.
Abstract:
The current paper sets forth the need for an increase in research which examines the role of corporate language selection and the effectiveness of cross cultural business communications in specific reference to written genres. It highlights the fact that the English language is now spoken by more non-native speakers then native speakers which signals a threat to the current economic superiority enjoyed by native English speaking countries such as the U.S. The paper predicts a grim future for the native speaker and suggests that the once idolized models of the English language will become a language minority not ideally suited to the changing world of international business. The aim of the paper is to draw attention to the issues which surround such a future and how written forms of business communication can be successfully negotiated for all speakers in such a changing language environment.
Key words: multinational corporate language selection, written genres of business communication, cross-cultural communication, language adoption and evolution
Introduction
There was once a time when global corporations were considered giants within the business world. With resources and finances stretching to the far reaches of the planet they were the envy of smaller regional and national businesses. These days the term global corporation is readily attributed to the majority of businesses and is seen as a prerequisite for modern day business success. Over the past two decades the physical distance between such global or multinational corporations has shortened with technological revolutions such as email, the Internet, fax, video conferencing, and other forms of instant communication. Such a reduction in distance has created business opportunities where perhaps it was not possible before such modes of communication became mainstream. The revolution of electronic communication essentially means that there is not a single country in the world which cannot communicate instantly with one on the other side of the planet. Given that communication across the planet is now accessible, fast, and commonplace, it is important to consider the content of such communications. According to the U.S. Bureau of Intelligence and Research (2006), there are currently 193 independent countries in the world. Within these 193 countries it is estimated that the number of languages spoken stands at approximately 6,000 (Grimes, 1992). With so many languages being spoken within such a limited number of countries it is inevitable that languages and people will overlap and integrate with little regard for national boundaries and physical distances. Add to this the fact that over the past 50 years the number of people living outside of their country of origin has doubled, rising to 191 million (Warttman, 2005). Such technical and geographical shifts have had a significant impact on national and international economies, employment trends, and international business behaviors. Whilst these factors have revolutionized the style, speed, and format in which businesses communicate, the majority of communications still rely on basic human interactions through verbal exchanges and written messages.
According to Crystal (2003) the number of native English speakers in the world is approximately 375 million, which is also the same figure attributed to the number of non-native English speakers. Whilst there is a balance, it can be predicted that such a balance will not remain as the number of EFL learners currently stands at around 750 million. Should this number remain constant or increase, native speakers will essentially become a minority group in the near future. The majority group could represent new basic values, new rules of communication, and evolve independently of the cultural and linguistic norms of the native speaking minority. The signals of this future shift have been present for many years and have come about in part due to the spread of English. In the current language climate it would not be unreasonable to imagine a Spanish executive doing business in Bangkok, an African diplomat constructing laws in Strasbourg, or a Malaysian biochemist at a conference in Sweden, all using English to communicate. House (2002) attributes the mass spread of English to the expansion of the British Empire, the political and economic prowess of the US, the rapid development of information technologies, and the increase in international mergers and acquisitions. Perhaps one consequence of the English native-speaker becoming a minority group will be a change in economic power. Clearly such language issues should be considered important at the highest levels of government.
Such linguistic phenomena, though, are not only observable within the business world. The very communities where business is conducted are not just adopting English, but they are actively shaping it for their own benefit to align more closely with their native language. So-called New Englishes are acting to reshape identities and the perceptions of what speaking English means to different people. Notable examples include Englog, the Tagalog-infused English spoken in the Philippines; Japlish or Engrish, the emotion conveying cryptic English used in Japan; and Hinglish, the mix of Hindi and English found throughout India. Although such New Englishes are typically observed in spoken exchanges, they also play an important role in the transference to written forms–people are naturally more prone to write in the manner in which they speak rather than speaking in the manner in which they write. This can be observed in the newer genres of written communication such as email, private forums, chat groups, and written communication between familiar people such as work colleagues and friends. These international variants of the English language, the social context in which they occur, and the form which they take, should be seen as critical factors in determining not only the success of business communications between multinational corporations within the twenty-first century but also the future superiority of the native English speaker and the economic power which this superiority has afforded (see China and India as examples of growing multilingual societies which are challenging U.S. economic superiority).
