Bilingual Professionals

Dennis Day & Johannes Wagner

University of Southern Denmark

1. Introduction
Zinedine Zidane, the aging soccer god in Madrid is one of them, as is his comrade in arms bend-itlike-Beckham. The authors of this paper belong to this group: Dennis Day migrated from Virginia to China and now lives in Gothenburg, Sweden with his family and commutes 500 miles to his workplace in Denmark; Johannes Wagner, who was born and raised in Germany and moved to Denmark 30 years ago, often thinks in German, speaks Danish and writes in English. Suresh Babu Karanam the friendly Indian software engineer working at the Royal Mail in Copenhagen is one of them. They all have specific skills which brought them on the global marketplace. For a while at least they have settled in another country and are confronted with another language. Some of them are constantly moving around as their skills are in high demand for example software engineers or soccer players others, like many academics, often settle in their new country. The movement of highly skilled labor across national boundaries as well as the globalization of modern labor has entailed new empirical circumstances which sociolinguists interested in bi- and multilingualism are just beginning to address.1 Such circumstances are discussed in studies concerning professional intercultural training, globalization, diversity management, expatriot employment, multinational work teams, and so forth. Linguistic and sociolinguistic issues seldom hold much sway in discussions of these processes, apart from their obvious requirement of communicative efficiency. The point of departure for this chapter is an interest in the linguistic situation of people predominately professionals who, because of their professional skills, are engaged in work with people with different linguistic backgrounds. De Meja (2002) sorts out the nomenclature concerning the kind of bilingualism we will deal with here. Various terms have been used, such as additive bilin-

Hereafter we will use the terms 'bilingual' and 'bilingualism' despite the fact that they may refer to individuals and situations involving more than two (bi) languages.

gualism, elite bilingualism, voluntary bilingualism, privileged bilingualism, to name a few.2 All these terms denote the bilingualism of individuals who have the means to voluntarily learn a new language with which they might improve their worklife chances. However, the terms do not refer to the context of use of an individual's bilingual abilities which is also of interest, namely the workplace. Our interests lie in bilinguals who are either dislocated from their country of origin due to their engagement on the labor market, or residents in their home country using a second language in professional environments. For this reason, we will use the term 'bilingual professional' to denote both the above mentioned origins of bilingualism in the individual as well as the particular context of its use. Professional bilinguals use two or more languages in their daily professional lives and are the backbone of the global and virtual economy. Professional bilinguals have not received much attention in the different research paradigms related to bilingualism. This may be due to the fact that professional bilinguals are transient that is, they do not always stay long enough to form a minority group ('speech community'), which is a common prerequisite for sociolinguistic research. Furthermore, they are not poor and oppressed, but often well paid and socially secure because of their specific skills. This makes them fall outside studies on intercultural communication at the workplace begun by Gumperz in the 1970s (see Twitchen, Gumperz, Jupp and Roberts 1979; Bremer et al 1996, Roberts et al 1992, Roberts, this volume). This group is not of interest for educational research, although their children may go to international schools (de Meja 2002). Finally, second language acquisition (SLA) research is interested in the linguistic system of the individual, but not in bilingual behavior. A good example is the volume edited by Cook (2002) who refers to a large variety of L2 users, among others international managers, sports professionals, opera singers, students, street vendors and truck drivers (2002:1-2). But these professional roles only appear on the first pages of Cooks "portrait of the L2 user". The rest of the book discusses individual competence, individual differences, stages of development, and language attrition. In other words, Cook has edited a book on the L2 user without at any point being specific about the practical issues of bilingual language use. In sum, the vast majority of sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic work on bilingualism has focused on youth within the context of schooling or on adults in the diaspora, with the latter referring both to 'physical' diaspora, as in the case of immigrants, and to what may be called the 'discursive' dias-

'Elite bilingualism', for example, has been used for middle class children who are sent to international schools to acquire high prestige languages (de Meja 2002:5, quoting Paulston 1975 and Skutnabb-Kangas 1981). Heller (1994) describes middle class families in Canada who view an education in the other Canadian language as a way of giving their children more symbolic capital and thus an edge in the pursuit of professional success.

