of SMCP has not been free of practical issues. Nearly
half of the formally correct commands were
accompanied by delays in execution. Nevertheless, the
analysis revealed significant discrepancies from the
normative standard values of the International
Maritime Organization Standard Marine
Communication Phrases, despite the codification and
implementation of the language. First and foremost, in
38% of the recorded instances, existing SMCP
formulations were shortened or altered, including
grammatical simplifications, the removal of auxiliary
elements, or the use of synonymous constructions in
place of regulated phrases. Repetition of commands or
fragments of phrases was recorded in 27% of cases,
reflecting an inability to understand the content of the
original message. 19% required clarification, reflecting
a very limited practice of explaining things explicitly,
especially under conditions of hierarchical asymmetry.
Code-switching was observed in 11% of instances,
where the native language was used as an explanation
within a single command or sentence.
The statistical data revealed a moderate negative
correlation between levels of self-assessment of
language skills and the number of communication
errors (r = -0.62; p < 0.05). This meant that the greater
the confidence in language abilities, the fewer
repetitions, pauses, misperceptions, and errors
occurred when carrying out a command. The
coefficient of variation in the frequency of repetitions
between the high- and low-self-efficacy groups was
(0.37), indicating that interaction performance metrics
were clearly differentiated. However, adherence to
SMCP instructions did not automatically guarantee
communicative competence. In 43% of episodes,
regulated phrasing was used, but due to intonational,
temporal, or pragmatic issues, the execution of these
commands or repetitions was sometimes delayed. The
analysis was conducted using intonation analysis,
which revealed that in many cases, the ambiguous
intonation of a command is interpreted as a
recommendation rather than a mandatory order
(leading to a delayed response). Given the formal
standardization of linguistic constructions, the actual
effectiveness of professional communication had to be
determined by pragmatic and sociocultural aspects in
terms of message processing when working in a
multilingual environment.
From the point of view of cultural studies, the
results demonstrate the evolution of maritime
professional communication from the traditional
hierarchical model to the contemporary intercultural
one. In the traditional maritime culture,
communication was based on a strict vertical structure,
in which subordinates rarely used clarifying questions.
In contemporary multinational crews, this model may
lead to communication difficulties, as the process of
information sharing and clarification of the command
is essential for effective risk management. The research
indicates that the linguistic and cultural diversity of the
crew is one of the main causes of communication errors
in maritime operations.
Sociolinguistic analyses have shown that the
multinational nature of the crew radically altered the
structure and pragmatics of professional discourse,
with implications for both the choice of communication
strategies and the frequency with which interlocutors
clarified their respective statements regarding a given
scenario. Seventy-six percent of these teams consisted
of members of at least three nationalities, and this
represented a model of the modern multinational
organization of labor in the fleet. This laid the ground
for the use of English as a lingua franca for operations,
and this diversity is evident in the way in which culture
impacted the interpretation of professional roles and
communication expectations. Furthermore, the
interview results showed that 58% of officers noted a
direct impact of cultural diversity on communication
behavior on board.
Respondents observed varying interpretations
regarding how directive commands were, differences
in the appropriateness of directness of expression, and
the degree of disagreement or doubt. In particular, the
power distance index served as a mediating variable in
subordinates’ requests for clarification. Forty-one
percent said that junior crew members refrained from
requesting clarification or repetition of orders due to a
potential violation of the higher social order.
Numerical analysis showed that the frequency of
requests for clarification was 34% lower in crews with
a higher power distance index compared to crews
where cultural distance was less pronounced. On the
contrary, for the groups that exhibited more indirect
signs of misunderstandings, there was a delay before
the start of a command or an extension without a clear
explanation. This meant that the hierarchical barrier
did not eliminate communication barriers, but merely
transformed their structure so that fewer verbalized
doubts were expressed openly.
A direct link was reported between open
communication and hierarchical and gender
characteristics. The role of the gender factor was
likewise statistically significant. Cooperative
communication was 18% higher among mixed crews
where female officers held leadership positions. This
led to higher levels of acknowledgments, clarifications,
and closed communication loops. From such crews,
expressions such as “Please confirm” or “Repeat for
confirmation” were also common, which reduced the
chances of underlying misunderstandings. The data
collected showed that sociolinguistic factors affect the
productivity of professional discourse and that they
shape a particular type of discourse in the maritime
industry in a multinational context. The findings are
presented in Table 5 below.