This paper aims to draw attention to this growing linguistic and economic shift by analyzing how international business is conducted through written forms of English. The emphasis of this paper is on written communication. Instant messaging, texting, faxing, and emailing are all currently at the core of business communications and one could predict that future advances in technology will only solidify the importance of written exchanges. Firstly, the paper will examine some of the contemporary issues associated with business communication in relation to language. A critical tone is presented which aims to highlight the contempt major corporations have shown to language selection and usage. The theoretical standpoint of Kachru (1985) and Perlmutter (1969) will be used as an anchor and as a basis upon which to make future predictions. Secondly, this paper will analyze the nature of written communication more closely, focusing on the role of social acceptability and shared knowledge. Research findings will be discussed in relation to corporate policy. Finally, the various aspects discussed will be brought together to formulate a new theoretical model for the future which reflects the global shift in language behaviors as well as the solid foundations previously laid out by other researchers.
Business Communications and Language
Whilst both international business and English have received considerable research attention, they are rarely analyzed as an interconnected concept. Bloch & Starks (1999) identified the specific area of English intralanguage variation related to international business as currently lacking, and stated that business people within the English speaking world often neglect the significance of language skills in general, especially important variations within the English language itself. In Ball and McCulloch’s (1993) publication entitled International business: The challenges of global competition, there were a mere eight pages devoted to issues concerning language and translation within corporate settings and only half a page focused on English. Likewise, Cateora (1993) completely overlooked intra-language variations in English in International marketing. Even those publications more directly related to topics such as Intercultural marketing and negotiating with the Japanese seem to treat intra-language variations as irrelevant or a side issue (see Hofstede, 1993; Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Hodlin, 1975; March, 1990). Within the study of international business communication the concept of language has been referred to as the orphan of international business research (Feely and Harzing, 2002). More recently, it has been argued that the issue of language should be addressed equally with other fundamental business issues such as the management of multinational corporations (Marschan et al., 1997; Dhir and Savage, 2001; Dhir and Goke-Pariola, 2002; Dhir and Savage, 2002). Yet, research examining the functions of language in relation to business strategy is extremely rare, and in the few cases where it exists, a great deal of what is reported is merely anecdotal (Hood and Truijens, 1993; Coleman and Cree, 2002).
Corporate attitudes toward language within an international business framework can be analyzed using Perlmutter’s (1969) typology of multinational corporations. Perlmutter identified three types of multinational company: ethnocentric, polycentric, and geocentric. This basic typology was supported by Porter (1986) who made the distinction between global and multi-domestic companies whilst Bartlett and Ghoshal (1987) contrasted the decentralized federation with the integrated network. Those companies which fall into the ethnocentric category are typically dominated by the cultural and linguistic norms of their home society; these norms are then applied like a blanket across the corporation with little or no consideration for variation or difference. Polycentric corporations have a more developed awareness of cultural and linguistic differences between the home company and its subsidiaries, and this type of company will allow each faction to develop their own system of communication and business behavior in order to maximize effectiveness. The final classification is that of a geocentric corporation that can be seen as a truly global enterprise. This typology extends beyond the first two and represents a fluid, multinational corporate environment. Perlmutter’s typologies act to imply the most appropriate form of corporate language selection and usage for each type of company. Within Europe, for example, the adoption of the English language alongside a native language has seen many European companies progress from typically ethnocentric to geocentric entities. Charles (1998) points out that such companies are now operating in a multilingual reality.
A number of Asian corporations can be identified as ethnocentric. However, some are aiming to follow their European counterparts in this respect, insisting on high levels of English proficiency from all employees, creating a second corporate language. However, this proficiency is measured through the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication), which offers no measure of communicative competence and does not provide an assessment relevant to effective cross-cultural communication. With emphasis placed on TOEIC assessment it seems strange that very few companies have formal foreign-language training systems, a gap which reinforces the point that language should be addressed on par with other corporate issues such as management strategies, mentioned above. Unfortunately, many corporations believe that English language ability, as measured on a standardized test such as TOEIC, equates to intercultural communicative ability. Whilst TOEIC and its related drawbacks are not going to be discussed here, this highlights problems associated with English language education and adoption.
