577
1 INTRODUCTION
Maritime accidents have witnessed a significant
decline for the last century due to the technology
development and automation of merchant vessels
(Allianz 2012). However, the number of maritime
accidents caused by the human element presents an
increase trend due to the mixed‐nationality crewing
strategy.Itisgenerallyacceptedtha
tmorethan80%
of maritime accidents are related to the human
element (Schröder‐Hinrichs 2010), in which
communication failure due to insufficient command
of maritime English represents one third (Trenkner
2007).AccordingtoafundedprojectcalledSafetyOn
Sea, communication failure representing 24%
becomes the second main source of ma
ritime
accidentsanditwitnessesanincreasingtrend(Ziarati
2006). In Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) areas, for
example, the communication failure accounts for up
to40%ofcollisions involvingthehumanelement.The
failures mainly occur in radio communication and
some of them even happen in routine face‐to‐face
communication(Trenkner2007).
As a lingua franca used by seafarers of different
nat
ionalities, maritime English has gained its great
significance these years with the increasing
communication‐related accidents. Based on the
feedback from 38 shipping companies surveyed,
maritimeEnglishproficiencyrankedthesecondinthe
An Overview of Chinese Seafarers’ Communicative
Competence in English—Chinese seafarers’ Perspectives
L.Fan
A
ustralianMaritimeCollege,UniversityofTasmania,Launceston,Australia
ABSTRACT: The rapid development of technologies and the increasingly strict international shipping
regulations helpto explainasignificantdecrease in shipping losses over decades. However, the number of
accidents attributable to human errors, in which communication failures represent one third, has not been
reducedproportionally.UndertheManilaAmendments2010,itbeca
meacompulsoryrequirementforevery
company to ensurethat seafarerscancommunicate effectively. Communicative competence of seafarers has
been of vital significance in modern shipping. A majority of merchant ships in international voyages are
manned with multicultural and multilingual crew. It is not only the mult
ilingual but also the intercultural
character of mariners that leads to miscommunication on board. Additionally, communicative competence
involves psycholinguistic, strategic and pragmatic aspects. The concept of communicative competence is
relativelynewin thecontextof maritime educationand training inChinaandthere is a dearth of research
dealingwithChineseseafarers’communicativecompetence.Throughanempiricalstudy,thi
spaperaimstofill
inthegapbyinvestigatingthecurrentstatusofChineseseafarers’communicativeproficiencyfromlinguistic,
intercultural, psycholinguistic, strategic and pragmatic perspectives to understand their strengths and
weaknesses in their English communication. Based on the findings of q
uantitative data analysis,
recommendationsarefinallymadetoimproveChineseseafarers’communicativecompetence.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 11
Number 4
December 2017
DOI:10.12716/1001.11.04.01
578
crewing criteria for mixed crews at both operation
and management levels (Trenkner 2005). It has
legitimatedthestatusofmaritimeEnglishasasubject
of instruction and research under the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 2010 (STCW 2010)
(Trenkner & Cole 2010). The requirement
related in
maritime English is initially introduced as a
mandatorytechnicalstandardcontainedinpartAof
theSTCW2010code(IMO2011).
Communication becomes more complicated and
challengingduetothefactthatnearly90%ofSOLAS
vessels(theInternationalConventionfortheSafetyof
Life at Sea) are
manned with multinational,
multicultural and multilingual seafarers who, for
variousreasons,oftenfailtocommunicateeffectively
(Trenkner 2009).Besideslinguistic and multicultural
aspects, other aspects of communicative competence
such as psycholinguistic, strategic and pragmatic
factorsneedtobetakenintoaccount(Fanetal.2015).
InChina,muchresearchonmaritime
Englishfocuses
onthelinguisticaspectandlimitedresearchanalyses
the general communicative competence of Chinese
seafarersasawhole.Thispaperistoinvestigatethe
current status of Chinese seafarers’ communicative
competence from the linguistic, intercultural,
psycholinguistic,strategicandpragmaticperspectives
to understand their strengths and weaknesses in
English
communication.