Table 5. The influence of sociocultural factors on clarifying
communication
Crew type
Frequency of clarifications
Error rate
High power distance
-34 %
+22 %
Low power distance
basic level
basic
Mixed crews (female officers)
+18 %
-15 %
Source: compiled by the authors.
From a cultural studies perspective, the research
findings confirm that professional communication in
maritime contexts is an intercultural communication
event in which linguistic structures are implemented in
777
accordance with various cultural models of authority,
collective responsibility, and professional ethics. In
cultures with a high power distance index (in
accordance with Hofstede's classification),
subordinates are more likely to avoid asking clarifying
questions, which might hinder the efficiency of
feedback communication. Cultures with a horizontal
type of communication are more open to clarifying
commands and collective decision-making processes.
The effectiveness of maritime communication is
determined by linguistic competence and by cultural
models of professional interaction.
A quantitative content analysis of 27 regulatory
provisions drawn from IMO documents and relevant
sections of the STCW revealed contrasting regulatory
emphases regarding the regulation of maritime
professional communication. 63% of the criteria
examined focused on details of technical precision,
such as standardization of terms, clarity of command
structure, mandatory verification of message delivery,
and avoidance of ambiguous constructions in
information. The regulatory system aimed to
harmonize language and formalize procedural
linguistic interaction. However, less than 22% of the
provisions directly addressed the human dimension
(i.e., situational awareness, crew interaction, bridge
resource management, and the impact of stress on
decision-making). The intercultural dimension was
even less evident. Less than 10% of the provisions
included recommendations for improving
intercultural competence, adjusting communication
modes in a multinational environment, or modifying
interaction models to account for cultural differences.
The results of the regulatory system demonstrated
that the regulatory framework prioritized the
technical-linguistic perspective, which contradicted
the sociocultural one. A systematic discrepancy was
identified between the formal requirements of the
policy and the experience of communication, as well as
between regulatory provisions and empirical data.
Official requirements regarding message structure,
standard phrasing, and command confirmation were
met for 46 percent of the emergencies investigated;
however, response times were delayed or
misunderstood due to cultural and hierarchical
reasons. This was particularly true in cases where
subordinates did not seek clarification, even when
clear communication was possible, and the formal
channel was the most effective means of reporting, or
interpreted a tonally neutral command as a
recommendation rather than an imperative. This
confirmed that compliance with regulatory
requirements does not equate to effective
communication in the absence of institutional
regulation of sociolinguistic parameters. The analysis
established the need to supplement technical standards
with institutional factors that support cross-cultural
competence and communicative flexibility, which have
become significant in times of heightened operational
risk.
The authors identified the significant systemic
importance of the communication factor in the causal
structure of maritime incidents through an analysis of
15 official investigations of maritime incidents. In 9 out
of 15 cases (60%), communication failures were
identified as the primary or contributing cause of the
incident. This illustrated how the role of verbal
communication among a multinational crew was a
critical aspect of safety, rather than merely an ancillary
component of operational activities.
Table 6. Classification of communication errors in incidents
(n = 15)
Error type
Frequency (%)
Lack of closed-loop
47 %
Unconfirmed command
33 %
Lexical ambiguity
20 %
Cultural distance as a factor
60 % (6 out of 9 cases)
Source: compiled by the authors.
In over 60% of cases, the communicative factor was
causal or concomitant. The typology of communicative
errors was characterized by violations of the feedback
procedure. In 47% of cases, the situation did not have a
closed communication loop. For example, they did not
repeat the command clearly and did not check and
confirm before execution with the recipient. In 33% of
cases, the receipt of the command was not confirmed,
and an invisible misunderstanding caused delays in
responses. More specifically, in 20% of cases, the main
reason for the misinterpretation of certain tokens or
phrases was lexical ambiguity or the use of non-
standard wording that did not comply with the SMCP.
By this point, grammatically correct statements had
even acquired alternative semantic loads in the context
of intercultural interaction.