Many Asian societies place a heavy emphasis on structure, procedure, formality, and standardized behaviors. The huge popularity of TOEIC in Asia can be attributed to its characteristics as a testing tool. It acts as a mirror image or symbol of modern day society - the concepts seen in TOEIC are highly valued within the wider social forum. It is because of this that TOEIC can be seen as a relative component in the language policies of Asian multinational corporations, especially as they are attempting to shift away from the ethnocentric to the geocentric typology. Whether such a rigid test of language will also be able to make the transition is unlikely.
Rather than adopting a second language to be used alongside the native language, other global corporations have attempted to adopt a single, non-native corporate language as a means to increase profits and aid globalization; this has rarely been a success (see, Fiat Palio Project (Feely and Harzing, 2002), Kone (Marschan et al, 1998), Nordea (Bjorkmann et al, 2005)). Nickerson (2005) highlighted the complexities of language labeling and implementation by stating that the actual communication event is significantly more complex than the label of English as Lingua Franca would have us believe. Welch et al. (2001) previously had warned that imposing a common corporate language might hinder or alter the flow of information and transfer of knowledge within a corporate environment. Dhir and Goke-Pariola (2002) also proposed the use of considered language policies within multinational corporations. They argued that the process which constrains a company to a standard language may actually deny it access to critical resources unique to the members’ own diverse training and experiences, and that diversity in cultural and linguistic representation may indeed offer opportunities to a global organization not available to its competitors. Multilingualism should, therefore, be an organizational ideal of any multinational company. There also exists the argument for global standardization in language practices. Dhir (2005) stated that there was a strong analogy between language and currency, as both represent a means of exchange. He said that “a standardized language, used both at home and in local markets, facilitates efficient communication, and minimizes misunderstanding between various units of the organization.”
Although it is not clear if Dhir also meant to include international markets in this analogy, it is apparent that such an ideology has a number of questions to answer. Even within a single language, operating within a single country, the massive variations that are present can cause numerous communication problems. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) had previously illustrated the complexities of intranational communication variation by listing five distinct varieties of English spoken within Hong Kong. If only one of these variations were adopted as the sole corporate language then the company would be denying itself access to valuable knowledge from those language groups who had been isolated and marginalized. It would also be limiting itself to an ethnocentric typology.
At the core of previous global English language research lays the paradigm put forth by Kachru (1985). Through analyzing the global usage of English, he identified an inner circle, an outer circle, and an expanding circle of countries based on their relationship to, and their functional usage of, the English language. Those countries on the inner circle are countries where English is used as the first or native language (i.e., Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia). Traditionally, these countries have been looked upon as models of correct and desirable speech by non-native speakers. Lippi-Green, (1997) referred to this native speaker envy as linguistic discrimination. This is most apparent in those countries where EFL tuition is widespread (usually expanding countries such as Japan). The preference of many employers for native-only instructors is not only problematic in terms of international business communication but also poses a threat to the progression of that particular country’s own language development. The number of English speakers within the inner circle has been estimated at 320-380 million (Crystal, 2003). The outer circle of countries represents those countries in which English has some official status such as a second language and is often used within local communities (i.e., India, Singapore, Pakistan, and Kenya). Many of these outer circle countries have developed their own grammatical and textual forms of English communication to better reflect their own cultural experiences and knowledge (Chishimba, 1984). This outer circle of countries contain 150 – 300 million English speakers (Crystal, 2003). Finally, the expanding circle includes those countries where English is needed for specialist purposes such as business and higher education but serves no real function in the local community (i.e., China, Japan, Russia, and Korea). Within these countries there are an estimated 100 million to 1 billion speakers (Crystal, 2003).
Whilst the work of Kachru (1985) has been highly influential, the three circles proposed do have major flaws in their design if we consider the development and progression of English in the global arena over the past 20 years. They make the assumption that all of those countries contained within the inner circle will essentially communicate using the same variety of the English language. Indeed, MacArthur (1994) argues there is a fair degree of standardization between many English-speaking countries, particularly those that fell into the inner circle. Such a generalization blankets over a multitude of regional, inter-personal, and semantic differences that exist between those countries within the inner circle. Trompenaars (1993) addressed this issue by stating that “as we all know, even the English and Americans are separated by a common language which is used quite differently in different contexts and which has some serious differences in the meanings of individual words.”