pora (Belcher & Connor 2001 and Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004). However, we believe there are good reasons to investigate bilingual issues in an increasingly global professional world. As an example of the issues which may arise from such an investigation, we consider the linguistic situation at a workplace under study within a research project led by one of the authors.3 'IT support' is a unit of 'Build AB' with 80 employees. It is situated in Denmark, as is its corporate headquarters, and provides support globally to the company's computerized administrative systems. Employees are predominately from Denmark with a minority of employees or long-term consultants from, for example, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and India. A survey of communicative routines revealed that communication is overwhelmingly conducted via email, both within the unit itself as well as in its service to other units in Denmark and abroad. Communication is overwhelmingly conducted in English. Language choice can be expressed as a set of general principles and exceptions. General principles (i) If the interlocutor does not speak Danish, use English. (ii) If the present activity is connected to future activities where a particular language dominates, use that language now. (iii) If the interlocutor does not speak Danish, but speaks another language you speak or you speak another language he or she speaks, use it, if the activity allows it. (iv) Switching between English and Danish within an activity is marked and to be accounted for. Exceptions (i) Two categories of people are exempted: - people from a particular department and - people with a different employment connection to the company. (ii) If interlocutors in an activity can build groups, 'asides' in the activity may be conducted in a group specific language. These principles require a high degree of Danish-English bilingualism, as well as some proficiency in other languages. In other words, given the principles, one is at an advantage as an employee if one has these proficiencies.

3 The project Global Communication in Danish Organizations is led by Dennis Day and is partially funded by a grant from the Danish Humanities Research Council.

Investigating phenomena such as those mentioned above may require some conceptual reorientation within studies of bilingualism. First, the principles of language choice mentioned above seem to be greatly determined by activity type. Language choice is not so much an individual matter as an activity mandate on linguistic resources. Furthermore, two languages, English and Danish, are used as lingue franche, which again forces a change in perspective from the languages of nation-states to resources for international work-related activities. Finally, especially in connection with new communication technology, linguistic ideology and normativity are in flux, and, again, perhaps best viewed as holding for the domain of a particular institutionalized activity. We believe this perspective is in accordance with Collins and Slembrouck's (2005: 189) questioning of assumptions frequently made in bilingual studies, such as 1. that language competence is a cognitive property of the individual speaker, 2. that such competence is best and perhaps exclusively assigned at the level of individual languages, and 3. that languages have a clearcut spatial and social provenience (Ibid: 189). The spread of language outside national areas is a feature of globalization typically found in bilingual professionals; they are therefore in many respects a new type of category for the social study of language. The category cuts across languages, is activity-based (workplace) and is not bound to a specific geographic area. We will pick up this thread at the end of this article.

2. Review of the literature

Research on bilingual professionals is distributed across a number of different fields. The bulk of the research, however, comes from studies of organizational communication which have only recently begun to deal with empirical observations of naturally occurring interaction instead of relying on top-down, quantitative studies. The focus has been on questions of language proficiency, and on organizational policy, with communication seen as reflecting organizational structure and function. The following two sections, motivation and training and policy, reflect these concerns. We turn to interaction in the final section, noting a theoretical turn towards language and communication as constitutive of organizational structure and function. While remaining within workplaces, the studies reviewed here are bottom-up discourse analytical attempts to grasp the complexities and subtleties of bilingual professionals' communicative behavior.