The sociocultural dimensions of the incident were
particularly revealing. The results indicated that the
cultural distance between the crew members was up to
6 out of 9 when the cause for communication was either
causal or concomitant. This was seen in the readiness
of subordinates to ask for clarifications, the reluctance
to ask directly for instructions regarding their leader’s
behavior, or in the interpretation of the team’s
intonation categoricalness. Cultural distance was an
indirect but structurally influential risk factor that
affected the effectiveness of even formally correct
linguistic interaction. This fact showed that while
linguistic accuracy and standardization were
important, there remained vulnerable areas in the
sociolinguistic parameters of communication, in
particular, the crew's ability to maintain a closed
confirmation loop and active checks for mutual
understanding.
The analytical framework, consisting of historical-
comparative, discursive, sociolinguistic, and case
stages, built a conceptual model of maritime
professional communication as a multi-level system,
where language mechanisms correlate with
institutional and socio-cultural dynamics. The model
consisted of four interconnected levels that reflected
the general structural logic of the formation and
implementation of professional discourse in the
maritime world. The first historical-institutional level
reflected the macro-context of the globalization of
shipping, the creation of a transnational regulatory
environment, and the institutionalization of English as
an operational lingua franca. Here, professional
training standards (STCW), language interaction
regulation (SMCP), and the concept of human factors
were established in IMO documents. This level
contained the structure and structural conditions for
the functioning of communication, which covered
accuracy, standardization, and procedural
communication.
778
The second level of linguistic-structural features
reflected the immediate features of professional
discourse: standardized SMCP phraseology, English as
a neutral communicative code, typical pragmatic
models (operation through command-response or
closed communication loop), and the frequency of
repetitions, clarifications, and deviations from
specifications. Here, quantitative indicators of
interaction efficiency and linguistic parameters were
used to determine whether the command was executed
on time. The third level of sociocultural factors
concerned elements related to the hierarchy in the
crew, the power distance indicator, cultural norms of
interaction, and the gender composition of the crew.
These issues affected the interpretation of language
signals, the willingness to seek clarification, and the
ability to communicate. The sociocultural factor acted
not as a separate mechanism, but as an intermediate
regime that transformed non-linguistically
homogeneous language forms into communicative
forms with variable productivity. The fourth level of
operational security is the actual consequences of the
communication itself, the response time to a command,
the number of questions for clarification and response,
for example, the number of errors and delays in the
execution of operational instructions. This level, in
turn, reflected the integrative effect of the previous
levels and was associated with the risk of an incident.
Within the model, sociocultural variables were
included as potential mediators between linguistic-
structural characteristics of communication and
operational safety indicators. However, correlation
and mediation analyses showed that these variables
perform a statistically significant mediation function.
The mediation coefficient was β = 0.48, indicating a
moderate effect size and meaning that the sociocultural
context significantly contributed to the development of
safety outcomes. In addition, the mediation model was
estimated based on bootstrap multiple regression (5000
replicates), followed by parametric measurement. The
resulting model had adequate explanatory power (R² =
0.41), and its significant contribution was confirmed
(F(3,122) = 18.7; p < 0.001). The confidence interval of
the β coefficient (95% CI [0.29; 0.61]) did not cross zero,
which was also indicative of the stability and reliability
of the effect found. And with a high rate of mastery of
standardized phraseology, the efficiency of
communication and the speed of reaction were not
only determined by the level of linguistic competence,
but also by the nature of the sociocultural interactivity
of the crew members themselves.
A statistical framework based on aggregated
quantitative and qualitative data showed that there
was a significant difference in the intercultural
communication and communication training
programs for crews that differed significantly. Crews
that underwent frequent intercultural communication
training, which included instructions on cultural
distance, hierarchical interaction, and clarification
strategies, had a 26% lower rate of communication
errors than crews that underwent little or no training
at all, expressed as a ratio of errors in standard phrases,
unwritten commands, repetitions due to incomplete
understanding, and the total number of
communication act analyses (Table 7).
Table 7. Comparison of crews with and without
intercultural training
Indicator
Teaching
(n=58)
Without
training
(n=68)
t
p
Cohen’s
d
Communication
errors (%)
18.4 ± 4.6
24.8 ± 5.1
4.12
<0.001
0.82
Average reaction
time (с)
3.8 ± 0.7
4.6 ± 0.9
3.94
<0.001
0.75
Closed-loop rate (%)
71%
54%
3.88
<0.001
0.78
Source: compiled by the authors.
The systematic and transparent nature of the
feedback loop also made it easier to increase efficiency.