The terminology used by Kachru (1985) has also been criticized as divisive. Mufwene, (2001) stated:
the danger of subscribing to such a position lies in us linguists perpetuating biases similar to the distinction inner circle versus outer circle, which presents some varieties as peripheral or marginal, and in accepting distinctions which are social but not academic nor useful to understanding language evolution. (p.139)
Whilst this criticism holds true and our understanding of language evolution is seriously restricted by the Kachru paradigm, it was proposed in 1985 before the major boom period in EFL tuition and TESOL practices. It would also be of great interest and value to see how countries are able to shift between circles based on the increase in the non-native English speaking population. Theoretically, those countries within the expanding circle will converge and intermix with the outer circle of countries. The most interesting aspect is that those inner circle countries which are traditionally untouchable models of correctness may indeed be removed form the inner circle (if we take the inner circle to represent the most favorable position). They may be replaced by other forms of English which have become more widespread and more accessible than monolingual native forms. This again represents an area of further research which will help in predicting language models for businesses of the future.
An additional consideration central to English as an International Business Language (EIBL) is communication between native and non-native speakers. Unlike other forms of communication within the international business arena, the native speaker is often disadvantaged due to the fact that their variety of English is deeply embedded in a sociocultural framework, whereas many non-native speakers are speaking English only within the realm of international business; their English was learned in order to function in a business environment as the primary goal. Because of this, Bone (1998) identified native speakers as less effective communicators than non-native speakers within a number of business environments. One problematic issue here is that many non-native speakers tend to demonstrate behaviors associated with their native language through the medium of English, which often causes confusion and misunderstandings. Kameda (2005) believed this was a particular problem for Japanese managers operating in others parts of Asia. Regardless of the degree of fluency in English, Sims and Guice (1992, p.23) believed that “merely knowing how to speak and write a language does not ensure effective communication.” In order to communicate effectively across cultural boundaries, a deeper analysis of the processes involved in exchanging ideas is required.
Written Communication, Social Acceptability, and Shared Knowledge
One of the earliest paradigm breakers with reference to written communication was Kaplan (1966). He put forth the idea that paragraph and sentence structures were both language and culture specific; this suggests that context plays an important role in developing second language writing skills. Kaplan’s proposals also led to the realization that writing is much more than orthographic symbolization of speech; it is, most importantly, a purposeful selection and organization of experience (Arapoff, 1967, p.33). This links well to the previously mentioned issue of accessing knowledge based on language choice; different speakers will have different experiences only accessible through that particular language – from this it is possible to speculate that when speakers of different L1 languages from different cultural backgrounds come together to communicate in English, they are doing so based on prior experiences in their L1 which are transferred to the L2.
Successful written communication across boundaries requires a considered approach. The kind of document considered appropriate in one culture may be considered inappropriate within another. Beamer (1994) observed that lines of text written by Chinese students often show commas at the beginning of the sentence due to the Chinese top to down, right to left writing style. Asian written behaviors are generally contextually framed, much like the previously mentioned Asian social interaction; there is an emphasis on who you are communicating with and their position in relation to the writer. In instances of written communication where the face or nationality of the reader is unknown, it becomes difficult for an Asian businessman to create this social picture, and this influences their communicative success. DeSilva (1982) illustrated that Spanish, English, and Japanese procedural discourses have different organizing characteristics. Thus, the fact that rhetorical techniques for business letters differ across cultures should not surprise us. What should surprise us is the lack of literature which combines all of the above mentioned issues and applies them to practical and theoretical research.
Hilton (1992) emphasized the need for comprehensible, unambiguous, and acceptable written communication in international business communications. However, such a goal is not easily obtained and takes a great deal of cultural and introspective awareness, not only an ability to construct grammatically correct sentences based on native speaker norms.
Within the context of cross-cultural written communication, there are a number of culturally bound issues, such as a lack of shared knowledge, which can create obstacles to understanding. Nystrand (1986) stated that:
Text is not just the result of composing, it is also the medium of communication, the very information structure of written communication, for example, depends not just on the writer’s meaning and purpose but rather on the extent of match between what the writer has to say and what the readers needs to know, i.e., the extent to which writer and reader share knowledge (p.36).
