Words Are Mightier Than Swords … and Yet Miscommunication ...

Words Are Mightier Than Swords … and Yet Miscommunication Costs Lives!
Stephen Poteet 1 , Jitu Patel 2 , Cheryl Giammanco 3 , Iya Whiteley 4 ,
Ping Xue 1 & Anne Kao 1
{ stephen.r.poteet, ping.xue, anne.kao}@boeing.com
jmpatel@dstl.gov.uk
cgiammanco@arl.army.mil
iya.whiteley@sea.co.uk
Abstract: As part of an exploratory study into linguistic
sources of coalition miscommunication, we have
interviewed a number of UK and US military and civilian
staff. Initial analysis of the data has shown that there are
various types of linguistic variations and cultural
differences manifested by the US and UK groups.
American English and British English differ in complex
ways not only in terms of lexical differences but also,
perhaps more importantly, in terms of language use due
to cultural differences. While this study and analysis are
preliminary, the results provide support for our initial
hypotheses. Importantly, the current analysis suggests
that many relevant issues are largely pragmatic in nature,
not just involving lexical and grammatical differences but
indicating differences in the way the two cultures use the
“common” language.
Keywords: Cross-cultural Pragmatics, Speech Acts,
Miscommunication.
1 Introduction
English is claimed to be the first global language,
particularly for commerce and diplomacy [1]. As a lingua
franca, English does promote inter-cultural
communication; however it can also be an object of
misunderstanding as demonstrated by Verschueren [2]
from his study of international news reporting. It is
believed that misunderstanding is due to an extant
knowledge of English accompanied by insufficient
knowledge of English-speaking societies and cultures
leading the hearer to “improvise inferential solutions – to
construct the final message – based on divergent sociocultural
realities.” ([3], p. 2). The differences can be
explained in terms of cross-cultural pragmatics such as
differences in speech act interpretation and modes of
interactions between English speaker’s and hearer’s
language [4].
The English language has many dialects (e.g., British,
Australian, American) that can differ from each-other
quite significantly. Indeed, problems of
miscommunication are common throughout the Englishspeaking
world, “as almost every Briton learns on his first
day in America” ([5], p. 2). Unfortunately, any potential
miscommunication may go unnoticed as when “an Irish
mother tells an English teacher that her child is backward,
meaning shy whereas the teacher assumes she means
retarded.” ([6], p. 335). Even in environments such as
air-traffic control, with controlled language and
processes, miscommunications between pilots and control
towers have lead to air disasters and near-disasters [7].
Ironically, it is the “common” language that is often the
biggest cause of communication breakdown.
In multinational operations, there is a need for interpreters
and Liaison Officers (LNOs) with language skills and
cultural knowledge to help avoid miscommunications
with coalition partners and the local target audience [8,
9]. As interpreters, their speech, mannerisms, and
gestures must be appropriate for the target audience in
order to avoid misunderstandings during face-to-face
encounters [9]. Linguists may be required to support
human intelligence teams. The Regional Studies Analyst
within a Human Terrain Team (HTT) of social scientists,
organic to the forward-deployed Brigade, must be fluent
in the local language in order to gather socio-cultural
knowledge through field research while avoiding
misunderstandings [10].
In the US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual,
military personnel communicating in the English
language in the presence of an interpreter are instructed to
practice their speaking techniques to avoid idioms or
slang, acronyms, American “folk” or cultural reference,
1 Boeing Phantom Works, Seattle, US
2 Dstl, UK
3 ARL, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, US
4 Systems Engineering & Assessment Ltd., UK

and, interestingly enough, American humor [9]. It is
noted that, because American humor is culture specific,
poor translation may lead to miscommunications. We
will address each of these “language faux pas” within the
context of this paper and provide examples of how each
can lead to miscommunications between UK and US
military personnel working in a coalition environment.
The implications for miscommunication in the military
could result in loss of life. Given that all recent Western
military deployments have involved collaborations among
multiple nations, breakdown in communication between
allies could jeopardise the success of the operation. With
the increase in missions beyond traditional warfare,
coalition forces have taken on additional tasks in peace
keeping and humanitarian relief thus creating added
challenges to the communications among multinational
coalition forces. Recent studies have shown that there are
serious challenges in coalition communication due to the
diverse backgrounds among multinational groups and
team members [11, 12].