2.1. Motivation and training

In their review of linguistic issues in the literature on management and organization, BarnerRasmussen and Bor (2005) note that the bulk of research concerns employee acquisition of linguistic skills and, moreover, that even this rather limited view has been superseded and amalgamated into a focus on culture. Culture in turn, we believe it is fair to say, is cast in terms of individual psychology. Language is therefore dealt with in the framework of professional intercultural training. However, the bulk of this work limits its focus to monolingual situations. Issues of language are discussed in terms of competence in a 'host language', and communication seen as one of many behaviors which require 'adaptation'. In spite of what many linguists would view as a rather restricted view of language and communication, Milhouse (1996: 92), in an extensive survey of intercultural training practices, notes that "few training programs deal effectively with the subject of language and culture (only one LC [language and culture] program out of 130 programs dealt with this subject)". One reason for the paucity of reflection on linguistic and sociolinguistic issues may be its bias towards English and companies based in the United States. The point of reference is the native English speaking employee dealing with a globalized but English speaking world.4 Pocini (2003: 17) notes: Despite the range of cultures that may be involved in international business settings, much research into intercultural communication in business has involved two cultures, with one of the cultures often being English speaking (e.g. Halmari, 1993; Murata, 1994; Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 1998; Yamada, 1990). It should be noted, however, that such findings stand in stark contrast to a recent survey of executive recruiters where it was found that ...the ability to speak more than one language is critical to succeed in business in Europe, Asia/Pacific and Latin America. So say 88 percent of executive recruiters from those regions who completed the sixth edition of the quarterly Executive Recruiter Index released by Korn/Ferry International (Expansion Management, April 2005). Turning to a somewhat less anglified Europe, we find that bilingualism is, not surprisingly, the norm rather than the exception. In the Eurobarometer 545 questionnaire study on foreign languages

This is evident in Kubota's (2001) report of attempts to train American managers in 'International' English.

5 Eurobarometer 54 Special: Europeans and Languages is the report of a large-scale questionnaire study produced for the The Education and Culture Directorate-General of the EU by International Research Associates (INRA). It is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/barolang_en.pdf.

conducted in 2000, it was found that roughly 15% of respondents reported active use of a second or third language in their workplace; 74% of those with children under the age of 20 think it is important that their children learn other European languages to improve their professional perspective. Nonetheless English holds sway as the most frequently learned foreign language, which is often used as a lingua franca. Worldwide recruiters around the world agree that in ten years from now, it will be more important than ever for executives to be at least bilingual. In terms of which foreign languages are in most demand by employers, 88 percent of recruiters in Asia, Europe and Latin America chose English. Recruiters in North America selected Spanish (79 percent), French (43 percent) and Mandarin Chinese (30 percent) (Financial Executive, April 2005). Throughout our investigation, we have found three opposing views: a view of bilingualism where the 'other' speaks English non-natively, a view of bilingialism where everyone speaks English nonnatively, i.e. as lingua franca,6 and a view on bilingualism according to which everybody should speak whatever the dominant language of their 'hosts' is, a 'do as the Romans' approach. And finally, there is the obvious view that one should not be bilingual at all.7 These views can also be found in the microcosm of language training in professional football. Kellerman et al. (2005) note that professional sportspeople seem to be very successful language learners. In Dutch football clubs, for example, it was considered important for foreign players to get a command of Dutch since Dutch is used as the language of communication in the clubs. One can assume, however, that English is used as an intermediary lingua franca. Clubs provide language instruction. The players which were approached by the study rated the command of Dutch as important and report speaking Dutch during training as well as in encounters outside the club. One major argument for learning Dutch was cultural understanding. Resistance to learning Dutch was expressed by players who had set their eyes on clubs outside the Netherlands and intended to leave after a few years in Holland. A similar survey among English sports clubs faltered due to the difficulties in gaining access. Informal observation indicates, however, that English clubs with Arsenal as a notable exception

6 A challenge to this distinction between non-native and lingua franca use of a language is offered in Day (2003). 7 The first two views are not new to scholars of the sociology of language, since they encapsulate the two opposing views of the role of English as either hegemonic or emancipatory in an increasingly globalized world. The linguistic situation of bilingual professionals should provide an interesting empirical ground for studying these views. For a cogent discussion see Lysandrou & Lysandrou (2003).

seem to leave it up to the players to learn English. Surely, the dominance of English in the world allows English clubs to be less strict in terms of language learning but, as Kellerman et al. point out, the national agenda may not be relevant in international top clubs, which are coincidentally located in England since clubs like Chelsea are essentially foreign clubs in a local competition with the players largely closeted away from the directors and administrative staff at their own selfsufficient training centres. In a follow-up study, Wagner et al. (2004) investigated the language policy of different Danish sports clubs. They found that in womens handball, one of the prestigious Danish sports, language skills in Danish are a high priority for foreign players. The clubs have successfully offered language training and social support to newcomers who, as a result, seem to learn Danish fast and effortlessly apart from players who were just passing through'. However, in other sports, most notably mens ice hockey, skills in Danish were neglected and English had become the language of the clubs. This seems to be due to temporary contracts with foreign players who do not stay long enough to learn the national language. But it shows that issues of language choice in the workplace of the professional sportsperson are influenced by pragmatic aspects (effective communication), ideological aspects (team sports, national importance and identification), fluctuation of players, recruitment and money.

