Discussion Papers In Economics
And Business

The Review of Language Studies in International Business:
Suggestions and Future Directions for Japan

Ting Liu
Discussion Paper 18-30

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANThe Review of Language Studies in International Business:
Suggestions and Future Directions for Japan

Ting Liu
Discussion Paper 18-30

November 2018

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANThe Review of Language Studies in International Business: Suggestions and Future
Directions for Japan
Ting Liu1

Abstract
We conduct a systematic and narrative review of the literature in the area of language
studies in international business (IB). Our contributions seek to outline the research oflanguage in IB both in Western countries and in Japan. Moreover, we aim to open up thedebate of language studies in IB in Japan as the most important contribution; we offer
suggestions for future research in Japan based on prior studies and discuss managerial
implications for Japanese corporations. The pertinent literature we use in this paper is basedon chronological and categorical turns, by dividing language studies in IB into three stages:
infancy, toddler and preschool stages.

JEL Classification: M10, M14, M16
Keywords: language studies, infancy stage, toddler stage, preschool stage, suggestions
for Japan

Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, 1-7 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka
560-0043 Japan. Email: tliu@cbi.osaka-u.jp
11

Introduction: The Pivotal and Forgotten Factor in IB
It has become trite to say globalization is changing the business world in a various
way and research in international business has become more interdisciplinary. Althoughlanguage is considered to be a key element at the heart of international business (IB)activities (Brannen, Piekkari, & Tietze, 2014), language studies in IB have been neglected forseveral decades (Feely & Harzing, 2002, 2003; Marschan, Welch, & Welch, 1997). Scholars
even have portrayed the issue of language in IB as "the forgotten factor" (Marschan et al.,1997).
Starting with SanAntonio (1987), language started to be discussed in IB, especially inWestern countries. However, in Japan, language in IB is still in the seminal stage. Indeed,language studies were generally ignored in the field of IB (Harzing & Feely, 2008). It isbecause of the deterrence from an interdisciplinary study, and the influence of Hofstede's
study of cultural research (Hofstede, 1984, 1997 & 2001) and cultural distance (Kogut &Singh, 1988). The most important reason is the absence of the systematic analysis oflanguage problems in this field. In addition to the reasons stated above, it is believed thatJapan has its distinctive reasons, such as that Japan is a homogeneous country with a highcontext culture, and the average English proficiency level in Japan is relatively low.
The review of cross-culture and language studies within international businessresearch has been conducted by a number of scholars from Western countries (e.g., Brannen
et al., 2014; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005; Pudelko, Tenzer, & Harzing,
2014; Shenkar, 2004). We can consult the prior review papers to build our argument ininternational business in Japan, but we believe we need to draw on past research and make a1summary of studies in international business focusing on the future research in Japan.
Hence, this paper contributes to opening up the debate of language studies ininternational business in Japan. Most importantly, we offer some suggestions for future
research in Japan based on past research and characteristics of Japanese corporations. Ourreview of the aforementioned research is from three stages: infancy, toddler and preschool, inthe chronological and categorical turn.
In the Shadow of Culture
To date, the measurement of culture has been formulated by a great number ofscholars. One of the most influential assessments is the enormous research by Hofstede(1984), who developed four dimensions to measure cultural distance: individualismcollectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Pursuant to
his research, scholars started to rely on scales developed by Hofstede in cross-cultural
management research (Brannen & Salk, 2000). Meanwhile, culture has been studied from the
aspects of sociology (Erickson, 1996), cognitive (Phillips, 1994), organizations (Bloor &Dawson, 1994), professional subcultures (Bloor & Dawson, 1994), ethnic prospective (Cox,Lobel, & McLeod, 1991), and education (Halsey, Lauder, Brown, & Stuart Wells, 1997).
In a general view, language represents the core of culture, which has been debatedthrough history (Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005). However, language was conducted
to be a shadow structure that is behind the formal organization chart (Marschan-Piekkari,
Welch, & Welch, 1999b). As a consequence, language was discussed under the harborage ofculture or under the cloak of communication. For instance, the effect of language has been
discussed by Schein (1984), who found that if members cannot communicate with and2understand each other, a group is impossible by definition when defining the concept oforganizational culture. Language was also mentioned slightly along with political, culturaland legal institutions which play a crucial role in international business (IB) from theinterdisciplinary approach (Dunning, 1989). The development and the use of language,
customs, and other similar activities encourage the internalization of shared values andstrengthen individual acceptance of the common beliefs and goals of the group inorganizational culture (Pratt & Beaulieu, 1992).
The Stage of Infancy
Language started to be considered as an important element in IB at the end of the 20th
century. Since language can be both a distortion and a facilitator of inter-unit communication,
and a source of power status in multinational corporations (MNCs) (Marschan-Piekkari et al.,1999b), language started to be argued as a single entity, separated from culture, as animportant factor in MNCs. Although the issue of language has been examined as theforgotten factor (Marschan et al., 1997), scholars did not show much concern for this subject
in IB during its infancy stage. In 2002, the discussion on language in IB was opened up by
defining the drivers underpinning the language barrier based on sociolinguistic theories(Feely & Harzing, 2002). Although it drew the attention of many scholars, language studies
still were in their infancy.
In order to dissect language issue in depth, problems that language creates and thedefinition of the language barrier, measurement of language has to be explicit. The language
barrier in IB was defined systematically into a definition based on seven measures, which arelanguage internationality, language awareness, language capability, corporate language,
3

