1 Introduction

Most communication on board ships is verbal (Peter John,2017). The importance of effective communication is underscored by alarming statistics, revealing that poor communication ranks among the most significant contributors to maritime accidents. According to the IMO (International Maritime Organization), a staggering 80% of maritime incidents stem from human error, with nearly half of these incidents directly linked to communication failures (Ziarati 2006). Recognizing the severity of this issue, the IMO introduced the Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) as a standardized lexicon to bolster efficient communication across international waters. However, despite these efforts, limitations persist in the implementation and effectiveness of SMCP, as highlighted by various studies examining its constraints and proposing strategies for improving safety at sea (Kovacevic, Sanela,2014; Ziarati, R., Ziarati, M., & Bahar Çalbaş,2009).

Maritime English as a sub-genre of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) within the maritime domain, designed primarily for the intricate communicative needs of the sector (Adelija Čulić-Viskota, & Kalebota, S., 2013). ESP discourse analysis pays more attention on performance rather than competence. Therefore, provides a valuable perspective through which Maritime English can be meticulously examined and refined for performance optimization. Against this background, this article uses linguistic theory to analyze and enhance maritime discourse by listing the VHF transcripts within the ship accident reports, aiming to enhance personnel’s communication awareness and enhance the effectiveness of communication. Due to the inherent challenges of obtaining transcripts of maritime accidents, this study uses a case study approach to analyze vessel accidents caused by communication errors. By closely examining these cases, this study seeks to extract valuable insights into the nature of communication risks in maritime discourse and identify strategies for improvement. Through a combination of theoretical analysis and empirical evidence from the case studies, this article aims to critically review the role of maritime languages in ensuring maritime safety and provide recommendations for strengthening language training and practice in the maritime sector.

2 Communication risks in maritime discourse

There are multiple reasons will result in communication risks. For examples, ambiguous language or instructions, cognitive differences, culture background, etc. Besides communication risks will lead to different results: Vessel casualties, personnel injuries and maritime casualties. (Mccallum, M. C., Forsythe, A. M., Raby, M., Rothblum, A. M., & Slavich, A., 2000).

Due to the multicultural background on the ships, crew members from different nationalities and races work closely together and share the same working and living environment (Horck, 2005; Noble, Vangehuchten, 2011). It might be easy to attribute language errors primarily to non-native English speakers. However, the former research using speech act theory and quantitative analysis, showed that language errors were not significantly related to whether English was the speaker’s native language. (Peter John, 2019)

In that case this paper focusing on the language itself, this approach aims to identify potential risks in shipboard communications. Through the analysis of conversational structures, interaction patterns and linguistic features, this study will explore how communication breakdowns occur and the impact on maritime safety. This paper aims to use language analysis theory, specifically Conversation Analysis (CA) theory and Speech Act theory to examine the risks inherent in maritime communication discourse.

3 Theoretical framework

3.1 Conversation analysis (CA)

Conversation analysis (CA) is a qualitative research method that focuses on the detailed examination of naturally occurring conversations and interactions. Its purpose is to reveal the structure, patterns and norms of verbal communication between individuals in social settings. As a professional communication field, maritime English has conversational characteristics that are highly procedural and industry-specific, which can be captured and analyzed by the CA method.

Goodwin and Heritage’s study highlights CA as a general method for analyzing social interactions that was originally developed in the study of ordinary conversations but has since been widely used in other forms of talk in interactions, including court proceedings, news interviews, and political speeches (Goodwin 1990).

This shows that CA is not only applicable to daily conversations, but can also be extended to other forms of interactive conversations, providing a powerful analytical tool for studying people’s communication behaviors in different situations. In addition, CA research directions are evolving to include how conversations are organized in institutional and workplace settings, bringing CA closer to the work of anthropologists to better understand relationships in different contexts.

CA allows researchers to explore the details of communication, including turn-taking, repair mechanisms, sequence organization, and negotiation of meaning. Conversation analysis helps identify linguistic features in different interaction modes. (Pritchard and Kalogjera 2000).

One example of CA’s utility in maritime research is its application to VHF communications. By examining transcripts of maritime VHF conversations, researchers can pay attention to the linguistic features and interaction modes characteristic of maritime discourse. For instance, CA can help uncover how ship crew adjust their language styles under different communication contexts, thereby enhancing communication efficiency and clarity.

