ß 不同文化中商务语言特征的对比研究 crosscultural
ß 跨文化语境中的商务语言特征研究 intercultural
ß 跨文化：
1. 不同国家文化 national culture/同一组织中不同国家文化 transnational
2. 不同组织文化 organizational culture
3. 不同个人文化 identity
跨不同国家文化
ß Shi and Wright (2003) look at the impact of “national feelings” in international negotiations in Chinese contexts between Chinese and Western negotiators( Australian, European, and North American):
Western negotiators are solely concerned with the best outcome for their organization, whereas the Chinese have two competing needs: to promote their organization’s interests and to promote and protect the nation’s interests.
ß Louhiala-Salminen, Charles and Kankaanranta’s study(2005) about communication skills of employees in two large Scandinavian corporations .
ß Chew’s(2005) needs analysis of the English language skills required by new graduate employees in four Hong Kong banks
ß Spencer-Oatey’s “rapport Management”framework :
Working within the specific context of intercultural negotiations, Spencer-Oatey distinguishes five interrelated domains all of which contribute to building a working relationship.
ß Spencer-Oatey’s key dimensions:
Þ content,
Þ the organization of talk,
Þ politeness,
Þ style and deference,
Þ body language
ß Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2003): two business meetings between Chinese and British native speakers
ß Planken(2005): Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: a comparison of professional and aspiring negotiators.
ß The researcher compared two contrastive English lingua franca corpora comprised of simulated negotiation discourse, one produced by eighteen professional negotiators and the other by ten students of international business communication to see how rapport is managed differently by professional and aspiring negotiators
ß Judith Stalpers’ comparison of the speech act of disagreement in corpora of native negotiation data
(same-culture French and Dutch negotiations), and non-native negotiation data (from mixed, Dutch–French negotiations) (Stalpers, 1995).
ß Stalpers investigated how these potentially ‘face-threatening acts’ are realized linguistically and how disagreements were mitigated, that is, whether and how they were formulated politely, and whether there were differences in the way the non-native and native speakers in her study used mitigation.
跨不同组织文化
ß Swales & Rogers(1995)’s study on mission statements:
Nature of specific business discourse types have not only considered textual aspects, but also how a text type is socially constructed by members of the corporate discourse community in which it occurs. The study explains why corporate discourse community members write and use certain text types in the ways that they do.
Cheng&Mok(2008) ‘s research on the preference for inductive and deductive rhetorical strategies in written communication is investigated across a range of professionals from different countries.
Warren(2007)’s research of intercultural communication in call centers: the patterns of language use identified manifest the institutionalized roles of the participants
同一组织中的不同国家文化
ß Fujio (2004):The role of silence in the Japanese senior managers’ communication with American staff
ß Vaara et al.(2005): Silence of the Swedish senior managers in Finnish companies.
ß Nickerson’s (1999) study provides an insight into the use of English in one division of a large Dutch multinational corporation and how Dutch and English interplay in email communication in the Dutch multinational context, and pinpoints the reasons why and when English is selected as the appropriate code in favour of the local language.
Grahame Bilbow’s（2002). the use, and lexico-grammatical form, of promises and statements of commitment in intercultural business meetings(English-speaking westerners and Cantonese Chinese) recorded in a large multinational airline company in Hong Kong.
ß Bilbow found that both Chinese and western participants used these types of acts frequently, and to a similar degree.
But there were a number of crosscultural differences between the two groups in terms of the circumstances under which these speech acts were uttered, and how they were realized lexico-grammatically.
ß Brew and Cairns (2004) examine intercultural communication between Singaporeans and Australians working in Western-owned organizations in Singapore, and between Thais and Australians working in Western-owned organizations in Bangkok. The national cultural value of collectivism for the Singaporeans and Thais would result in them communicating more indirectly in all workplace contexts than their individualist Australian colleagues.
Three Recent Developments in Intercultural Analysis in Business Discourse
ß Interculturality: the process and the condition of cultures-in-contact. It is therefore seen as contextualized experience within which processes of negotiation and accommodation
dialogically realize three overlapping interactional dimensions: the social, the
linguistic and the cognitive. Interculturality is viewed as language as social action and seeks to capture culture in the making in intercultural encounters. （Bargiela-Chiappini,2004b)
ß Sociopragmatic interactional principles(SIPs) ’ (Spencer-Oatey& Jiang, 2003):
SIPs are ‘socioculturally-based principles, scalar in nature, that guide or influence people’s productive and interpretive use of language. The principles are typically value-linked, so that in a given culture and/or situational context, there are norms or preferences regarding the implementation of the principles, and any failure to implement the principles as expected may result in mild to strong evaluative judgements.
ß Relational Pragmatics (Roman Kopytko (1998; 2001; 2004) :a holistic view of pragmatic phenomena where actors, language and context are interrelated.
In RP, pragmatic knowledge is defined as incomplete, uncertain and unstable. This not only applies to the actor’s knowledge of others and the context, but also to his or her self-knowledge.
Kopytko’s sociocognitive notion of self-concept is three-dimensional:
(1) the cognitive context dimension includes knowledge structures, reasoning, dynamics of information processing, thinking, perception and attention;
(2) the affective dimension of context is associated with the interactant’s personality, attitudes, needs, etc.
(3) the conative context encompasses motivations and goals underlying the strategic use of language.