language difference, language diversity and language penetration (Feely & Harzing, 2002).
Furthermore, Harzing and Feely (2008) revealed that the language barrier in MNCs is adriver of misunderstandings, group boundaries, and factors reinforcing group boundaries on
the basis of foregoing factors.
After language was newly opened up as a brand-new research agenda in IB (Feely &Harzing, 2002), further efforts have been to outline dimensions of the language barrier into
language diversity, language penetration and language sophistication (Feely & Harzing,2003). Based on the argument on the drivers, dimensions and impact of the language barrier(Feely & Harzing, 2002, 2003), how to conduct research on language problems has been asubject of debate (Feely & Harzing, 2002, 2003). The definition of the language barrier, how
to solve the language barrier and how to measure the language barrier has been discussed
generally in this stage, but there is no single solution that can be considered a panacea (Feely& Harzing, 2003).
The Stage of Toddler
On the basis of the foundational definition of the language barrier, language has been
discussed between organization and inter-organization. In this paper, we will take a review ofpast research situated in MNCs, between headquarters (HQ) and subsidiaries, and in specificcategories.
Language within MNCs
Language has great strategic impact on communication within grand and scattered
MNCs (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999a), and it is also the fertile environment ofpropagating the language barrier, which has led to language studies in IB being chiefly
4