2.2. Policy
Returning to the opposing views concerning the role of dominant languages such as English, we would like to mention two of the relatively numerous Nordic studies in the social sciences on language policy issues within multinational companies. In a series of papers, Marschan et al. (1997; 1999a; 1999b) have presented the case of a Finnish elevator company which encouraged their international affiliates to use their home languages. A contrasting strategy is described in Sderberg and Vaara (2003) concerning a Swedish-Finnish bank merger. Initially, Swedish was chosen as the only language. This was of course advantageous to Swedes, as well as a number of the Finns who were bilingual in Swedish and Finnish.8 This choice proved to be unsuccessful, however, particularly amongst many Finns who felt they were at a disadvantage with their 'school' Swedish. English was then chosen as the organizational language. These two cases illustrate different language ideologies:

Finland is officially bilingual (Finnish and Swedish) and Swedish is an obligatory subject in Finnish schools.

the view that bilingualism is unnecessary and the view that English is emancipatory since it is neutral. The studies reported above are to a great extent based on interviews and questionnaires, and are typical of the view that language and communication somehow reflect organizational reality. In studies of naturally occurring communication, we find not only much greater complexity, but also a fundamental conceptual shift towards the discursive foundations of organizational life and a more holistic, activity-based view of bilingual communication.

2.3. Interaction in the workplace

Nickerson (1999) shows how email communication within a British subsidiary in the Netherlands is written in either English or Dutch depending on organizational needs as well as situational factors. Using audio recordings and observation protocols, Louhiala-Salminen (2002) charts the everyday discursive practices of a bilingual manager in the Finnish branch of a global computer company. It was found that English was used as the lingua franca in the majority of the daily activities, even including writing in a 'Finns only' context. A closer view of bilingualism in multiparty interactions is provided by Poncini 2003. This study focuses on meetings within an Italian company between company representatives and the company's international distributors. A careful analysis of these meetings reveals the activity-related factors which trigger switches between languages. These triggers are very similar to the principles for language choice presented in section (1) above. Furthermore, the study illustrates a decidedly more European perspective on bilingualism: lingua franca English may be predominately used, but a host of other languages play a subsidiary role (also cf. Ldi & Heiniger, forthcoming, Nussbaum 2003, Unamuno 2005 and Mondada 2004). Mondada, for example, shows how linguistic resources are locally selected and used in an accountable way: achieving, sustaining, repairing reflexively the interactional order of international meetings. That order is not dealt with in terms of being difficult/deficient/problematic because of the non-nativeness of its participants, but as an event as it actually emerges and develops (2004: 19) Montdada's work not only concerns code choice as such; rather it seeks to demonstrate the step by step creation of a bilingial interactional order. We will return to this point below in our discussion of lingua franca studies. Earlier discourse analytical work on communication involving bilingual professionals has mainly sought to investigate interactional challenges due to linguistic and cultural differences. 8