The assumption that there are clear and definable norms of written English is highly problematic. As previously mentioned, those languages within the inner circle have great differences among them (Braddock, 1974; Connor, 1995; Eason, 1995). The British for example tend to prefer politeness strategies that use negative politeness. Sifiano (1989) believed that they equate indirectness, the main motivation of negative politeness, with politeness, and this contributes to the elaboration of the structure and the tentativeness of messages, a technique rarely used by Americans. Jordanians on the other hand prefer to adopt direct politeness techniques, which rely on sounding as optimistic as possible. This seems to conform to the theoretical views previously mentioned by Widdowson (1983), who believed that writing is an artifact which has to meet certain standards of social acceptability. Whether this social acceptability is to be judged within the target culture or the home culture is unclear. Al-Khatib (2001) assumed the theoretical standpoint that second language writing should target the cultural norms and values put forward by the readers’ native culture and language (assuming they are both the same). Therefore, any second language writing effort will contain peculiarities or errors which are likely to be due to the fact that different speech communities have different ways of organizing ideas in writing which reflect their cultural thought patterns (Kachru, 1997). This, however, is not always possible for a number of reasons:
Countries such as the UK and the U.S. are multinational and multiracial societies. Thus, when communicating with a UK or U.S. business, there is no guarantee that the person receiving the communication will be a native speaker or even a citizen of that country. This is very much the case with outsourcing and call centers in places such as India. This makes targeting cultural and linguistic norms problematic.
It would be impossible for a businessperson to have an in-depth knowledge of all those cultures with which he/she conducts business. Multinational companies are unwilling to invest such large amounts of money and time into an issue which has until recently been considered almost insignificant. The idea of having a member of staff who must make textual and structural changes to a standard business email depending on the county it is being sent to seems ridiculous but at the moment a solid, reliable alternative is not available.
Multinational corporations do though spend large amounts of money on language training and translator services. The field of semantics addresses areas such as incorrect translations and interpretations, which can lead to misunderstandings. This fact suggests that learning English grammar and syntax alone is not enough for a full appreciation of meaning and communication objectives. Sorenson (2005) commented on those companies who adopt a common corporate language yet fail to enforce its use in a practical manner:
...paradoxically, the opposite of the intended has been achieved: the cost of the translation has been doubled; the dissemination of communication has become laborious and has been delayed. Moreover, an element of misinterpretation has been added as there is a risk of altering the sense of a text each time it is translated (p.59).
Other areas that are outside standard English language tuition such as business clichés, idioms, and slang are also important issues to consider. Indeed, Jandt (1995) wrote, English is particularly replete with idioms. These idioms are notoriously problematic for non-native speakers. Kameda (2001) suggested that a combination of Japanese style communication along with an idiom free English may be the future of global business interactions. Idioms, however, cannot simply be overlooked and ignored as they do represent a major part of English communication. Another specific area of concern for written business communications is the necessary ambiguity of business exchanges. Janis (1966) defends what he calls common business letter expressions, so-called clichés, as necessary, suggesting that ready-made expressions are more efficient in that they reduce uncertainty and the need for time consuming individual invention. How they are used in business communications between native and non-native speakers relies heavily on linguistic ability, shared knowledge, and a shared appreciation of other factors such as context and tone. It is clear that the concept of shared knowledge and to a lesser extent social acceptability have the potential to address many corporate language problems which have so far focused on the act of choosing a corporate language rather than specific issues related to that decision.
Conclusion
Based on the research presented above it seems that practical research based within the field of international business communication through written English is lacking. There have been many research efforts that have touched on a number of peripheral ideas that are linked to this theme, but none which address it directly in relation to the shifting trends of language ability and development. What is lacking is a theoretically based research project which aims to provide practical solutions to address the specific problems which occur when communicating in written English. Such a project would need to address written communication between and within inner circle, outer circle, and expanding circle countries. It would need to pay particular attention to those communications between non-native speakers of English with respect to finding a theoretical space in which successful communication could occur. One variable which could be introduced to such a project is the difference between face-to-face and anonymous communication. It is possible to hypothesize that written communications in which the two parties communicating have a facial image of the other would be smoother and deeper engrained with their own cultural fabric than anonymous communications . Anonymous written communications may be less oriented around social acceptability and shared knowledge and more in line with the kind of native speaker norms which are preached through textbooks and other English language learning resources.
If writing (both in the native and non-native language) is indeed an artifact, which must meet certain standards of social acceptability as stated by Widdowson (1983) and supported by Al-Khatib (2001), then current international business communications are destined to fail as social acceptability is primarily achieved in the cultural context with which the writer is familiar. Therefore, international business communications must find a third-niche in which to operate, a niche independent of writers’ and readers’ cultural and native language norms of social acceptability.