2 COMMUNICATIVECOMPETENCEINTHE
MARITIMESETTING
Theconceptofcommunicativecompetencewasfairly
clarified by an anthropological linguist Dell Hymes
based on Noam Chomskyʹs distinction between
linguistic competence and performance.
Communicative competence performs an essential
function in every walk of life (Rickheit & Strohner
2008). Hymes (1972a) claims
that communication
competence requires both knowledge and
demonstratedabilitytocarryoutappropriateconduct
in particular contexts. Knowledge can be
demonstrated by linguistic and sociolinguistic
competences.Demonstrated abilityto use Englishin
communication can be mainly reflected by strategic
andpragmaticcompetence.
However, effective communication is not simply
determined by
knowledge and demonstrated ability
to use English. There is a shared belief in many
societies that successful communication has many
constraints and that one of the most important
constraints is the underlying ability of interlocutors
(Rickheit&Strohner2008).Theunderlyingabilitycan
be the interlocutors’ psychological competence.
Lepschy (2008) claimed
that the mastery of
communicative competence include the capacity to
interpret social norms and behaviours in specific
speech contexts (Lepschy 2008; Rickheit & Strohner
2008).Theexpression,interpretation,andnegotiation
of meaning are much influenced by interlocutors’
psycholinguistic competence (Ho & Savignon 2007;
Savignon2002;VanPatten2002).
Effective communication is
of great importance
not onlyfor the safety of personnel and property at
sea but also for seafarers’ wellbeing. The highly
technical nature of seafaring puts seafarers at great
riskandundergreatstressbothintermsoftheactual
tasksinvolvedandharshworkenvironmentonboard.
Psychosocial stress from isolation,
loneliness and
fatigueandphysicalstressfromnoise,vibrationinthe
workplace are common for seafarers (Jensen et al.
2009). The loneliness is mainly due to one’s lack of
communication with others (Reichmann 1959).
Cumulative stresscan have a negative impact on
mental and physical health (Mann & Holdsworth
2003)
which can in turn affect the safe operation of
anyship.
Nearlythreequartersofthe seafarersagreedthat
cultural differences have an effect upon the level of
communication on board (Ziarati et al. 2011).
Consideringthecomplexityofcommunicationamong
seafarers of different nationalities, strategic
communicativecompetence canhelpcommunication
go smoothly and successfully when communication
breakdownsoccur(Hymes1972b).
Pragmatic competence indicates the ability to
convey and interpret intended information
appropriately in difference circumstances (Fraser
2010).Thecircumstancesincommunicationcouldbe
the environment, who the interlocutors are, the
resources available and the relative status of
interlocutors.Thereare
manystandingordersatwork
for seafarers and it is important for seafarers to use
different language registers at work and in life.
Speech acts included in pragmatic competence like
request,advice,instruction,questionandanswerare
commonincommunicationatsea.Sufficientpractice
in English both at work and life
for seafarers is
essentialforimprovingpragmaticcompetence.
3 RESEARCHMETHOD
An online questionnaire was used in this research
targeting Chinese oceangoing seafarers. The
questionnaire was mainly cantered on the
aforementioned five components of communicative
competence. There were totally 35 question items
related to communicative competence. Self‐
assessmentquestions were
answeredona five‐point
Likert scale ranging from ‘1=minimum’ to
‘5=maximum’.
For the data analysis, exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was conducted to calculate the coefficient of
each factor (question item) using the Statistical
Packages for Social Science (SPSS). Factors with
coefficients below 0.30 were suppressed and those
cross‐loaded with
less than 0.2 difference between
factorsweredeletedtoo(Thurstone1947).Taking into
account the coefficient of each factor, an descriptive
analysis was made of the remaining 30 factors to
providethemeans,standarddeviationsandrangeof
scoresforallindependentanddependentvariables.