The repeated and verified commands reduced the
average time to respond to the command by 17%
compared to the time it took when the message was
still partially on (i.e., without feedback). This indicates
that a formal system of confirmation could potentially
limit the scope of latent misunderstandings and
maximize the speed of delivering operational results.
Officers’ confidence in language use and safety was
equally related to how well language use was observed
as a safety tool. In groups with high self-rated
competence, the risk of accidents (incidents and near-
accidents per 100 operational episodes) was 22% lower.
This was found in those who were better at
phraseology and in those who had a stronger tendency
to clarify, repeat, and correct ambiguous instructions.
Intercultural learning, feedback processes, and
language confidence seem to have had a synergistic
effect on minimizing communication risks in the world
of multinational maritime environments. Regarding
the empirical results obtained, various general
conclusions were drawn about the systematic
relationship between professional communication in
the maritime sector and the multi-level interaction of
factors. First, the authors demonstrated that
professional communication in the maritime sector. It
is not just a matter of linguistic technique or normative
standardization, but a system embedded in the
interaction between the historical-institutional
conditions of globalization, the linguistic-structural
dimensions of the system, which is correspondingly
found through the sociocultural framework, and
interaction with the characteristics of the crew.
However, there was no single factor that made
communication effective; rather, they interacted.
Second, English has established itself as the
operational lingua franca of maritime enterprises in an
integrated, globally integrated environment. It
provided a single standard for professional contact and
met the requirements imposed by the international
regulatory model. However, the use of formal
language skills and recognition of standardized SMCP
terms were not prerequisites for automatic
communicative function in the analysis. Pragmatic
competence was important: intonation, learning in
context, role hierarchy, and asking follow-up
questions. Third, sociocultural characteristics such as
power distance index, interaction expectations, and
crew gender composition were important mediators of
safety. According to correlational analysis, they
modulated the impact of linguistic parameters on
performance outcomes. Crews were willing to provide
feedback, open dialogue, and correct harmful decisions
in the sociocultural context. Fourth, as indicated in our
analysis of the regulatory framework, there was an
779
asymmetry between standardization in technical
aspects and the cultural peculiarities of the
intercultural communication context.
Previous international documents were very
precise about linguistic features, but ignored the
cultural and social basis of interaction, including only
the components of culture and society. This
highlighted the need to integrate intercultural
competence into the system of professional training
and to update the curricula of maritime English. The
results indicated that the establishment of professional
communication in the maritime sector is indeed
possible if a structured approach to the communication
process is adopted. The findings contributed to the
empirical basis of practical recommendations in the
field of maritime education, enhancing training for
intercultural interaction and improving navigation
safety through the systematic integration of linguistic
and sociocultural elements.
5 DISCUSSION
The results of the study have revealed the
interdependence of historical, linguistic, and socio-
cultural factors in the formation of maritime
professional communication. The results obtained
have revealed that the risks of communication in the
maritime sphere of the modern world cannot be
limited to linguistic factors, as they have socio-cultural
characteristics. The empirical research has revealed
that language factors, cultural factors, and the
composition of multinational crews can influence the
safety of maritime navigation. Therefore, one of the
ways of improving the content of maritime education
is to combine language training with the development
of intercultural competence and team interaction skills.
Such training is in line with the requirements of
modern Maritime Resource Management approaches
that focus on the human factor in safe navigation.
Cross-referencing the empirical results with some
recent studies allowed us to outline quite precisely the
convergent and discursively applied divergences
between our data and the international scientific
paradigm. First, among the sources that confirmed the
historical-institutional logic of transformation (Teperi
et al., 2018; International Maritime Organization, 2023;
United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, 2023), the results concluded with a
common concern that standards (STCW, SMCP) are
crucial in shaping English as a lingua franca. As in the
IMO reports and analytical works (Teperi et al., 2018),
the institutionalization of language created the basis
for the unification of procedures; however, this did not
reduce pragmatic problems in specific communicative
episodes. United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (2023) likewise noted that global
containerization and the expansion of shipping routes
have made multinational crews the norm rather than
the exception, a claim supported by quantitative
research data (a high proportion of crews originating
from three or more countries).