The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the
linguistic aspects of the miscommunications, the
relationship between cultural differences and variety of
language use, and their impact on miscommunication. We
are particularly interested in differences in the use of
English by US and UK military forces, especially the
differences that are related to training and culture.
2 Study Questions
There are many issues and parameters that are relevant to
causes of miscommunication. Given our primary
objectives and given our understanding of the current
issues, we are focusing on cultural aspects, linguistic
aspects and the relation between these two aspects of
human communication. As Algeo [13] pointed out,
“British and American English, like all dialects of the
same language, differ from one another in complex ways”
and the cultural differences between UK and US are a
major cause of linguistic variations between these two
dialects. If these observations are generally true, they
must also be true in the military domain. In fact, we
expect special complications in the military domain due
to their unique constraints and characteristics. In the light
of the study by Algeo and other studies reported in the
literature this research proposes two initial hypotheses.
i) There will be linguistic differences at different
levels of language use between the British and
American military that will lead to
misunderstanding, which could have a
significant impact on operations.
Study Aim
ii) There are cultural differences between the
British and American military that will impact
on language use and lead to misunderstanding,
which could have a significant impact on
operations.
This exploratory study aims to examine and identify
categories and patterns of miscommunication due to
variations of language use. Miscommunication manifests
in a number of ways and at different levels of language
use. Some instances of miscommunication are simply due
to lexical differences, which are not closely related to
culture. Examples include use of synonymy (i.e.,
denotation of one referent by two or more linguistics
forms), or use of polysemy (i.e., one linguistic form
denotes two or more referents). Differences in styles of
communication are more closely associated with cultures.
For example, a cultural tendency to understatement may
result in a misunderstanding of the extent of a problem.
Social status and context may impact interpretation. Such
examples include differences in habitual inferences, e.g. a
simple order by a commander to “go to” a certain location
suspected of being friendly to hostiles may be interpreted
by one group as a command to take that area by force but
by another as simply an order to go there and assess the
situation. Misinterpreting the intended speech act is also a
common problem, e.g., what was offered by a commander
as an observation or statement may be interpreted by
subordinates as an order (or vice versa).
Participants
Participants in this pilot study (N=10) were UK and US
military officers who had experienced
miscommunications with coalition partners from the other
nation during military planning and operations. There
were ten male participants, five UK nationals with prior
experience of working with the US military and five US
nationals who are either currently working on an
exchange program in the UK or have prior experience
working closely with UK military personnel in coalition
exercises or operations. Participation was voluntary and
there was no compensation.
Method of Data Capture
A short e-mail survey was administered to screen
participants based on their experience in UK-US coalition
operations. Participants were informed of the purpose of
the study, procedures, benefits, risks, and confidentiality
practices. They were given an opportunity to withdraw or
decline being audio-taped. Participants were interviewed

individually (face-to-face or via telephone) by one or
more researchers for sixty to ninety minutes. They
provided examples of their experiences with
miscommunications during military planning and
operations as part of semi-structured interviews.
In the semi-structured interviews, participants were asked
to describe the nature of the miscommunication, its source
(e.g. particular words or phrases, different ways of
performing certain speech acts, different understanding of
procedures and doctrine) and context (i.e., the type of
operation, their role in it, and the mode of
communication). They were asked when the
miscommunication was identified, what was the effect of
the miscommunication on performance, and how it was
resolved. They were also given an opportunity to provide
a rationale for the miscommunication and consider
whether it would have occurred if the operation were not
multi-national. Finally, participants provided
recommendations on ways to reduce future
miscommunications between UK and US coalition
partners, such as the use of a standardized language (DoD
Dictionary [14]), cultural awareness training, and training
in a multinational context prior to operations.
Participants agreed to be contacted for follow-up
questions if necessary. Audio-taped interviews were
transcribed for thematic analysis.