579
4 DATAANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
4.1 Generalinformationofparticipants
There were 235 valid responses to the online
questionnaire. Individuals of the sample group
ranged mainly from 18 to 56 years old. This group
included all ranks of oceangoing seafarers ranging
fromratingstomaster.Thewideagedispersionand
various ranks of seafarers could well represent the
real extended target group. Nearly 60% of
participants had studied English for 7‐10 years and
halfofthemagedbetween26and40.For theranksof
seafarers,themajorityofthemwereatanoperational
level (cadets, third/second officers and
fourth/third
engineers) accounting for 55%. The respondents
included seafarers who had working experience on
foreign vessels (31.79%) and those who had not
(68.21%). Unless otherwise specified, all the results
presentedinthefollowingsectionswerebasedonthe
235respondentsofChineseseafarers.
4.2 Thecurrentstatusofcommunicativecompetenceof
Chineseseafarers
4.2.1 OverallcommunicativecompetenceofChinese
seafarers
Table 1 shows that Chinese seafarers were
relatively weak in linguistic, psycholinguistic and
pragmatic competences. They were a little better in
intercultural competence and strategic competence
among the five components of communicative
competence. Generally, the overall score (3.18) of
communicativecompetence
ofChineseseafarerswas
justabovetheaveragevalue3.Accordingtothefive‐
pointLikertscale,thevalue3indicatesafairlevel.
Table1. Scores of five components of communicative
competenceofChineseseafarers.
_______________________________________________
Min Max MeanStd. Std.Error
Deviation Mean
_______________________________________________
Communicative 1 5 3.1839 .67492 .04403
competence
Linguistic1 5 3.071 .79635 .05195
competence
Intercultural 1 5 3.430 .76760 .05007
competence
Psycholinguistic 1 5 3.355 .85078 .05550
competence
Pragmatic1 5 3.079 .91405 .05963
competence
Strategic1 5 3.973 .58533 .03818
competence
_______________________________________________
4.2.2 LinguisticcompetenceofChineseseafarers
Effective communication can not only enhance
safenavigationbutalsoimproveseafarers’wellbeing,
such as a sense of belonging, establishing
interpersonal relationships and team work
involvement. Consequently, both maritime English
(ship‐related English for working purpose) and
general English (daily on‐board English for
social
purpose) should be emphasized. As such, it is
necessary to get a general knowledge of Chinese
seafarers’ general English as well as their maritime
Englishlinguisticknowledge(Table2).
Table2.ComparisonofChineseseafarers’maritimeEnglish
andgeneralEnglishskills
_______________________________________________
Min Max MeanStd. Average
Deviation Mean
_______________________________________________
Howdoyourank 1 5 3.1460 .85866
yourgeneralEnglish3.179
listeningskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 3.2123 .97278
yourmaritimeEnglish
listeningskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 3.0468 .97069
yourgeneralEnglish3.061
speakingskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 3.0760 .98229
yourmaritimeEnglish
speakingskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 3.1825 .87487
yourgeneralEnglish3.195
readingskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 3.2075 .90799
yourmaritimeEnglish
readingskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 2.6094 .85974
yourgeneralEnglish2.649
writingskills?
Howdoyourank 1 5 2.6903 .93536
yourmaritimeEnglish
writingskills?
ValidN(listwise)
_______________________________________________
ThecomparisonsshowthatChineseseafarerswere
a little bit weaker in general English than maritime
English. Among the four language skills listed in
Table 2, writings for both general English and
maritimeEnglishweretheirweakest skills,followed
by theirspeaking skills. Reading andlistening skills
ofChineseseafarerswere
relativelybetter compared
to their writing and speaking skills. This result was
slightlydifferentfromthatofpreviousresearchwhich
highlightedChineseseafarers’biggestweaknessesin
listening and speaking skills. Actually, the result is
not surprising since maritime English writing skill
was neglected in the maritime English teaching and
testing
syllabi in China. The importance of writing
skills was greatly underestimated in the maritime
EnglisheducationandtraininginChina.