discussed based on MNCs. Based on the level of MNCs, some of the studies featured indepth assessments of one or two MNCs (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007; MarschanPiekkari et al., 1999b), and some featured on large-scale overviews (Harzing & Pudelko,2013). Harzing and Pudelko (2013) presented the first extensive analysis of language
competencies, policies and practices in MNCs by distinguishing four language clusters.
However, in this stage, the effect of language in specific aspects such as knowledge transfer,social capital, autonomy, communication or expatriation in IB has not been discussed by mostscholars (Harzing & Pudelko, 2013).
To reduce the negative influence of language diversity, many MNCs have chosen acommon corporate language in the condition of communication and documentation (e.g.,
Jeanjean, Stolowy, Erkens, & Yohn, 2014; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a). English as thecommon corporate language alleviates some of the horizontal communication problems(Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002). However, the language barrier did not disappear
despite that the corporate language was standardized by opting for English (MarschanPiekkari et al., 1999b). In some situations, people will seek language links and language
alliances due to the language barrier (Marschan et al., 1997). Learning corporate language
also is a method to decrease the barriers of language between subsidiaries (Marschan et al.,1997).
Language between HQ and Subsidiaries
Meanwhile, language was investigated between HQ and its subsidiaries systematically(Harzing, Köster, & Magner, 2011). We consider the language barrier, and the choice offunctional languages that will facilitate or interfere with effective communication flow in the5network of MNCs and its global subsidiaries (Bordia & Bordia, 2014; Marschan et al., 1997).
Meanwhile, shared language has an impact on subsidiary knowledge inflows (Reiche,
Harzing, & Pudelko, 2015). The relation between HQ and subsidiaries influenced bylanguage and the language barrier definitely damages HQ-subsidiary interactions (Harzing &Pudelko, 2014). Harzing and Feely (2008) opened up the argument on the impact of languageon the way MNCs manage their subsidiary affairs. Harzing and Pudelko (2013, 2014) havearticulated the communication gap based on the level of difficulty presented in different
geographic locations between home companies and subsidiary locations. Harzing, Köster andMagner (2011) have demonstrated the language barrier is a significant factor in reducing theefficiency and increasing the expense of decision-making by large-scale analysis of the HQsubsidiary relationship. Using the method of interview in German and Japanese corporations’
HQ and subsidiaries, proposals of how to solve the problem such as changing communication
patterns, code-switching, language training, and establishing a common corporate language
have been put forward (Harzing et al., 2011). In-depth language studies in MNCs were also
formulated, such as building the link between language impact and equity stake (Cuypers,
Ertug, & Hennart, 2015). Language also influences the choice of multinational enterprises’
establishment mode between greenfield and acquisition entry (Slangen, 2011). Furthermore,language studies were also included in inter-subsidiary relationships (Marschan-Piekkari etal., 1999b).
The Stage of Preschool
Language does not only affect attitudes, but also different areas of organizational
behavior (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2013). It is argued that foreign language is a prime factor
6activating behavior when comparing competitive and cooperative behavior while exploring aprisoner’s dilemma in a quasi-experiment (Akkermans, Harzing, & Van Witteloostuijn,
2010). Based on the foregoing study in the level of organization, the interplay of language
and the other factors that occurred within the organization have been assessed. Many scholars
shifted their attention to human-centered, psychology-based research rather than economicsbased since it is of crucial significance to investigate international business from theperspective of human behavior (Evans, Pucik, & Barsoux, 2002).
Language can be a barrier (Feely & Harzing, 2003), a source of power (Hinds,
Neeley, & Cramton, 2013; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b; Śliwa & Johansson, 2014),
element affect trust formation (Tenzer, Pudelko, & Harzing, 2013), leadership (Zander et al.,2011), employees’ commitment and emotion (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2013; Yamao & Sekiguchi,2015), influenced by cognitive load (Volk, Köhler, & Pudelko, 2014). Rather than from thewhole perspective of the MNCs, more and more scholars have started to narrow theirperspectives into the level of international teams.
Language diversity influences team building (Henderson, 2005). At the team level,
how to build a knowledge-sharing culture is argued by global virtual teams (Zakaria,
Amelinckx, & Wilemon, 2004). Communication is an impetus element in building a winningvirtual team with knowledge-sharing culture (Zakaria et al., 2004). Communicationdifficulties will also impede the performance of global teams from the perspective of
linguistics (Chen, Geluykens, & Choi, 2006), and one of the major barriers to communicationin global teams is language diversity (Schweiger, Atamer, & Calori, 2003). Language