3 Initial Findings
Although the number of interviews conducted so far is
small, they largely support our two hypotheses. Various
types of linguistic differences exist at various levels of
language use between the British and American military
which can lead to misunderstandings, sometimes with
potentially dangerous consequences. Cultural differences
result in variations of language use in different ways as
shown by the example below.
Use of Acronyms
Acronyms can pose a problem because they are not
known by everyone. In this sense, they are similar to
slang and jargon. Acronyms, of course, are not confined
to the military; they pose a problem in most large
businesses and organizations. One of our interviewees, a
US exchange officer in the UK, reported seeing briefings
that he had difficulty following because of the extensive
use of acronyms and jargon. He also noted that certain
specifically British military acronyms (“SO1” for Staff
Officer 1, “SO2” etc.) are unknown to most American
military personnel unless they have spent time with
British troops.
Use of Slang and Colloquialisms
Everyone does not just speak a single, monolithic
language. Rather, we each have several different
registers or styles that we use as appropriate. The
language we speak with friends in informal settings can
differ in pronunciation, word choice and grammatical
complexity from the language we speak in more formal
settings. In informal settings, we are more likely to use
slang and colloquialisms. These can be very expressive,
not only adding colour to our speech but also signalling a
sense of camaraderie. Colloquialisms typically originate
among a small group and spread slowly from there and
may not spread very far. As a result, people outside that
group are less likely to understand the colloquialisms than
they would for more standard or formal words or
expressions. This is true for different national dialects
such as British English vs. American English. As a result,
colloquialisms are more likely to be misunderstood when
used in a coalition setting. For example, an interviewee
reported that he was training a UK Forward Air
Controller (FAC), who was directing a US pilot. The
trainee tried to direct him to a road between two different
coloured fields but the pilot reported that he had clear
contact with the “dirt ball road” with no reference to the
fields. The trainee did not understand the expression and
kept pressing him to respond whether he saw the two
coloured fields but the pilot kept responding that he had
contact with the dirt ball road. Finally the instructor (the
interviewee) had to step in and clarify the situation. Here
the use of a colloquialism is compounded with the
inflexibility of both the pilot and the trainee to try to
describe things in different terms, an aspect of
communicative strategy.
Use of Jargon
Another kind of language register that by definition is
limited to a smaller group is jargon. Jargon is language
that tends to be limited to a specific trade, business or
professional group. It not only allows its speakers to
communicate succinctly and precisely about their tools
and concepts, but can perform a function similar to slang,
that is, identifying its users as part of a group or
fraternity. Like slang, jargon serves an important function
for members of the group that it belongs to, but when
used outside that group, it can be potentially confusing.
As an illustration of the value of jargon, an interviewee
reported that he had less problem than one might have
expected on his job because his role was very technical
and the British and American technicians used the same
language. So jargon in general technical domains (e.g.
information technology) often cuts across national
cultures. However, there are contextual differences

which do create communication problems; for example,
people working night operations use different equipment
(e.g. night vision equipment) may say things that are
unintelligible to the daytime operators who are not
familiar with the equipment.
The next example illustrates how the use of jargon can
play both a positive and negative role in communication.
The UK FAC reported that from the type of weapon the
pilot told him he was carrying, he would know what the
range, precision, and destructive capacity was and could
both determine whether the weapon was appropriate to
the target and, if so, direct him best to the target.
However, a British plane might be carrying a new
weapon that an American FAC is not familiar with, so if
the British pilot tells him what he has, the FAC would not
know how to direct him. The British pilot must tell him
the nearest equivalent in older weapons technology.
Unfortunately, that leaves out a lot of information about
the capabilities of the weapon. This is a nice illustration
of how jargon (e.g. technical weapons vocabulary) can
allow the speaker to communicate a lot of information in
a word or short phrase. Unfortunately, it can only do this
if both the speaker and listener are familiar with the
terminology and the technology or specialized knowledge
behind it. In this case unlike the previous case, weapons
technology tends to be more restricted information and is
not generally shared by people from different countries,
even if they are allies.