4.2.3 InterculturalcompetenceofChineseseafarers
AsforChineseseafarers’interculturalcompetence,
around 75% of participants expressed their
willingness to share Chinese culture with foreign
seafarers while nearly 65% Chinese seafarers
were
willing to learn various foreign cultures by direct
communicationwithforeignseafarers.However,less
than 40% of Chinese seafarers had knowledge of
foreignculture,suchasreligiouscultureandaround
half of them had cultural awareness when
communicating with foreign seafarers. Similarly,
aroundhalfofthemagreedthatthey
couldlistsome
celebrities or famous tourist destinations in foreign
seafarers’ nations and were willing to take their
initiativesto greetforeign seafarers.Besides, around
60% of them could not simply greet in foreign
languages (except English). Greeting in the
580
interlocutor’ language can demonstrate your respect
forhisorherlanguageandculture(Schweers1999).
Theinterculturalcompetenceofseafarersbecomesof
great importance on board a ship manned with a
multilingualandmulticulturalcrew.
4.2.4 PsycholinguisticcompetenceofChineseseafarers
Compared to their intercultural competence,
Chinese seafarers were relatively
weak in
psycholinguistic competence. Over 50% of Chinese
seafarers surveyed tended to communicate with
foreign seafarers to relieve their loneliness,
homesickness or work pressure on foreign vessels,
but only 11% of Chinese seafarers tended to speak
English on board. They preferred to speak Chinese
whenever they could. Chinese students are
shy to
speakEnglishandafraidoflosingfacewhenmaking
mistakes(Panetal.2014).Chinesemaritimestudents
are no exception and they have psychological
pressureandinsufficientconfidencetospeakEnglish,
especially those who are from remote areas. Only a
quarter of Chinese seafarers had confidence in
communicating with
foreign seafarers in English.
Being scoffed and scolded due to making mistakes
tends to make them very nervous when speaking
English.Additionally,Chineseseafarerspaidunduly
attention to English grammar and around 50% of
themtendedtorepeatandself‐correcttheirspeaking
to ensure that the grammar they use
is correct.
Overemphasis on grammar when speaking could
affect effective communication, whereas effective
communicate could occur without following correct
grammars (Carter & Mncarthy 1995; Ke & Suzuki
2011).
4.2.5 StrategiccompetenceofChineseseafarers
Although the score of strategic competence of
Chineseseafarerswasrelativelyhigherthantheother
fourcompetences,
thereweresomehiddenproblems
when working with foreign seafarers. For example,
nearly90%ofChineseseafarerswouldmakefulluse
of paralinguistic language when communication
could not go smoothly. Paralinguisticelements such
as hand gestures and silence however have varied
significances across cultures, which can pose
additional risk of
misunderstanding. For example,
people acknowledge with a gesture that they have
understoodsomething,butinactually,theyhavenot
(Ziaratiet al.2011). Thedifferencesof paralinguistic
languages across cultures must be borne in mind
whencommunicatingwithforeignseafarers.Besides
paralinguistic language, Chinese seafarers were also
good at expressing themselves
in alternative ways,
such as by means of photos, to facilitate their
communication or explain some difficult concepts.
Althoughover80%ofChineseseafarerstendedtouse
short and simple sentences to enhance
communication due to lack of linguistic knowledge,
fewofthemwerefamiliarwiththeStandardMarine
Communication
Phrases (SMCP) which was not
sufficiently covered in maritime English textbooks
(Liu 2008). It was not surprising that over 80% of
Chinese seafarers, in a nation of ceremonies, were
mindfulofusingeuphemismtoavoidoffensiveness.
4.2.6 PragmaticcompetenceofChineseseafarers
As mentioned earlier, Chinese seafarers were
reluctanttocommunicate
inEnglish. Around60%of
Chineseseafarersdidn’toftenspeakEnglishand80%
of them didn’t often write in English. Although
Chineseseafarers,thankstotheadvancedtechnology,
hadtheopportunitiestopracticetheirlisteningskills,
over half of them just passively watch English
programs, in most cases, with translated
subtitles.