Second, several recent empirical works have
specifically investigated the pragmatic aspect within
SMCP (Tenieshvili, 2021). Discourse analysis of radio
exchanges confirmed Farjami’s (202) finding that
standard phrases constitute the majority of technical
exchanges, while a significant proportion of their
deviations from SMCP were recorded in practice. The
findings of the studies indicated a discrepancy between
the societal norm of a normative “ideal” and the
“reality” in this area, as reported by some other
scholars (Tenieshvili, 2021). A third significant block of
comparisons concerned the role of sociocultural
factors, i.e., hierarchy, power distance, gender, and
linguistic confidence. In this respect, our findings had
similar results to studies examining cultural barriers
and their impact on safety (Li et al., 2023). The study
reported, for example, that the number of clarifying
comments in cultures with high power distance was
significantly lower, which is consistent with the
findings of Misas et al. (2024) that highlight the
negative impact of cultural distance on proactive
communication.
The role of gender (higher cooperativeness in mixed
crews) was consistent with findings from individual
sociolinguistic studies (Misas et al., 2024), which
highlighted differentiated communication styles and
their implications for interaction. A fourth direction,
the empirical relationship of communicative
inefficiency between accident rates and communicative
inefficiency, was clearly observed in the studies
examined; that is, the communicative factor occurred
in 60% of cases where a communicative factor was
recognized as a primary or concomitant factor in the
occurrence of accidents. This figure reflected the results
of Narayanan et al. (2023) and the results of
investigations that confirmed the importance of this
closed-loop communication deficit, and the validation
of the received commands was critical for the results.
The data in the study provided a quantitative
dimension by calculating how often common errors
(e.g., lack of acknowledgement, lexical ambiguity, etc.)
occurred and were linked to incident statistics,
extending the case stages and data collection earlier
(Yin et al., 2025). The findings are consistent with the
analysis by Nævestad et al. (2018), which views
maritime safety culture in terms of a dynamic,
systemic, and communicative system, rather than
simply a system of specific procedures. The authors
note that the effectiveness of safety standards depends
on maintaining an open flow of information, mutual
trust, and a willingness to accept feedback from the
crew. Moreover, it was concluded that communication
challenges are less due to a lack of regulation and more
due to differences in implementation and safety
culture in a multinational environment.
The comparison with the works on the educational
strategies and personnel training made it possible to
draw practical conclusions. The results obtained in the
study confirmed the effectiveness of the training in
intercultural communication. The crews that were
given communication training demonstrated a
significant reduction in communication errors and
increased speed in responding to operational tasks.
This corresponds to the results obtained by Tenieshvili
et al. (2021) and also includes a quasi-experimental
comparative sample. The results obtained in the study
demonstrated that even if English acts as a lingua
franca, it plays no role in resolving the problem, as in
some cases it hides the pragmatic incompetence and
creates an illusion of efficiency in communication. This
corresponds to critical research on the difficulties
780
associated with the lingua franca in a high-risk
environment (Teperi et al., 2018). The majority of the
scientific publications, review reports, and normative
analyses considered the phenomenon qualitatively.
The measures under evaluation were quantitative
operationalization of indicators for the frequency of
clarification requests, percentage of deviations from
the SMCP, language confidence index, and correlations
with incidents. In this sense, the study contributes to
the international database with measurements that
may help in the evaluation of the effectiveness of
training programs and the real-time risk evaluation of
those incidents that have been less frequently
identified in the literature (Misas et al, 2024).
As for the digital transformation and its influence
on communication (United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development, 2023), the results were
somewhat ambivalent: the accessibility of information
with the help of digital platforms and electronic
systems for monitoring the situation has led to the
development of new forms of misunderstandings (e.g.,
asynchronous messaging and multilingual interfaces).
That is, digitalization has not erased intercultural
problems, but has changed their nature, which is
consistent with the findings of recent work in the field
of maritime technology (Heering, 2025). The study
found that there are nonlinear relationships between
historical, linguistic, and sociocultural variables, while
the mediating role of sociocultural variables against
linguistic ones was statistically confirmed. Although
many references have discussed these levels in
isolation in different articles (language studies for
some, crew sociology for others), few have attempted
to formally integrate them (Teperi et al., 2018).
Moreover, the framework applied in this study
made it possible to design a means for the effective
assessment of risks, which is another crucial reaction to
the existing gaps in the literature. Finally, the results of
this study offered support for a moderate stance in
relation to previous research that criticized
Anglocentrism and offered suggestions for multimodal
research (e.g., cultural policy and language education
research), namely that English as a lingua franca
should not be rejected in its entirety but that it is
enriched through intercultural learning, the cultivation
of pragmatic competence, and the appropriation of
aspects of local communicative practices in materials,
which is in line with the suggestions of Tenieshvili
(2021).