Linguistic differences are discussed in a volume edited by Ehlich & Wagner (1995). In this volume, Rehbein (1995) describes the institutionalized pattern of buying and selling within French-Dutch business encounters. The study analyzes core activities and ways of handling trouble. Mariott (1995a) takes a similar discourse analytical stance and describes topic development and structure in interactions between an Australian seller and Japanese buyers. Both studies show how linguistic difficulties affect the overall structure of the business interaction. As Rehbein remarks, the success of business interaction can depend on linguistic problems: My analysis [...] points to the obvious conclusion that the seller should use the buyers native language if he wishes to influence the latters decision-making process by verbal means (1995: 98). The consequence for Rehbein is a plea for multilingual language competence. Work concerning cultural differences is perhaps best represented in a volume edited by BargielaChiapini and Harris (1997a). In this volume, Bilbow (1997), in a study of meetings conducted in English within a Hong Kong-based airline, argues that, despite a significant amount of similarity between British and Chinese interactants with regards to the speech acts of directing and requesting, cases of dissimilarity are seen as reflecting the differences between Western and Confucianist value systems. Equivocal findings such as these, especially when juxtaposed with findings from crosscultural comparisons, such as Bargiela-Chiapini & Harris (1997b), lead the following observation by Bargiela-Chiapini & Harris (1997a: 8): It would also be fair to assume that native speakers' verbal (and non-verbal) behavior in intralinguistic situations is likely to be different, and possibly very different, from their behavior in interlinguistic ones. It seems that the closer researchers look at interaction in their analysis, the more equivocal their results become. This equivocality is explained in conversation analytical and ethnomethodological work as being due to the fact that cultural difference is a topic of inquiry, rather than a resource for explaining certain phenomena. Another explanation is that interlocutors are 'etically' from different cultures, but 'emically' this difference is apparently not always oriented to by interlocutors. It is this rather fundamental theoretical reorientation which seems to inform a growing body of work within what can be referred to as studies of lingua franca interaction. Much of this work concerns bilingual professionals.

Firth's work (1991; 1995; 1996) has been very influential in this area.9 Firth (1996) analyzes English as a lingua franca within international commercial workplaces. He maintains that, in spite of the 'non-native', 'marked' or 'abnormal' appearance of work-related talk, interlocutors routinely rely on general, arguably universal, principles of interaction in order to "imbue talk with orderly and 'normal' characteristics", and that interlocutors adapt to each other's language use regardless of its fit with the norms of the relevant cultural groups (i.e. English native speakers). A similar perspective on lingua franca discourse as well as native/non-native interaction is taken, for example, in Meierkord 2000; Gramkow 1993, 2001; Rasmussen & Wagner 2000; Rasmussen 1998, 2000; Wagner 1995a, 1995b. An example is Rasmussens (1998) study of phone calls in German between a Danish company and a French subsidiary. The thrust of her study is a critique of previous studies of intercultural conflicts which are said to emerge from differences in pragmatic rules between different languages and speech communities. Rasmussen carefully describes how the normative formal address patterns of French and German do not apply, and how interlocutors let "cultural differences pass" (1998: 69). Employees in their talk float normative principles, as it were. So-called informal address forms are used in the lingua franca German business encounters and do not lead to trouble and conflict, but are contextualized in the intercultural situation. Similarly, Ramussen & Wagner (2002) show that speakers in the international marketplace have routinized ways of choosing the language of telephone calls. As a default, the language chosen by the answerer in the first turn becomes the language of the call. If a caller wants to change the language which has been offered by the answerer, he may repair the language choice in the first turn. Alternatively, language choice follows person identification that is, by identifying a known speaker, the language which was used in earlier encounters is chosen again.

3. Conclusion
Our review reveals that the close analysis of the communicative worklife of bilingual professionals is just beginning. There is much work to be done in exploring the relationships between communicative activity and the interlocutors' use of bilingual resources. Future work in this area should enable us to better understand what bilingual communicative competence entails for professionals,

9 For a different perspective on lingua franca discourse, see Knapp & Meierkord (2002).

1 0

and should provide the basis for more informed decisions concerning company language training and language policy. As mentioned in the introduction, research on bilingual professionals as summarized in this chapter questions the idea of language as the property of speech communities, of communication outside an activity, and of culture as given: this fits in nicely with current theorizing on language and communication in an increasingly globalized world. Blommaert (2003: 610) sees the challenge of a sociolinguistics of globalization as follows: We have to deal with niched sociolinguistic phenomena related to the insertion of particular varieties of language in existing repertoires, and also with the language ideological load both guiding the process and being one of its results. The bilingual professional and his or her communicative doings would appear to be a part of just the sort of sociolinguistic phenomena to which Blommaert is referring.