Additionally, As Nystrand (1986) stated:
Text is not just the result of composing, it is also the medium of communication, the very information structure of written communication, for example, depends not just on the writer’s meaning and purpose but rather on the extent of match between what the writer has to say and what the readers needs to know, i.e., the extent to which writer and reader share knowledge (p.36).
This proposed third niche should address issues of a newly formed conception of shared knowledge and social acceptability and how this can be achieved if the norms of the native English speaker remain culturally rooted and the non-native speaker cannot formulate a group of identifiable, universal norms due to the differences between their L1 and environment, as modeled in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1: The Theoretical Process of Written Communication Between Non-Native English Speaking Associates (Rivers 2007)
In relation to the ideology proposed by Kachru (1985), it can be hypothesized that this newly formed third-niche of communication would operate as illustrated below in relation to the three groups of speakers:
Figure 2: Proposed Third-niche for Effective Cross-cultural Business Communication in English (Rivers, 2007)
From the above figure a number of observations can be made which better reflect the current situation in terms of English speaking populations and successful business interactions through written genres:
The native speaker is now isolated within the confines of an international multilingual business place.
- The native speakers’ ability to adapt to L2 speaker English varieties which have progressed with their L1 is limited and makes them far from ideal candidates with which to conduct international business. Due to this fact more and more major corporations will choose to set up or move into those areas where business practices are better suited to multilingual communication but still reflect low labor costs – mainly Asia.
- The outer circle of countries now holds a greater position of economic power due to the flexibility of language usage and cultural awareness.
- The expanding circle is now in a sort of no-man’s land. The people within this group may be bilingual, in which case they will be drawn toward the outer circle, yet some of the people may be monolingual speakers in which case they will be drawn toward the isolated inner circle. Based on the data presented concerning the number of EFL learners it can be hypothesized that this expanding circle will decrease with a large majority of its speakers merging into the preferable outer circle.
The circle concept as originally proposed by Kachru (1985) is now no longer dependent on location as a classifier. National boundaries have become a thing of the past and the fluidic movement of people makes these categories based solely on language ability and awareness.
Although the new proposal is far from complete and many other factors need to be incorporated into the paradigm, it does provide an indication of what is needed if research into English as an International Business Language (EIBL) is to remain up to date and reflective of the changing economic and linguistic environment in which we currently live.
References
Al-Khatib, M.A. (2001) The pragmatics of letter writing .World Englishes, 20(2), 179-200.
Arapoff, N. (1967) Writing: a thinking process. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 33-39.
Ball, D.A.,& McCulloch, W.H. (1996). International business: The challenge of global competition. 5th ed., Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Beamer, L. (1994) Teaching English business writing to Chinese-speaking business students.The Bulletin, 57(1), 12-18.
Bjorkmann, I., Tienari, J., & Vaara, E. (2005). A learning perspective on sociocultural integration in cross-national mergers.In Stahl, G & Mendehall, M. (Eds), Mergers and acquisitions, managing culture and human resources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 155-175.
Bloch, B., & Starks, D. (1999) The many faces of English: Intra-language variation and its implications for international business. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(2), 80-88.
Bone, D. (1998) Communication or back to genesis and the house of Babel!.Industrial and Commercial Training, 30(7), 236-241.
Braddock, R. (1974) The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose .Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 287-302.
Cateora, P.R. (1993). International marketing. 8th ed., Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Charles, M. (1998) Europe: Oral business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 85-93.
Chishimba, M. (1984). African varieties of English: Text in Context. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.
Coleman, A., & Cree, R. (2002) Speaking in tongues. Director, 55(11), 21-3.
Connor, U. (1995). Examining syntactic variations across three English-speaking nationalities through a multi feature/multidimensional approach. In Rubin, Donald (Eds.) Composing social identity in written language (pp.75-87). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeSilva, R. (1982). Procedural discourse in English, Japanese, and Spanish. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
Dhir, K.S. (2005) The value of language: Concept, perspectives, and policies. Corporate Communications. 10(4), 358-382.
Dhir, K.S.,& Goke-Pariola, A. (2002) The case for language policies in multinational corporations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 141-51.