A comparison between the results obtained and
recent international studies revealed a clear
demarcation between areas of conceptual commonality
and uniqueness and practical diversity. It is worth
emphasizing that the conclusions of the analysis were
in line with the main principles of the contemporary
scientific literature on this context, including the
importance of English as the operational lingua franca
on a global scale in shipping, the value of institutional
standardization of English in this context, and the
societal aspects that influence safety. A study by Teperi
et al. (2018) found systematic human factors
management in the shipping industry; Gabedava & Hu
(2025) established a link between communication
modes and safety on the bridge. In 2023, a study
conducted by the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development reported on the growth of
international crews worldwide. These conclusions
were supported by empirical data obtained from the
work carried out. In the last report, English carried
100% of radio communications; there was a correlation
in usage between sociocultural aspects and error rates,
and standardization on SMCP remained a
fundamental element in operational relations, as
presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Integrated model of maritime professional
communication. Source: compiled by the authors
The model showed that the sociocultural level
mediated the relationship between linguistic factors
and operational response. In addition, the main
distinguishing feature of the study was the
quantitative operationalization of communicative risks
and modeling their impact on safety. Most recent
works were descriptive or qualitative in nature, while
our study used numerical indicators (frequency of
repetitions, deviation from SMCP, correlation
coefficient r = -0.62, mediation effect β = 0.48), which
allowed us to substantiate the mediated role of
sociocultural variables in the relationship between
linguistic parameters and operational safety. The study
showed the importance of the human factor and, in
addition, provided quantitative evidence of its
systemic impact, expanding analytical capabilities
compared to previous studies (Table 8).
Table 8. Effect of training on safety indicators
Indicator
Effect
Reduction of communication errors
- 26 %
Increased reaction rate (closed-loop)
+17 %
Reduction of accident risk with high language confidence
- 22 %
Source: compiled by the authors
The patterns were interpreted to demonstrate a
cumulative effect: training + closed loop + linguistic
confidence → operational risk reduction. The
practical implications notably differed from some
literature sources, which were mainly based on
improving language training as the main mechanism
for risk reduction. The results showed that there could
be no full effectiveness of language training alone
without intercultural training and organizational
programs. A 26% reduction in communication errors in
crews with systematic intercultural training, a 17%
increase in reaction speed in closed communication
conditions, and a 22% reduction in the risk of accidents
with a very high level of linguistic confidence
demonstrated the need for a “comprehensive policy +
training + operational checks” model. This strategy
included both regulatory updates and educational
modules in Maritime English, as well as operational
control procedures on board.
In contrast, the results of the study confirmed global
trends in global maritime communication flows
through comparison with the current scientific
literature, providing a valid and well-founded model
781
for managing communication monitoring and
forecasting. This gave the study practical importance
for maritime academies, maritime shipping companies,
and international regulatory bodies, including the IMO
and national administrations responsible for setting
shipboard crew training standards and ensuring
maritime safety.
6 CONCLUSION
The results confirm that professional communication
in the maritime industry is the result of a long historical
evolution of international shipping. From the
multilingual experience of early seafarers to the
contemporary system of standardized English
language communication, a gradual process of
institutionalization of language interaction can be
observed. The contemporary standards of Maritime
English and SMCP are a logical continuation of the
historical process of developing a professional
maritime culture, which pursues the goal of unification
and intercultural adaptation.
The study resulted in a better understanding of the
maritime industry and its multidimensionality of
intercultural interaction, as well as professional
communication, which was shaped throughout the
course of historical changes, the evolution of language,
and the structure of multinational crews. At the same
time, the study confirmed that none of the dimensions
exists independently, and the result of professional
communication to a certain extent lies in their systemic
interaction. In the researcher’s view, globalization in
shipping, the introduction of containers, and the
institutionalization of international standards (STCW,
SMCP) led to the creation of a structural pre-condition
for the unification of professional communication, and
therefore, English became a lingua franca of the
industry in practical terms, as well as a lingua franca of
communication between the partners (representatives
of cultural and linguistic communities).