1 1

References
Bargiela-Chiapini, F. & Harris, S. (eds.). 1997a. The Languages of Business: An international perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 3-15. Bargiela-Chiapini, F. & Harris, S. 1997b. Managing language: the discourse of corporate meetings. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca & Nickerson, Catherine. 2003. Intercultural Business Communication: a rich field of studies. Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2003. Barner-Rasmussen & Bor (2005). Language in multilingual organizations a review of the management and organization literature. Paper presented at The 18th Scandinavian Academy of Management Meeting (NFF) -Aarhus School of Business, Denmark 18th-20th August. Belcher, Diane & Ulla Connor. Eds. 2001. Reflections on Multiliterate Lives. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersBilbow, G.T. 1997. Cross-cultural impression management in the multicultural workplace: The special case of Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 461-487. Blommaert, Jan. 2003. Commentary: A sociolinguistics of globalization. Journal of Socilonguistics 7/4. 607-623. Blum Kulka, S. Juliane Edmondson-House & Gabriele Kasper. (eds.) 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: requests and Apologies Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Boxer, Diana 2002. Applying sociolinguistics: domain and face to face interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bremer, Katharina, Celia Roberts, Marie-Thrse Vasseur, Margaret Simonot & Peter Broeder. 1996. Achieving Understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London: Longmans Brouwer, Catherine E., Gitte Rasmussen & Johannes Wagner. 2004. Embedded corrections in second language talk. Gardner & Wagner (eds.) 75-92. Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S. 2005. Multilingualism and diasporic populations: Spatializing practices, institutional processes, and social hierarchies. Language & Communication 25 (2005) 189195. Cook, Vivian (ed.) 2002. Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Davis, K. & Henze, R. 1998. Applying ethnographic perspectives to issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 399-419. Day, Dennis, 2003: Owning a language and lingua franca discourse. In A. Firth (ed.) Language Travels: A festschrift for Torben Vestergaard. Aalborg: Dept. of languages and intercultural studies, Aalborg Univ. 77-88. de Meja, Anne-Marie. 2002. Power, Prestige and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Drew, Paul & Heritage, John (eds.). 1992. Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehlich, Konrad & Johannes Wagner. (eds.) 1995. The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1 2

Firth, Alan 1991. Discourse at Work. Negotiating by telex, fax and phone. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aalborg University, Denmark Firth Alan. (ed.) 1995a. The Discourse of Negotiation. Oxford: Pergamon. Firth, Alan. 1995b. Talking for a change: commodity negotiating by telephone. In Firth 1995a. Ed.: 183-222. Firth, Alan. 1995c Telenegotiation and sense-making in the virtual markedplace. In Ehlich & Wagner. Eds. 127-149. Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On "lingua franca" English and conversation analysis. In Johs. Wagner (ed.) Special issue of Pragmatics. Vol 26, 237-258. Gardner. Rod & Johannes Wagner. Eds. 2004. Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum. Global companies look for more bilingual executives. April 2005. Expansion Management. p. 2 Gramkow Andersen, Karsten. 1993. Lingua franca discourse : an investigation of the use of English in an international business context. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitet. Gramkow Andersen, Karsten. 2001. The joint production of conversation : turn-sharing and collaborative overlap in encounters between non-native speakers of English. Aalborg: Centre for Languages and Intercultural Studies, Aalborg University. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: University Press. Halmari, H. 1993. Intercultural business telephone conversations: a case of Finns vs. AngloAmericans. Applied Linguistics, 44(4), 408430. Harzing, A.-W. 2001. Of bears, bumble-bees, and spiders: The role of expatriates in controlling foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 36/4, 366-379. Heller, M. 1994. Crosswords. Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kasper, Gabriele & M. Dahl. 1991: Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2): 215-247. Kellerman, E, Haagen, M. van der, & Koonen, H. 2005. Feet speak louder than the tongue; A preliminary analysis of language provisions for foreign footballers in the Netherlands. In Long, M. Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2005, 200224. Knapp, Konrad and Meierkord, Christiane (eds). 2002. Lingua Franca Communication. York: Peter Lang. New

Kubota, Ryuko. 2001. Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes, Vol. 20:1, pp. 47-64. Lakha, Salim & Michael Stevenson. 2001: Indian Identity in multicultural Melbourne. Some preliminary observations. Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3. Louhiala-Salminen, Leena. 2002. The fly's perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a bisness manager. English for specific purposes 21. 211-231. 1 3