Dhir, K.S.,& Savage, T. (2001). The value of a language: Can decision science and linguistic perspectives converge? In Smith-Daniels, V.L & Rungtusanatham, M. (Eds) Proceedings of the 2001 National Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Decision Sciences Institute (pp.258-60). Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Dhir, K.S.,& Savage, T. (2002) The value of a working language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 158, 1-35.
Eason, C.A. (1995). Argumentative essay written by native speakers of Chinese and English: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ferrano, G.P. (1994). The cultural dimensions of international business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fixman, C. (1990) The foreign language needs of US-based corporations. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 511(1), 25-46.
Freely, A.J.,& Harzing, A. (2002). Forgotten and neglected – language the orphan of international business research, Retrieved September 17, 2006, from - www.harzing.com/program5.htm
Grimes, B. F. (1992). Ethnologue: languages of the world. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hilton, C.B. (1992) Japanese international business communication: The place of English. Journal of Business Communication, 29(3), 253-265.
(2002) Hitachi expects…all its employees to be able to speak English. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 16(1), 8-9.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Interkulturelle zusammenarbeit: Kulturen – Organisationen- Management. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Hood, N., &Truijens, T. (1993) European locational decisions of Japanese manufacturers: Survey evidence on the case of the UK. International Business Review, 2(1), 39-63.
House, J. (2002). Communication in English as a lingua franca. EUROSLA Yearbook, No 2, 243-261.
Hutchinson, T., &Waters, T. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jandt, F.E. (1995) Intercultural communication: Introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Janis, J.H. (1966) A rationale for the use of common business letter expressions. Journal of Business Communication, 4, 3-11.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1977) The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32.
Kachru, Braj B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.) English in the world (pp.11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Y. (1997). Cultural meaning and rhetorical styles: Toward a framework for contrastive rhetoric. In G. Cook (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp.171-185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kameda, N. (2001). The implication of language style in business communication: A focus on English versus Japanese. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(3), 144-149.
Kameda, N. (2005).A research paradigm for international business communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 168-182.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kaplan, R.B.,& Baldauf, R.B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.
MacArthur, T. (1994). Organized Babel: English as a global lingua franca. In Alatis, J.E. (Eds), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1994 (pp. 232-242). Washington, DC: Washington University Press.
March, R.M. (1990).The Japanese negotiator; subtlety and strategy beyond western logic. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Marschan, R., Welch, D & Welch, L. (1997) Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-8.
Marschan, R., Welch, D & Welch, L. (1998). Global human resource management and language: A tower of babble? Penrith: UWS Nepean.
Mitra, S.K. (2001). Language and federalism: the multi-ethnic challenge. UNESCO 2001. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Mufwene, S. (2001). New Englishes and norm setting: How critical is the native speaker in linguistics? In E. Thumboo (Eds.), The three circles of English (pp. 133–142). Singapore: University Press.
Nickerson, C. (2005) English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 367-380.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Perlmutter, H. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. In Bartlett, C.A & Ghosal, S. (Eds). Transnational Management, Text, Cases and Readings in Cross-Border Management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Petersen, B., & Pedersen, T. (1997). Twenty years after: support and critique of the Uppsala internationalisation model. In Bjorkman, I & Forsgren, M. (Eds), The nature of the international firm: Nordic contributions to international business research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Pincas, A. (1962) Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to students of English as a foreign language .Language Learning, 7, 185-195.
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English writing. London: Macmillan.
Sifiano, M. (1989) On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece. Language in Society, 18, 527-544.
Sims, B, and Guice, S. (1992) Differences between business letters from native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), Winter, 23-39.
Sorenson, E.S. (2005). Our corporate language is English: an exploratory survey of 70-DK sited corporations’ use of English. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Language and Business Communication, Aarhus School Business: Aarhus.
Trompennaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: The Economist Books.
U.S Bureau of Intelligence and Research. (2006). Independent states in the world: Washington, DC. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from - http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm.
Warttman, S. (2005). Migration and the millennium development goals, Migration: September 2005, 16-17. Geneva: IOM.
Welch, D.E., Welch, L.S & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2001) The persistent impact of language on global operations. Prometheus, 19(3), 193-210.
Widdowson, H.G. (1983). New starts and different kinds of failures. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language (pp.34–48). New York: Longman.
Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1972).Uncertainty and economic distance. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.
|