Another example illustrating the two-edged nature of
jargon is the use of a system for indicating how precise a
stated target location is, called target mensuration. The
system uses a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is very precise (e.g.
taken from a satellite) and 6 is a very loose
approximation, which serves as a request that the pilot
actually search for the target in that vicinity before
releasing the weapon. Unfortunately, some pilots are not
familiar with this and they ignore a report of a precision
of 6 or treat it as less important than it actually is and
drop the bomb exactly at the indicated position. While we
do not have the details of this example due to the
sensitive nature of the event, it is clear that this could lead
to some very serious problems in the field.
Miscommunications Associated with Medium
of Communication
The medium of communication can become important in
a number of way, changing the amount of information
that can be communicated (the bandwidth, the number of
channels) as well as conventional styles. So face-to-face
communication allows one to use facial expressions and
gestures to modulate the content of the words, and the
shared environment provides additional context, whether
one points to objects or not. Video conferencing allows
one to use gestures and facial expressions, but there is a
limited amount of shared environment. Radio
communications are even more limiting and the various
written media (everything from doctrine to email to
chatroom to text messaging) each provide the author with
different scales of time for composing, different amount
of text that can be realistically written at one time, and
different amounts of feedback from the listener/audience
(from none, to delayed, to instant).
One example of the effect of radio as media on
communications came from the UK Forward Air
Controller. He reported that occasionally a FAC trainee
would hit the radio transmission button an instant after he
started speaking, which would result in the first syllable
or two getting clipped out. So in one incident “54”
became “4”. The pilot was referring to the local latitude
or longitude, so in the context of knowing they were
somewhere around the 50 th parallel, it was obvious that
the message was “54”, but a novice pilot would request a
repeat. A similar situation sometimes happens to a novice
FAC on the ground when a pilot reads back the position
and clips the beginning of it.
The UK navy logistics officer also reported the
difference between face-to-face conversation and email
with US counterparts. He notes that “If I went to a
meeting [with US military personnel] there would be
absolutely no problem at all because you can gauge the
atmosphere. … You might have to ask … what exactly
did they mean but … if you did slip up and say something
[odd or unintelligible], people would nudge you or look
surprised [and] you would realise immediately. Similarly,
on a phone call, I think you can gauge somebody’s mood
and if something does happen they would query it [then
and there] and you would get it sorted out. … I think half
the problem with this one is email.” By “this one” he is
referring to the example discussed in the section titled
“Denotation vs. Connotation” below. His point is that,
with email you do not get immediate feedback like you do
with face-to-face communication, so a misunderstanding
can go undetected for longer and can fester.
Misinterpreted Speech Act
Beyond the lexical or terminological level of language
there are aspects of linguistic pragmatics or language use,
including the speech act performed by an utterance.
Language is used to do more than simply make statements
or assertions. It can be used to question, to promise, to
request, to greet, to congratulate, even to marry (“I hereby
pronounce you man and wife.”). While there is sometimes
a syntactic correlate of the speech act (in English, typical

questions have the first auxiliary verb before the subject),
this is not always the case and often what looks like one
speech act on the surface is really another speech act. For
example, the apparent yes/no question “Do you have the
time” is actually a request to ask the speaker the time.
One of the most familiar examples of speech act, which is
not limited to military personnel or situations, was
reported by an interviewee who is a US exchange staff in
UK. A standard UK greeting “Are you all right” was
interpreted by him as a question about his health or
situation, and initially responded accordingly. Unlike
some simple lexical differences he reported that this
misunderstanding took a while to understand.
A retired US Air Force officer reported that because of
“British politeness”, British officers would often issue
commands in the form “You may well wish to …”, which
resulted in US personnel misinterpreting them as
suggestions. In this case, the problem occurs because the
way the British construct commands is different from the
way Americans would. That is, it is a pragmatic
difference between American and British English, and
one that could likely be traced back to non-linguistic
cultural principles, i.e. politeness.
Denotation vs. Connotation
There is one example that is rather singular in that it
combines a number of different factors. The US
communications officer reported that there was a US
Navy ship that left his port and their supplier mentioned
some problems they had with briefing about some
supplies. The UK logistics officer sent him an email
thanking him for his comments and noted that they would
have to improve part of the process. He told the supplier
that they would have to write up an “Idiot’s Guide” for
this process to ensure that the problem did not arise again.
