East-West Trade Communication. An empirical study into language bridging strategies.

The goal of this PhD is to link areas that are not often combined, i.e. research on languages or rather on multilingualism and translation, with business economics. Although with this PhD we do isolate the language factor from other fields of research such as cross-cultural communication, we regard the interdisciplinary approach (language, business, communication) as being essential. International trade runs on talk (Cope and Solomon 1993 in Cremer & Willes, 1998, p. 54). Talk implies language and language is the basic constituent for communication. Quite a number of scholars, especially in Translation Studies and Economics do acknowledge the need for more interdisciplinary research (Bruthiaux, 2000; Gile, 1995, 2001; Grin, 2003; Janssens, Lambert, & Steyaert, 2004; Lambert, 2007; Marschan-Piekkari, 1999; Steyaert & Janssens, 1995; Williams & Chesterman, 2002).Initial text-based research was carried out in the nineties by Cremer and Willes (1998), who looked into written communication with Hong Kong in the textile business. Others, e.g. Welch, Welch & Marschan (2001) closely examined the language factor in relation with ease of communication in multinational businesses. Furthermore, a number of economics scholars have used economic models to interpret influence of language on trade and vice versa (e.g. Hutchinson, 2002; Vaillencourt, 1991) . While the works and methodologies discussed above are of great interest in order to contextualize this PhD, we (my supervising professors and I) intended to widen the research of this matter by embarking on qualitative research based on thorough questioning and probing (Billiet & Waege, 2006). We assumed that this type of research would generate a better insight in the intricacies of multilingual business communication, particular problems already dealt with and problems yet to be solved. We have worked on the basis of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which is a very common approach to research in the social sciences. It entails that there is no worked-out theoretical framework to start an analysis, but the framework is shaped inductively based on repeated expression by the actors. Analysis is not considered a clearly distinguished phase of research, but part of an ongoing cycle of reflection, observation, analysis, again reflection and so on, to eventually work out a theory inductively. To structure this procedure, we have followed the four-phase model as worked out by Peters, Wester & Richardson on the basis of the theory (1989; Wester & Peters, 2004).This model includes an Exploration, a Specification, a Reduction and an Integration Phase and can be depicted as a funnelling process. In the Exploration Phase a vast amount of information is gathered and interviews are conducted with open-ended questions. Throughout the following phases, however, research material is progressively collected in a more targeted manner, on the basis of the principle of theoretical sampling, and interviews are conducted using closed-ended questions. Doing so, the staggering amount of information is reduced until only a small number of central concepts are focused on.Throughout the entire process, field notes, individual interview transcripts, focus group interview transcripts, notes on case-study research (five cases) and comments on research findings have been analysed. Doing so, a conceptual framework has been created. During the first Phase of research, the Exploration Phase, over 100 labels, codes, or sensitizing concepts were assigned to the research material. As from research Phase Two, the Specification Phase, these codes have continuously been defined and redefined. Codes have equally been merged or deleted. By defining the codes they have become concepts and by defining their properties, clusters of concepts and sub-concepts have been created. Throughout the Reduction and the Integration Phases (research Phases Three and Four) the original list of over a 100 codes has been downsized to take the form of a conceptual framework with five central concepts and one core concept. This conceptual framework covers all the research material and ought to suffice to answer the research question. The research question proper has equally resulted from the four-phase research process, described above. It has evolved from the all-encompassing question how entrepreneurs access language skills to a threefold question, from the perspective of Flemish entrepreneurs. How do they bridge the language divide in their trade deals with mainland China, or more particularly: A. Through which strategies do Flemish companies access language skills?Through: translation and interpreting, use of English as a lingua franca or alternatives.B. How do communication strategies evolve during the working relationship?C. Which motivating factors are conducive to the implementation of a favourite strategy? Creating the conceptual framework, a model of the business sequence has been developed, ranging from the very beginning when the foreign market is initially approached, via legal establishment overseas to successful day to day trading, production, shipping and invoicing. Each phase in the trade sequence has appeared to have its own language requirements. In the negotiating phases, spoken language has appeared to be prevalent while in the operational phases the advantages of written language stand out. Deviant forms of English have been labeled operational sub-language which is a key concept in this study and which has proved highly useful in the operational phases of business. I focus on the complexities of this well-known key language which in too simple terms is labelled as English or as the lingua franca.
In the third Phase of research the findings of this study have equally been confronted with extant literature. As a result it has been revealed that traditional company structures, growth cycles, phases of internationalization and managers roles have been changing. The distinction between craft and mass production used to mean a world of difference in terms of communication. But the dynamics in the area of production can now be standardized, even so for the communication involving tailor-made products (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Only the managerial phases, i.e. negotiation, remain language-sensitive. Language becomes more specific, as one comes closer to the operational level and at that operational level ICT solutions are increasingly emerging to bridge the language divide. It is at the managerial level that the communication remains multi-faceted and heavily impacted by the cultural divide, which has equally proved to be a key-concept. Billiet, J., & Waege, H. (2006). &###136;Een &###137;samenleving onderzocht. Antwerpen: Antwerpen De Boeck 2003.Bruthiaux, P. (2000). Supping with the Dismal Scientists: Practical Interdisciplinarity in Language Education and Development Economics. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (JMMD), 21(4), 269-291.Cremer, R. D., & Willes, M. J. (1998). The Tongue of the Tiger. Overcoming language barriers in international trade. Singapore: World Scientific.Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam [etc.]: Amsterdam [etc.] Benjamins cop. 1995.Gile, D. (2001). Getting started in interpreting research methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners edited by Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Philadelphia J. Benjamins Pub. Co cop. 2001.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. j. a. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative research [by] Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. Chicago: Chicago Aldine Pub. Co. [1967].Grin, F. (2003). Language Planning and Economics. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(1), 1-66.Hutchinson, W. K. (2002). Does Ease of Communication Increase Trade? Commonality of Language and Bilateral Trade. SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 49(5), 544-556.Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies. JOURNAL OF WORLD BUSINESS, 39(4), 414-430.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations Daniel Katz, Robert L. Kahn. New York: New York Wiley 1966.Lambert, J. (2007). The Languages of University and the Idea of Language Management: before and beyond national languages. A position paper. (unpublished).Marschan-Piekkari, R. (1999). In the shadow: the impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8(4), 421.Peters, V., Wester, F., & Richardson, R. (1989). Kwalitatieve analyse in de praktijk en Handleiding bij Kwalitan, versie 2. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociale Wetenschappen 1989.Steyaert, C. a., & Janssens, M. a. (1995). Reconsidering translation and language in an international business context; beyond an instrumental approach. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit.Vaillencourt, F. (1991). The Economics of Language: Theory, Empiricism and Application to the Asian Pacific. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 2(1), 29-44.Welch, D., Welch, L., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2001). The Persistent Impact of Language on Global Operations. Prometheus, 19(3), 193-209.Wester, F. a., & Peters, V. a. (2004). Kwalitatieve analyse uitgangspunten en procedures. Bussum: Bussum Coutinho 2004.Williams, J., & Chesterman, A. (2002). The map a beginner's guide to doing research in translation studies by Jenny Williams and Andrew Chesterman. Manchester: Manchester St. Jerome 2002.

Publication year:2012

Accessibility:Closed