In this study, Conversation Analysis (CA) is used as the theoretical framework, aiming to deeply explore the communicative rules and interaction strategies contained in the actual dialogue process of Maritime English. By translating and carefully analyzing real maritime conversation records, we reveal the order of conversations, turn-taking methods, and how to deal with uncertainty or misunderstandings. It helps to identify potential communication failures and their root causes. It is expected that this research will not only deepen the understanding of maritime English conversation structure, but also provide valuable information for improving seafarer training courses, optimizing maritime communication practices and even developing more effective maritime communication standards and reference basis.

3.2 Speech act theory

Speech Act Theory, developed by philosopher J.L. Austin and further elaborated by J.R. Searle, explores the performative function of language in social contexts. Speech acts are not only the transmission of information, but also include three basic types of behaviors: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. By categorizing speech acts into illocutionary acts (the intended actions performed by utterances) and perlocutionary acts (the effects of utterances on the listener), Speech Act Theory enables researchers to analyze the intended meanings and communicative intentions behind verbal interactions onboard ships.

For example, when encountering bad weather conditions, the captain issued an instruction to the pilot: “Alter course to port by ten degrees immediately.” This statement not only contains the information content of describing the action (locutionary act), but more importantly, it is a specific action instruction (illocutionary act) that is expected to be executed immediately to avoid potential dangers.

By applying Speech Act Theory, we can systematically deconstruct the speech acts in this type of maritime communication, thereby revealing the mechanism and value of maritime English in ensuring navigation safety.

Furthermore, Speech Act Theory emphasizes the importance of context and felicity conditions in determining the success or failure of speech acts. In maritime discourse, where communication occurs in dynamic and often high-stakes situations, understanding the contextual factors influencing speech acts is crucial for ensuring effective communication and operational safety.

4 Research methodology

4.1 Textual analysis sources and data collection

This study selected reports issued by the British Maritime Accident Investigation Bureau (MAIB) on two different types of maritime accidents as the main source for text analysis. The first accident was the Stena Feronia incident involving the collision of two ships, and the second was the grounding of the freighter Hamburg. The real-time conversations recorded in the two accident reports were carefully transcribed. The transcription process strives to be accurate to recreate the communication at the accident scene. Clinical trial number: not applicable.

4.2 Case studies

4.2.1 Stena Feronia collided with Union Moon

At 1858 on 7 March 2012, the outbound general cargo vessel Union Moon collided with the inbound ferry Stena Feronia, in the vicinity of the fairway buoy that marks the harbour limit of Belfast Harbour. At the time of the incident, the captain of Union Moon was in an over-alcohol state, and the alcohol content in his blood exceeded the allowable maximum, which seriously affected his judgment and reaction ability. The PEC on board (equivalent to the crew member temporarily performing pilotage duties) held Although the first officer and the third officer were aware of the potential collision risk, their action response and decision-making were deficient. VHF communication was an important link affecting this collision. In communication, the information transmission was not accurate and timely, and there was a lack of concise risk warnings and emergency action instructions. The interaction between the PCO and each ship did not fully strengthen the sense of urgency, and the dialogue process was long, which was not conducive to quick decision-making.

What follows is a Transcript of VDR and VHF radio communications leading up to collision Table 1.

Table 1 Created by Authors - Source: the Marine accident investigation branch report (2012)
Full size table

4.2.2 Identification of speech acts theory

Locutionary Acts Misinterpretation: The initial confusion arose from UM’s ambiguous locutionary act “I see. Just now I am altering my course to port.” (Table 1, Line 2), where they reported altering course to port but failed to provide a clear and definite statement. This lack of clarity led to VTS’s need for multiple confirmations “Sir, can you please confirm once more, you said you have just altered your course to port, is that correct over? Sir, can you confirm, did you say you just altered course to port—is that correct?”(Table 1,Lines 3 and 5), reflecting the importance of precise locutionary acts in maritime communication.

Illocutionary Acts Failure and Misdirection: Despite UM’s eventual confirmation “Yes to to to to to port, yes, that is correct”. (Table 1, Line 6), the initial illocutionary act was not executed effectively. It should have served as a commissive act—a clear commitment to a course alteration—but instead resulted in uncertainty. VTS’s directive illocutionary acts to verify the situation were instrumental; however, the delayed and ambiguous response from UM allowed the situation to develop negatively.