In the UK, “Idiot’s Guide” refers to books on a variety of
topics that are introductory in nature. In America, the
same type of books are called a “Dummies’ Guide”. The
(American) supplier was unaware of this UK usage and
thought that the logistics officer was impugning his
intelligence, suggesting he was an idiot. He reported it up
the chain and it eventually got to the logistics officer’s
commanding officer. The commanding officer knew and
liked the logistics officer and assured his command that it
must have been due to a misunderstanding and the
logistics officer contacted the supplier and resolved the
issue.
There are a number of factors that led to this
misunderstanding. For instance, although it involves a
lexical difference, the UK “Idiot’s Guide” versus the US
“Dummies’ Guide”, the misunderstanding is primarily
one of connotation rather than denotation; it is not so
much that the American supplier did not understand that
the logistics officer meant a set of instructions to help
people perform this process without problems, it was
rather that “Idiot’s Guide” to the American supplier had
negative connotations, implying only an idiot would need
these instructions. Interestingly, both “dummy” and
“idiot” have this connotation in both the US and the UK,
but in the context of “Guide”, while “dummy” lost this
connotation in US, “idiot” lost it in UK.
There is another cluster of factors that led to the
misunderstanding. The UK logistics officer had been
trying very hard to adapt to American linguistic
conventions, using American spelling and words as much
as possible. His communication with the American
supplier was via email, so the American had no basis for
knowing that the logistics officer was not American,
based on his spelling and word choice. If the interaction
had been face-to-face or even through ‘phone or radio’,
the UK logistics officer’s accent would have cued the
supplier that the person he was talking to was not
American. So the use of a British phrase was interpreted
in the context of coming from another American, so there
was no reason to believe that the phrase might have had a
different meaning or connotation for the speaker than it
did for him.
This also perhaps illustrates the effect of not using a
standard or neutral style or register. The logistics officer
used the more colloquial “Idiot’s Guide” rather than “a
set of procedures” probably to express camaraderie and
possibly to inject a bit of colour or humour; however, as
noted above, colloquialisms also tend to be more
parochial than more standard or formal expressions and
are more likely to be misunderstood, as this instance was.
Finally, unlike many of the instances of lexical
miscommunication, this was not an instance of a failure to
understand but rather of a misunderstanding, a
communication that was believed to have succeeded on
both parts, but had in fact failed to meet the intended
effect.
4 Interaction of Language and Real-World
Knowledge
A retired US Army Lt. Colonel recounted an exercise
involving a Canadian division commander and four
brigade commanders from US, UK, Canada, and
Australia. The division commander had given a mission
to the Australian brigade commander and then was called
out of the exercise for a short time. During his absence
the four brigade commanders discussed the mission that
the Australian had been given and all of them disagreed

on what he was supposed to do. When the division
commander came back, they informed him of this and he
clarified what he wanted the Australian brigade to do.
Although unable to give us details, he said that the
problem was essentially that each of the brigade
commanders had interpreted the mission in light of their
nation’s doctrine, whereas, if they had interpreted it in
terms of the coalition doctrine (in this case ABCA,
American, British, Canadian, New Zealand, and
Australian), they would have all understood it correctly.
Here is a case where different world knowledge, or rather
a specialized cultural or social knowledge, i.e. military
doctrine, influences the interpretation of the division
commander’s intent, even though all of the brigade
commanders were speaking a common language.
The retired US Air Force officer also reported on a
misinterpretation of symbology, a form of communication
if not language per se. The problem was that in a coalition
setting, they would often have to transfer control over one
area from one nation (say the US) to another (say the
UK). They would indicate this by putting flags on the
symbols for the units. The problem was that a UK
brigade (battalion etc.) would have less equipment than
the corresponding US unit, and would often be
insufficient for the activity required in that area. In this
case, a word or symbol, “brigade”, meant ostensibly the
same thing in both “dialects”; however, in reality, it
represented something very different because of the
difference in the associated equipment. In this case, this
problem was resolved by indicating the number of
personnel, aircraft, and other major end items next to the
symbol.
5 Recommendations
A few tentative recommendations emerged from our
study.