Ldi, Georges & Heiniger, Monika S. (forthcoming). Lorganisation de la communication au sein dune banque rgionale bilingue. Sociolinguistica 19. Lysandrou, Photis & Lysandrou, Yvonne. 2003. Global English and proregression: understanding English language spread in the contemporary era. Economy and Society Volume 32 Number 2, 207233 Mariott, Helen. 1995a. The management of discourse in international seller-buyer negotiations. In Ehlich & Wagner. Eds. 103-126. Mariott, Helen. 1995b: Deviations in an intercultural business negotiation. In Firth, Allan. Ed. 1995:247-270. Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999a). In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8, 421-440. Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999b). Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10/3, 377390. Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management. European Management Journal, 15/5, 591-598. Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction.An analysis of nonnative-/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik online 5, 1/00. http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM Milhouse, V. H.1996. Intercultural Communication education and training goals, content, and methods. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20/1. 169-95. Mondada, Lorenza. 2004. Ways of Doing Being Plurilingual in International Work Meetings, in Gardner, R. & Wagner, J. (eds): Second Language Conversations. London, Continuum, 2760. Murata, K. 1994. Intrusive or co-operative?: a cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385400. Nickerson, C. 1998. Corporate culture and the use of written English within British subsidiaries in the Netherlands. English for specific purposes 17:3. 281-294. Nickerson, C. 1999. The use of English in electronic mail in a multinational corporation, in: F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds). Writing Business: genre, media and discourses. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Nussbaum, L. 2003. Immigration et dynamiques polyglossiques en Catalogne, in: Mondada, L. & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (eds.) Plurilinguisme - Mehrsprachigkeit - Plurilingualism. Enjeux identitaires, socio-culturels et ducatifs. Festschrift pour Georges Ldi. Francke. Tbingen. Pavlenko, Aneta & Adrian Blackledge. Eds. 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Poncini, Gina. 2003. Multicultural Business Meetings and the Role of Languages other than English Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2003. 17-32. 1 4

Rasmussen, Gitte. 1998. The use of address forms in intercultural business conversation. Revue de Semantique et Pragmatique. Vol. 3, 57-72. Rasmussen, Gitte 2000. Zur Bedeutung kultureller Unterschiede in interlingualen und interkulturellen Gesprchen. Mnchen: Iudicium. Rasmussen, Gitte & Johannes Wagner, 2002: Language choice in international telephone conversations in: K.K. Luke & Th. Pavlidou (eds): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in Conversational Structure across languages and cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2002. 111-131. Rehbein, Jochen. 1995: International sales talk. In Ehlich & Wagner. Eds. 67-102. Roberts, Celia, Evelyn Davies & Tom Jupp. 1992. Language and Discrimination. A Study of Communication in Multi-ethnic Workplaces. London: Longman. Sderberg, A.-M. and Vaara, E. (eds.) 2003. Merging across borders: People, cultures and politics. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press. Spencer-Oatey, H. & Xing, J. 1998. Relational management in ChineseBritish business meetings, in: S. Hunston (Ed.) Language at Work: selected papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics held at the University of Birmingham, September 1997. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 31-55. Twitchen, J., J. Gumperz, T.C. Jupp and C. Roberts. 1979. Cross Talk. BBC. Unamuno, Virginia. 2005. Lentorn sociolingstic i la construcci dels repertoris lingstics de lalumnat immigrat a Catalunyas. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolingstica, http://www.gencat.net/presidencia/llengcat/novese, Primavera-estiu 2005e. Wagner, Johannes. 1995a. What makes a discourse a negotiation? In Ehlich & Wagner. Eds. 9-36. Wagner, Johannes. 1995b. Negotiating activity in technical problem solving. In Firth, Alan (Ed.) 1995: 223-246. Wagner, Johannes et al. (2004): Sportsmigrants and their clubs. Paper given at the 12 sociolinguistic symposium in Newcastle. Yamada, H. 1990. Topic management and turn distribution in business meetings: American versus Japanese strategies. Text, 10(3), 271295.

1 5