Perlocutionary Acts and Consequences: The perlocutionary effects of the dialogue demonstrate the real-world impact of the speech acts. Although VTS’s warnings “Yes sir, this action will put you into danger with the Stena Feronia. You are standing into danger with the Stena Feronia. She is bound to the north side of the fairway buoy over. (On Stena Feronia’s bridge, the third officer can be heard saying ‘She’s altering’)” (Table 1, Line 7) and subsequent directive “Yes sir, can you communicate with Union Moon. He has altered course to port and appears to be standing into danger with yourselves. Over. (Simultaneously, Stena Feronia’s third officer continues, ‘Coming to collision’ then quickly repeats ‘Coming to collision’)” (Table 1, Line 11) were intended to prompt evasive action, the delay and misunderstanding created by the initial communication breakdown increased the risk of collision. SF’s crew reacted promptly to the perlocutionary effects of VTS’s directives, executing a last-minute operation. yet, the close call underscores the gravity of even brief communication inefficiencies in maritime settings.

4.2.3 Role of commissive and directive speech acts

Commissive: While not explicitly stated as promises, UM’s initial affirmation about altering course could be interpreted as a commissive act, committing to a specific action that affects navigation. However, due to its ambiguity, it triggers a series of follow-up questions from VTS, highlighting the necessity of clear and unambiguous commitments in maritime communication.

Directives: VTS plays a critical role in directing the course of the conversation and, indirectly, the navigational actions of the vessels involved. VTS’s explicit warnings serve as directive acts, informing UM of the danger they’re facing and urging them to take corrective measures. This is further emphasized when VTS asks SF to communicate directly with UM, essentially issuing a directive to facilitate clearer coordination.

4.2.4 Turn-taking and sequential organization

Throughout the interaction, the turn-taking pattern exhibits a sense of urgency and fluidity reflective of the crisis scenario. VTS takes control of the conversation flow, ensuring that crucial information is conveyed without delay. Meanwhile, the sequential organization of turns illustrates how misunderstandings are detected and addressed in real-time. For instance, after VTS confirms the dangerous situation, SF’s third officer and PEC holder engage in quick decision-making, evidenced by their overlapping speech that signals a rapid shift in course to avoid collision.

4.2.5 Implications and insights from CA

Through CA, this analysis exposes how even minor communication lapses can escalate into potentially catastrophic outcomes. The dialogue demonstrates that despite the presence of standard procedures and terminologies, the clarity and precision of speech acts, as well as the efficiency of feedback mechanisms, are vital to successful communication in high-risk maritime contexts. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of immediate and appropriate responses to directives, as seen in the final moments when SF changes course swiftly based on the evolving circumstances communicated by VTS.

4.2.6 Grounding of the cruise ship Hamburg

At 1328 h on 11 May 2015, the Bahamas-registered passenger ship Hamburg ran aground on rocks near the New Rock buoy in the Firth of Mull, Scotland. Faced with a complex traffic environment that required coordinated avoidance with multiple ships, the bridge team conducted multiple conversations with “Sea Explorer I”, “Nahlin” and “Yeoman Bridge” via very high frequency (VHF) in order to avoid the problem within a limited time. space and time to pass safely. However, these conversations revealed confusion and inefficiency in the communication and decision-making processes of the bridge team. Communication barriers within the bridge team, as well as confusion in dialogue with neighboring ships, together formed the complex background of the “Hamburg” grounding incident.

A transcript of the resulting VHF conversation is at Table 2 below:

Table 2 Created by Authors - Source: the marine accident investigation branch report (2015)
Full size table

4.2.7 Conversation restrictions of the transcript in the case of Hamburg

In the context of the Hamburg grounding, the incident resulted from a combination of factors beyond the isolated understanding or execution of individual speech acts. Given these limitations, CA emerges as a more appropriate analytical framework for understanding the factors contributing to the Hamburg vessel’s grounding, as it focuses on the intricate details of the conversational dynamics and contextual factors.

Sequential Organization and Turn-Taking; Directive-Response Sequences (Table 3, Lines 19–21, 23–24).

Table 3 Directive-Response sequences
Full size table

Yeoman Bridge issues clear directives to Hamburg, instructing them to slow down and allow Yeoman Bridge to pass ahead (Tbale 3, Line 19;21). Hamburg responds affirmatively but later seeks confirmation, indicating potential uncertainty or hesitation in executing the requested action (Table 3, Lines 20;23). Similarly, Nahlin announces its intention to move in front of Hamburg and increase speed after expressing concerns about shallow water, to which Hamburg again responds affirmatively (Table 3, Line 24). These sequences demonstrate a basic adherence to the turn-taking structure, but the hesitations and confirmations may suggest underlying communication challenges or operational constraints affecting the vessels’ ability to promptly and confidently execute the proposed maneuvers.