Improve Cross-Cultural Understanding
The best way to improve communication and reduce the
occurrences of misunderstandings is to increase cultural
awareness among coalition partners so that they may
understand how differences in shared knowledge, beliefs,
values, and language use may affect collaborative
planning and operations. One way that was suggested by
several of the officers we interviewed was training; one
went so far as to suggest that cultural awareness training
should be required before deployment into a coalition
situation. Another way to enhance cultural awareness is
to have coalition partners train together prior to
operations but this may be unrealistic due to time
constraints. The US Army Research Laboratory has been
funding several tools being developed by industry to raise
cultural awareness. GlobeSmart Commander and
GlobeSmart Soldier are web-based tools [15].
GlobeSmart Commander is intended to raise awareness of
cultural differences among coalition members and how
those differences may affect communication and
collaboration [15]. GlobeSmart Soldier provides the
Soldier with cultural information on the local population
from the perspective of Americans and Iraqis, along with
practical exercises in interacting with Iraqis [15]. It is
easy to see how similar tools could be developed to
improve US and UK cross-cultural understanding.
An even better way to improve cultural awareness is to
rotate officers in exchange programs with other nations.
The British, Canadians, and Australians apparently do
this much better than the US does.
Finally, one officer recommended that military personnel,
especially captains and above, should be encouraged to
get to know their liaison officers and learn as much as
they could from them.
Encourage Questions and Confirmations
Several officers indicated that often people do not
understand but fail to ask questions. This seems to be at
least part cultural, but personality differences are also
clearly involved. One officer emphasized that the best
advice he could give is to ask questions if you are not
sure you understood, or even just to confirm that you did
understand an order.
In order to get a confirmation, it is not a good strategy to
repeat back a communication using the same words as
were used in the original communication. Due to
diversity in intonation (e.g. rising voice at the end of the
sentence or not), mistakes are cited [7] when the speaker
is asking a question while the audience mistakenly
thought it was a confirmation or a command.
Standardize Terminology and Format
A common strategy is to use standard terminology in
English as much as possible so that everyone on the team
is speaking the same very bland English. As shown by
the data discussed above, standardization of terminology
seems a very important useful strategy to reduce
ambiguity and thus avoid miscommunication. This seems
to be true across various technical areas and applications
ranging form business discussion to radio
communications. In addition, experience also seems to
suggest that standard formats for communication are
equally important. In fact, there are several well-known
standards such as the standard NATO formats for

communications and various theatre-specific manuals
(e.g. SPINS, special instructions). Standard terminology
and formats tend to be more useful in a formal context
such as a formal briefing environment.
However, standardization of military terminology and
communication formats are not as straightforward as they
might seem. First of all, it takes time and often
tremendous effort to standardize terminology and
formats. As technology rapidly develops, weapons and
target systems are changing, which creates great tension
between the changing situation and the standards. Nontraditional
warfare will also require many more terms to
be included, and it is not very practical to expect that all
cases can be covered. In addition, the use of standard
terminology does not entirely eliminate ambiguity. Here
are several distinct cases. (i) Standard terms are not
necessarily defined precisely with one and only one
meaning. Instead, they are often broadly defined referring
to a set of related meanings. For instance, the term
“intelligence” in the U.S DoD Dictionary of Military
Terms refers to intelligence activities, organizations
engaged in intelligence activities, and the information
product resulting from the intelligence activities, among
other related concepts. (ii) Standard terms are not always
uniquely defined. It is quite common that more than one
standardized term refers to the same meaning. This
creates a “familiarity” problem as some terms are more
familiar to people in one nation or organization while
other terms are more frequently used in another nation or
organization. (iii) Perhaps the most problems occur when
a standard term also has a common, non-standard use.
The vast majority of terms in standardized vocabularies
are ordinary English words and phrases, but their
denotation as standard terms often differs from their
ordinary usage. Ambiguity arises when these standard
terms and non-standard terms are mixed together. (iv)
Finally, there is another class of situations where
standardization will not help: cases where real-world
knowledge is required to recognize important differences
between different referents of a term, even though the
term is not being used in a different sense. One example
is that of “brigade” symbology given above where there
are significant differences between the constituents of US
brigades and UK brigades.