Much listening practice nowadays can, to some
degree, improve Chinese seafarers’ listening ability.
Soitisnotsurprisingtofindthattheirlisteningskills
weresecondonlytotheirreadingability.Readingis
greatly emphasised in maritime English teaching,
learningandtestinginChina.However,lessthan40%
of them
had a habit of reading English materials in
their spare time. Consequently, it is challenging for
Chinese seafarers to improve the pragmatic
competence without sufficient practice in English
bothatworkandinlife.
5 CONCLUSIONANDRECOMMENDATION
Based on the five components of communicative
competence, communication can be regarded
as a
holistic mental process calling upon applying
linguisticand strategicskills tointegratinglanguage
with intercultural knowledge in different
circumstances. It not only focuses on psychological
process,butalsohighlightsbeliefsandattitudes,fears
and expectations. Effective oral communication of
seafarers requires frequent practice of listening and
speaking skills. Since
many speech acts are verbally
performed at sea, Chinese seafarers’ insufficient
practice of English, especially interactive
communication practice, could be one contributing
factortotheirlanguagedeficiency.Thissurveyshows
thatlinguisticcompetence wasstillthe weakestarea
for Chinese seafarers. More specifically, Chinese
seafarers’ English writing and speaking ability
(languageoutput)werepoorerthanEnglishlistening
andreadingability(languageinput).
Itisnecessarytoaddmulticulturalcourseintothe
China’smaritimeEnglishteachingandtestingsyllabi.
Paralinguistic elements across cultures should be
addressedproperly inclass.Great importanceneeds
to be attached to encouraging and facilitating
interactive communication in
English instead of
passively inputting language in maritime English
learning and teaching. Interactive learning activities
can be developed by virtue of the Information
Technology. For example, learners could be
motivated and encouraged to communicate
interactivelywiththeirpeersonlineviasocialmedia.
Besides, Chinese seafarers’ psycholinguistic
competenceneeds great attention.
Chineseseafarers’
thinking mode should not be confined by their
traditional culture but open to the world, which
echoeswiththefactthatmaritimeEnglisheducation
and training should be internationalised rather than
beconstrainedbynationaleducation.
As to Chinese seafarers’ overall level of
communicative competence, the respondents’ self‐
assessment
oftheircommunicative competencemight
not provide an accurate assessment because
581
responders tend to overestimate or underestimate
their communicative competency. Consequently,
Perspectives from maritime English teachers and
employers are helpful to provide supplementary
information.Theimplicationsoftheresultshowever
are significant as they identified the strengths and
weaknessesofcommunicativecompetenceofChinese
seafarers, which pointed out the direction to
which
maritimeEnglisheducationandtrainingshouldaim
in order to make a significant impact and address
user needs. Additionally, this paper empirically
provides a comprehensive picture of Chinese
seafarers’communicativecompetence.
REFERENCES
Allianz.2012. SafetyandShipping 1912‐2012From Titanic
to Costa Concordia. Retrieved from the United
Kingdom:
Carter,R.,&Mncarthy,M.1995.GrammarandtheSpoken
Language. Applied linguistics, 16(2), 141‐158.
doi:10.1093/applin/16.2.141
DeThorne,L.S.,Hengst,J.,Fisher,K.,&King,A.2014.Keep
Your Eye on the
Prize Implementing AAC Within the
BroaderContextofCommunicativeCompetence.Young
ExceptionalChildren,17(1),39‐50.
Fan,L.,Fei,J.,Schriever,U.,&Fan,S.2015.Communication
Challenges to Maritime English Education and Training in
China in the ModernShippingWorld. Paper presentedat
the 2015 Master Mariners Congress, Launceston,
Tasmania.
Fraser, B. 2010. Pragmatic Competence: The Case of
HedgingNewApproachestoHedging(pp.15‐34):Brill.
Retrieved from
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b
9789004253247s003.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003
Ho, M.‐c., & Savignon, S. J. 2007. Face‐to‐face and
computer‐mediated peer review in EFL writing.