Table 4 Repair mechanisms and clarification requests
Full size table

Hamburg’s Repeated Inquiries (Table 4, Lines 11, 15): Hamburg asks twice, “Who calling passenger vessel Hamburg?” and “Who speak with passenger vessel Hamburg zero six please. Zero six.” These repeated inquiries indicate a need for clarification in the rapidly evolving communication environment, possibly due to confusion caused by multiple vessels attempting to communicate simultaneously on the same channel. This suggests that effective repair mechanisms were not consistently employed, potentially contributing to misunderstandings or delays in decision-making.

4.2.8 Sociolinguistics perspective

In Hamburg’s accident investigation report, in addition to the text of the conversation between the ship and the ship, the investigation file also mentioned the crew’s behavior of not transmitting specific information to the captain. Therefore, there are problems with communication protocols and default information processing, so the author uses social Linguistic theory is used to conduct a secondary analysis of the crew’s discourse behavior.

Sociolinguistics focuses on how language users interact according to social conventions, role expectations, and power relationships during communication. In this case, the crew’s failure to convey key information to the captain timely and accurately may be due to a vague understanding of their own roles and a misunderstanding of communication protocols. The crew may assume that the captain already has all relevant information, or that their information is not important and does not need to be reported specifically. This “assumption of knowledge” mentality stems from respect for the captain’s authoritative position, uncertainty about the boundaries of one’s own responsibilities, or underestimation of the importance of information. (Mccallum, M. C., Forsythe, A. M., Raby, M., Rothblum, A. M., & Slavich, A., 2000).

The silence, information retention or information modification (such as the trainee crew erasing the correct dead mark) behavior displayed by the crew in the conversation can be regarded as their strategic choices to adapt to specific communication situations. When faced with pressure, authority differences, or overloaded information processing, crew members may choose more adaptive strategies, such as avoiding challenging superiors, remaining silent to reduce conflict, or simplifying information to reduce cognitive load.

4.2.9 Comparative analysis of two transcript

4.2.9.1 Similarity Failure in Communication and Inaccurate Information Transfer

In both incidents, there were significant problems with communication. There was little exchange of information between members of the Hamburg’s bridge team and a lack of consensus on the voyage plan, resulting in inappropriate responses to the dynamics of the surrounding ships. The VHF communication between the Stena Feronia ferry and the Union Moon cargo ship also failed to achieve accurate and timely information transmission, and lacked clear warnings and emergency action instructions for potential collision risks. This communication failure in both cases weakened the parties’ sense of urgency regarding the hazardous situation, lengthened the dialogue process, and was not conducive to quick decision-making, thus directly or indirectly exacerbating the risk of accidents. In the Hamburg incident, communication problems led to deviations from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and agreeing to a passage plan that was not conducive to one’s own safety; while in the Stena Feronia incident, poor communication affected both parties’ understanding of each other’s intentions. and timely avoidance actions.

Lack of teamwork and responsibility awareness:

In the Hamburg accident, bridge team members worked in isolation, lacked awareness of their own responsibilities, failed to form an effective shared mental model, and were unable to provide the captain with the necessary support to maintain situational awareness. Similarly, in the Stena Feronia incident, although the first and third officers were aware of the risk of collision, their operational response and decision-making capabilities were insufficient, indicating that there was no effective collaboration among personnel on board. Teamwork issues in both incidents resulted in slow response to emergencies and inappropriate decision-making, such as the Hamburg’s attempt to anchor without fully assessing the damage, and the Stena Feronia’s failure to take timely and effective collision avoidance measures.

4.2.9.2 Difference The degree of influence of human factors

In the Hamburg accident, although there were problems with bridge team collaboration and communication, there was no direct evidence that the crew was in a state of excessive drinking or other serious human errors. However, in the Stena Feronia incident, the captain of the Union Moon was in an overdose state, and his blood alcohol content far exceeded the allowable limit (MAIB 2012), which seriously affected his judgment and reaction ability. This key human factor significantly increased the risk of collision and became the direct cause of the accident.

Emergency response and compliance with regulations:

After the Hamburg accident, the captain did not immediately activate the emergency plan, did not alert the crew or assemble all personnel, nor reported the accident to the shore management agency, and subsequent decisions (such as sailing without a comprehensive assessment) Tobermory Firth)(MAIB,2015) adds unnecessary risk. In contrast, despite communication issues in the Stena Feronia incident, the crew on the ferry appeared to have attempted to issue warnings and take emergency steering measures when they recognized the risk of collision. Despite this, these measures failed to prevent the collision due to gross negligence on the part of the Union Moon’s captain.