The research demonstrated that standardization
had failed to overcome problems of pragmatics, and
that the “utility of communication was a function of
knowledge of standard phrases and was dependent
upon inter-cultural competence, linguistic confidence,
and a readiness for clarifying conversation.” The
international character of crews had a definite
empirical impact upon professional discourse. Cultural
distance, hierarchical interaction patterns, and gender
characteristics dictated the style of communication, the
frequency of clarification requests, and the willingness
to openly discuss errors. The mediating effect of
sociocultural variables between language competence
and the level of operational safety. When hierarchical
barriers restrained the initiative of subordinates, the
correct form of command transmission did not
guarantee adequate execution.
Studies of accidents and incidents have shown that
communication is still one of the main risk factors in
shipping. The most common problems were the
inability to confirm the data received, the lack of
adherence to the principle of a closed communication
loop, and pragmatic misunderstandings. On the other
hand, the results showed that systematic training in
intercultural communication and the formation of
communicative reflection led to a decrease in the level
of errors and the speed of reaction in operational
conditions, both during training and when assessing
intercultural interaction.
Particular attention was paid to the study of the
regulatory framework, in particular, its analysis. It was
noted that international documents did not take into
account the socio-cultural dimension of
communication in professional interaction, although
they provided detailed information on the technical
part of information transmission. To be effective in
practice, standards should be supplemented with
intercultural components that seek to increase
communicative flexibility, as well as critical thinking.
In addition, the theoretical aspects of this study
contributed to the formulation of an integrated model
of maritime professional communication at the
historical-institutional, linguistic-structural, socio-
cultural, and operational levels. The model further
allowed for a systematic ordering of the factors of
communication formation and the formulation of
operationalized indicators for assessing
communicative risk.
The study used a mixed methodological approach,
which, unlike previous works (such as descriptive),
had quantitative and qualitative approaches to achieve
the same result. The application of the results lies in the
importance of these findings for operational and
practical implications in maritime academic education
and the system of professionally oriented training. The
recommendations outlined here apply to a modern
approach to the modernization of maritime English
programs for education and training, for their
application, the creation of intercultural
communication modules, and the development of
human factor management in training. These
indicators of communicative effectiveness for
communication can similarly be used for monitoring
the purpose of preventing risk in crew training and
preventing accidents.
In this respect, it was established that maritime
professional communication is a dynamic system in
which historical traditions, linguistic standards, and
sociocultural behavioral patterns intersect and impact
one another. Its efficiency is ensured by a system of
normative regulation, as well as by the level of
intercultural adaptability and professional reflection.
Based on this, further research should focus more on
empirical sampling, the quantitative aspect of
communicative risks, and digital tools in facilitating
intercultural communication in a globalized maritime
space.
REFERENCES
An, J., Gao, W., Liu, R., & Liu, Z. (2022). The impact of
communication on the work performance of Chinese
seafarers on board. Journal of Navigation, 76(1), 113-132.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0373463322000479
Dei, H., Dei, M., & Kutynska, A. (2024). The role of the state
in digitalization of education. Legal Horizons, 19(4), 8-18.
https://doi.org/10.54477/lh.25192353.2023.4.pp.8-18
Dei, M. О. (2025). The impact of AI on the adaptation of
educational materials and teaching methods to the needs
of each student. LatIA, 3, 124.
https://doi.org/10.62486/latia2025124
782
Farjami, F. (2025). Wrong use of SMCP in marine
communication: A review study. Seatific Engineering
Research 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(3), 347-361.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-025-00371-y
Gekara, V. O., & Sampson, H. (2020). The world of the
seafarer. Qualitative accounts of working in the global
shipping industry. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs.
Cham: Springer.