CALICOjournal,24(2),269‐290.
Hymes, D. 1972a. On
communicative competence (J. P. J.
HolmesEd.).Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Hymes, D. 1972b. On communicative competence.
Sociolinguistics,269‐293.
IMO.2011.STCWincluding2010Manilaamendments:STCW
Convention and STCW Code (3rd consolidated, 2011
edition..London:InternationalMaritimeOrganization.
Jensen,H.‐J.,Latza,U.,&Baur,X.2009.Seafaringstressors
aboard merchant and passenger ships. International
journalofpublichealth,54(2),96‐105.
Ke,I.,&Suzuki,T.2011.TeachingglobalEnglishwithNNS‐
NNS online communication. Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(2),
10.
Lepschy,A.2008.12.Communicationtraining1.Handbookof
CommunicationCompetence,1,315.
Liu, G. 2008. ITʹ
S HIGH TIME SMCP GOT WELL
UNDERWAY IN CHINA. Paper presented at the
International Maritime English Conference, Shanghai,
China.
Mann,S.,&Holdsworth,L.2003.Thepsychologicalimpact
of teleworking: stress, emotions and health. New
Technology,WorkandEmployment,18(3),196‐211.
Pan, Y., Bruhiprabha, P., & Surasin, J. 2014.
A content
analysis of cross‐cultural communication problems
betweenChineseandThaistudentsattheinternational
college of Burapha university, Thailand. HRD
JOURNAL,4(2),94‐100.
Reichmann,F.F.1959.Loneliness.Psychiatry,22(1),1‐15.
Rickheit,G.,&Strohner,H.2008.Handbookofcommunication
competence(Vol.1):WalterdeGruyter.
Savignon, S. J. 2002. Communicative language teaching:
Linguistic theory and classroom practice. Interpreting
communicativelanguageteaching:Contextsandconcernsin
teachereducation,1‐27.
Schröder‐Hinrichs, J. U. 2010. Human and organizational
factors in the maritime world—Are we keeping up to
speed?WMUJournalofMaritimeAffairs, 9(1),1‐
3.
Schweers Jr, W. 1999. Using L1 in the L2 classroom. Paper
presentedattheEnglishTeachingForum.
Thurstone,L.L.1947.Multiple‐factorAnalysis:ADevelopment
and Expansion of The Vectors of Mind: by LL Thurstone:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Trenkner,P.2005.TheImo–StandardMarineCommunication
Phrases‐RefreshingMemoriesToRefreshMotivation.Paper
presented at the Proceedings of International Martime
EnglishConference(IMEC17),Marseille,France.
Trenkner, P. 2007. The IMO Standard Marine
CommunicationPhrases‐acommunicativeSurvivalKit.
TheInternationalMaritimeHumanElementBulletin,(14),8.
Retrieved from Alert! website: http://www.he‐
alert.org/index.cfm/bulletin/Communication
Trenkner, P. 2009. Maritime
English requirements and the
revised STCW. Paper presented at the Szczecin:
Proceedings of the International Maritime English
ConferenceIMEC21,MaritimeUniversityofSzczecin.
Trenkner, P.,& Cole, C. 2010. Raising the Maritime English
bar: The STCW Manila Amendments and their impact on
MaritimeEnglish.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsof
the22ndInternationalMaritimeEnglishConference.
VanPatten,B.2002.Communicativeclassrooms,processing
instruction, and pedagogical norms. Pedagogical norms
forsecondandforeignlanguagelearningandteaching,105‐
118.
Ziarati, M., Ziarati, R., Bigland, O., & Acar, U. 2011.
CommunicationAndPracticalTrainingAppliedInNautical
Studies. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of
InternationalMartimeEnglishConference23,Constanta
MaritimeUniversity,Romania.
Ziarati,R.2006.SafetyAtSea–ApplyingParetoAnalysis.Paper
presented at the Proceedings of World Maritime
Technology Conference (WMTC 06), Queen Elizabeth
ConferenceCentre.