One officer suggested that standardization was the best
way to eliminate miscommunication, while another said
that standardized languages would not help, because
people would be unable to learn them all. Perhaps
standardization should be limited to certain areas. For
example, it might be useful for the writing of manuals or
doctrine, where writers might have time to consult
specialized dictionaries and where the language might be
expected not to change too fast. Another area that could
benefit from a standardized vocabulary would be
situations where time is off the essence and confirmation
difficult, as in aviation radio (and perhaps other radio)
communication. However, it is essential that the users be
well trained and use the standard language consistently.
6 Conclusion
In this exploratory study, we have looked at a small
sample of anecdotes of miscommunication between UK
and US military groups. We have identified various types
of linguistic variations and cultural differences manifested
by the US and UK groups. American English and British
English differ in complex ways not only in terms of
lexical differences but also, perhaps more importantly, in
terms of language use due to cultural differences. The
initial findings suggest that there are indeed cases of
misunderstanding between US and UK personnel and that
some of these could impact on operations.
The results indicate that much needs to be studied about
the current coalition communication patterns, styles and
other characteristics of language use. This would then
help in identifying appropriate strategies and tools that
need to be developed to improve process and cognitive
interoperability among multinational forces. Importantly,
while studying lexical and grammatical differences
between British and American English is useful and
important, it is just as important to analyze the ways the
two cultures use their “common” language. This supports
our on-going efforts to develop a computational
pragmatics methodology.
* Acknowledgement
Research was sponsored by the US Army Research
Laboratory and the UK Ministry of Defence and was
accomplished under Agreement Number W911NF-06-3-
0001. The views and conclusions contained in this
document are those of the authors and should not be
interpreted as representing the official policies, either
expressed or implied, of the US Army Research
Laboratory, the US Government, the UK Ministry of
Defence or the UK Government. The US and UK
Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute
reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any
copyright notation heron.
References
[1] Graddol, D. (1997) The future of English The
British Council.
[2] Verschueren, J. (1997) “English as object and
medium of (mis)understanding.” In Garcia and
Otheguy (eds.) pp. 31-54.

[3] Garcia, O. and Otheguy, R (1989) English Across
Cultures, Cultures Across English: A Reader in
Cross-cultural Communication. Mouton de Gruyter.
[4] Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
[5] Bryson, B. (1990). Mother Tongue – The English
Language. Penguin Books, London.
[6] Todd, L. (1989) “Cultures in Conflicts: Varieties of
English in Northern Ireland”. In Garcia and
Otheguy (eds.) pp. 335-355.
[7] Cushing, S. (1994) Fatal Words: Communication
Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. University of
Chicago Press: Chicago & London.
[8] FM 5-01.12/FM 90-41 (MCRP 5-1B, NTTP 5-02,
AFTTP(I) 3-2.21). Joint Task Force Liaison Officer
Integration Mutiservice Tactics, Techniquest, and
Procedures for Joint Task Force (JTF) Liaison
Officer Integration. January 2003.
[9] FM 3-24 (MCWP 3-33.5). Counterinsurgency.
December 2006.
[10] Knipp, J., Grau, L., Prinslow, K., & Smith, D.
(2006). The human terrain system: A CORDS for
the 21st century. Military Review, Sep-Oct, 8-15.
[11] Pierce, L. G. (2002) “Barriers to adaptability in a
multinational team,” in Proceedings of the 45th
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, pp. 225-229, Baltimore.
[12] Chiarelli, P. W. and Michaelis, P.R. (2005)
“Winning the peace, the requirement for fullspectrum
operations,” Military Review, 4-17.
[13] Algeo, J. (1986) “The two streams: British and
American English”. Journal of English Linguistics,
Vol. 19, No 2, pp. 269-284. SAGE Publications.
[14] Joint Pub 1-02. Department of Defense Dictionary of
Military and Associated Terms. 04 March 2008.
[15] GlobeSmart Commander and GlobeSmart Soldier:
Helping Remove the Fog of War
(http://www.aperianglobal.com/about_aperian_glob
al_news.asp).