Guo, X., Zhen, M., & Guo, Y. (2026). Enhancing maritime
safety through needs analysis: Identifying critical English
communication skills for pre-service maritime students in
a Chinese university. Behavioral Sciences, 16(1), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16010130
Heering, D. (2025). Rethinking seafarer training for the digital
age. In: Bauk, S. (Ed) Maritime Cybersecurity. Signals and
Communication Technology (pp. 29-53). Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87290-7_3
International Maritime Organization. (1978). International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Retrieved from
https://s069c48d7550d9c75.jimcontent.com/download/ve
rsion/1257159846/module/3040408951/name/STCW.pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2001). Resolution
A.918(22) “IMO Standard Marine Communication
Phrases”. Retrieved from
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Sa
fety/Documents/A.918(22).pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2022). IMO sub-
committee on human element, training and
watchkeeping. Retrieved from
https://www.intermanager.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/IMO-SUB-COMMITTEE-ON-
HUMAN-ELEMENT-TRAINING-AND-
WATCHKEEPING-7-11-FEB-2022.pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2025). Resolution
A.1196(34) “Revised strategic plan for the organization
for the six-year period 2024 to 2029”. Retrieved from
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/About/strate
gy/Documents/A%2034-Res.1196%20-
%20REVISED%20STRATEGIC%20PLAN%20FOR%20T
HE%20ORGANIZATION%20FOR%20THE%20SIX-
YEAR%20PERIOD%202024%20TO%202029.pdf
James, A. J., Schriever, U. G., Jahangiri, S., & Girgin, S. C.
(2018). Improving maritime English competence as the
cornerstone of safety at sea: a focus on teaching practices
to improve maritime communication. WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs, 17, 293-310.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0145-4
Khan, R. U., Yin, J., Afzaal, M., & Yang, Z. (2026).
Quantitative assessment of language and cultural
diversity as human reliability factors in maritime safety.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 273, 112358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112358
Lasmoles, O. (2025). Crew management on merchant ships:
from maritime accident analysis to seafarers’ fatigue.
Revue De Gestion Des Ressources Humaines, 136(2), 39-
50. https://doi.org/10.54695/grhu.136.0039.
Li, T., Chen, Q., Xi, Y., & Lau, Y. (2023). A 40-Year
Bibliometric Analysis of Maritime English Research:
Insights and Implications. Sustainability, 15(5), 4348.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054348
Misas, J. D. P., Hopcraft, R., Tam, K., & Jones, K. (2024).
Future of maritime autonomy: Cybersecurity, trust and
mariner’s situational awareness. Journal of Marine
Engineering & Technology, 23(3), 224-235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2024.2330176
Misztal, L., & Hatlas-Sowinska, P. (2025). The impact of the
human factor on communication during a collision
situation in maritime navigation. Applied Sciences, 15(5),
279. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052797
Nævestad, T., Phillips, R. O., Størkersen, K. V., Laiou, A., &
Yannis, G. (2018). Safety culture in maritime transport in
Norway and Greece: Exploring national, sectorial and
organizational influences on unsafe behaviours and work
accidents. Marine Policy, 99, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.001
Narayanan, S. C., Emad, G. R., & Fei, J. (2023). Theorizing
seafarers’ participation and learning in an evolving
maritime workplace: an activity theory perspective.
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 22(2), 165-180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-023-00311-8
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
Pavlovskyi, O., Blikhar, M., & Karpa, M. (2024). International
migration in the context of financial and economic
security: The role of public administration in the
development of national economy, education, and
human capital. Edelweiss Applied Science and
Technology, 8(6), 1492-1503.
https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2265
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
Simanjuntak, M. B., Rafli, Z., & Utami, S. (2025). Multiliteracy
framework for maritime English communication:
Enhancing proficiency in operational settings. TransNav:
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of
Sea Transportation, 19(4), 1171-1178.
https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.19.04.14
Tenieshvili, A. (2021). The role of General English and
Maritime English in raising cultural awareness in the
students of maritime education and training institutions.
Language Education & Technology, 1(1), 29-39.
Teperi, A., Lappalainen, J., Puro, V., & Perttula, P. (2018).
Assessing artefacts of maritime safety culture – current
state and prerequisites for improvement. WMU Journal
of Maritime Affairs, 18, 79-102.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0160-5
Türkistanli, T. T. (2024). Advanced learning methods in
maritime education. Computer Applications in
Engineering Education, 32, e22690.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22690
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
(2023). Review of maritime transport 2023. Retrieved
from https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-
transport-2023
Veltsin, N., Chountalas, P. T., Koutsouki, E., Karvounidi, M.
D., & Fousteris, A. E. (2025). Modeling human critical
success factors for maritime safety: A DEMATEL
approach. Safety Science, 189, 106886.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106886
Xi, Y., Wang, Z., Hu, S., Han, B., & Yin, J. (2025). The effect of
safety culture on the safety behavior of ship deck officers
– empirical evidence from shipping industry. Frontiers in
Marine Science, 12, 1599455.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2025.1599455
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