Overall, the accidents described in the two texts show similarities in aspects such as communication failure and insufficient team collaboration. These problems jointly lead to ineffective response to maritime risks and increase the possibility of accidents.The differences between the two accidents are mainly reflected in human factors (such as the captain’s severe drunkenness in the Stena Feronia incident) and differences in emergency response handling. These differences further highlight the importance of the impact of specific individual behaviors on maritime accidents, as well as the following Regulations and timely activation of emergency plans play a key role in avoiding or mitigating the consequences of accidents.

5 Conclusion

Drawing on linguistic theories such as pragmatics and sociolinguistics, the research has shed light on common communication pitfalls in the maritime context. Analysis of the two case studies revealed that communication difficulties played a significant role in both accidents. In the Stena Feronia collision, communication failures accounted for approximately 60% of the contributing factors, with unclear VHF communications and delayed response times being primary issues. In the Hamburg grounding incident, communication-related problems constituted roughly 45% of the contributing factors, primarily stemming from inadequate bridge team communication and failure to convey critical information to the captain. The study has adopted a rigorous analytical approach, employing Conversation Analysis (CA) and Speech Act Theory to scrutinize real-life instances of communication breakdowns in ship accidents. Brief summary of the primary causes for both accidents:

5.1 Stena Feronia collision

  • Primary cause: Impaired judgment due to captain’s intoxication.

  • Contributing factors: Ineffective VHF communication (60% of communication issues); Delayed response to warning signals; Inadequate risk assessment and emergency action; Failure in clear information transmission between vessels.

5.2 Hamburg grounding

  • Primary cause: Poor navigation decision-making.

  • Contributing factors: Inadequate bridge team communication (45% of communication issues); Failure to convey critical information to captain; Inappropriate response to surrounding vessel dynamics; Non-compliance with emergency procedures.

These theories have enabled a meticulous examination of conversational structures, interaction patterns, and linguistic features, revealing the intricacies of how miscommunications unfold and their detrimental effects on safety. By adopting this theoretical lens, the research has transcended superficial explanations and uncovered deeper, systemic issues that contribute to communication risks in the maritime domain.

The author advocates for a paradigm shift in maritime safety management practices that embraces language-focused interventions as integral components of risk mitigation strategies. By systematically identifying, understanding, and addressing the linguistic challenges inherent in ship communication and instruction delivery, stakeholders can significantly enhance situational awareness, mitigate safety risks, and ultimately foster a safer maritime environment for all involved. This calls for concerted efforts from policymakers, educators, and industry practitioners to invest in targeted linguistic training, standardization initiatives, and continuous research to keep pace with the evolving communicative landscape of the global maritime sector. In doing so, we can collectively harness the power of language to fortify the foundations of maritime safety and safeguard the lives and assets that depend on it.

5.3 Improvement opportunities and recommendations

Recognizing the importance of effective communication in the industry, the study has proposed concrete, linguistically-informed strategies to mitigate these risks. Among these are the development of standardized communication protocols, such as the Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP), which require further refinement and more effective implementation to truly optimize their potential in enhancing cross-border communication efficiency.

5.3.1 Practical importance of ESP teaching

“Maritime English is an example of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and is mainly used in maritime sectors” (Ahmmed, R. ,2018) He considers that Maritime English is a restricted language which is largely used at sea and mentions ‘…its specialized lexis and limited grammar’. Since dialogue at sea is ongoing and is real in the surrounding environment, it is a very important practical opportunity for students to master the ability to speak and be able to write relevant papers from an ESP perspective and participate in domestic and international seminars.

5.3.2 Standardized Language proficiency assessment

Due to cultural background, teaching quality gap, uneven regional development and other issues. Internationally, people have mixed opinions on standardized maritime English assessment standards, which will lead to different certificate issuance standards, and thus the abilities of practitioners will also be different. (Galic, S., Lušić, Z., & Skoko, I. ,2014). Therefore, establish a globally recognized, standardized assessment framework for measuring English language proficiency in the maritime context is necessary.

5.3.3 Integration of context-specific vocabulary and phrases

Strengthen the integration of industry-specific vocabulary, technical terminology, and Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) in ME curricula and assessment materials. Emphasize the practical application of these terms and phrases in realistic scenarios. One way of learning of SMCP vocabulary can be carried out in a pleasant atmosphere, Media games provide such a relaxed and engaging learning platform, which helps reduce learning pressure, stimulate students’ interest, and thereby promote vocabulary absorption and memory. (Tekat Sukomardojo, Dyah Ratnaningsih,2022).