diversity in teams surpasses the boundary of cultural diversity and has become a challenge for7multinational teams and interactions between members of international teams in MNCs
(Zakaria et al., 2004).
Language is connected with thought processes and with social interaction, both ofwhich are hypothesized to influence the communication processes with global teams (Chen etal., 2006). Meantime, language plays an significant role at the individual level (BarnerRasmussen, Ehrnrooth, Koveshnikov, & Mäkelä, 2014). Individuals may adjust their thought
and behavior relying on the language that they are using (Zander et al., 2011). For instance,
Bordia and Bordia (2014) have explicated willingness to adopt a foreign language of
employees from host countries’ subsidiaries based on an interdisciplinary theoretical model.
People who have a strong linguistic identity have an emotional connection. They will be lesslikely to participate in a foreign language training program or adopt the functional languagein the workplace by relinquishing their original language (Bordia & Bordia, 2014).
Language and PowerSanAntonio (1987), who is considered to be the first to investigate language issue inIB, focused on the significance of language as a source of power and advance for Japaneseemployees with English proficiency in one American company in Japan.
Language skills can empower and disempower subjects via communication,competence, and networks (Vaara et al., 2005). Language is used as an informal origin of
power, and it is considered to be a significant influence on power in MNCs (MarschanPiekkari et al., 1999b). Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari and Säntti (2005) has spotlighted power
implications of language policies made in merging multinational corporations and delved into
power in a situation where language policies are construed in an emerging multinational8corporation. A common corporate language has three aspects of implications based on thecircuits of power framework of Clegg (1989).
With the broadening of the research of power and languagescholars started to focus
on more specific and extraordinary aspects, such as unearned status gain, which have positive
and negative effects (Neeley & Dumas, 2015). Lack of language grasp will lower theaccessible ability and power in the organization. Functional management and administrative
process can also be empowered by language-related dependence (Luo & Shenkar, 2006).
Language and Leadership
Language has been also linked with leadership. For instance, (Zander, 2005)
demonstrated the leadership-related communication. Zander et al. (2011) investigated if
cross-cultural difficulties posed by language influence managers in a leadership situation
when adopting a common corporate language as a solution.
Language and Trust
The debate about trust and relationship in team building in the international teams was
opened up by Zakaria, Amelinckx and Wilemon (2004). Language dependence is an elementof building trust and relationship in international teams (Henderson, 2005; Henderson &Louhiala-Salminen, 2011; Tenzer et al., 2013; Zakaria et al., 2004). Language diversity candistort and damage relationships and bring about distrust and insecurity (Feely & Harzing,2003). Barner-Rasmussen and Björkman (2007) formulated the relationship of language andtrustworthiness based on an inter-unit shared vision in subsidiaries in MNCs in China andFinland. Tenzer, Pudelko and Harzing (2013) focused on how the language barrier influences
trust formation cognitively and emotionally, which also synopsized how to reinforce9perceived trustworthiness in MNCs.
Language and Commitment
The interplay between language and commitment was investigated among non-native
English-speakers in Japanese corporations under the trend of globalization (Yamao &Sekiguchi, 2015). By focusing on self-perceived English language proficiency and humanresource practices, effective and normative commitment was explicated to be affected by selfperceived English-language proficiency and HR practices, which is strategically crucial to theglobalization of Japanese corporations (Yamao & Sekiguchi, 2015).
Language and Emotion Management
The language barrier can lead to misunderstandings and false perceptions of consent(Tenzer, 2012). Language-induced emotions can corrode collaborative efforts, productivity
and performance in MNCs (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2013). The significance of language forshared mental model formation and the impediment of the language barrier on shared mental
models has been revealed (Tenzer, 2012). Tenzer and Pudelko (2013) firstly built associationof language in IB and emotions in organizations and among leadership.
Language and Cognitive Approach
Culture has been studied from a new cognitive lens by Phillips (1994), and cognitive
linguistics study has also been a branch of linguistic research. In this stage, scholars started tofocus on intrapersonal, cognitive processes that influence employee performance rather thaninterpersonal effects of the language barrier (Volk et al., 2014). Cognitive distortion was acomponent in the communication cycle, which was caused by uncertainty, anxiety andmistrust—the result of communication failures (Harzing & Feely, 2008). Trust formation is10

also affected by cognitive and emotional reactions (Tenzer et al., 2013). Volk, Köhler andPudelko (2014) investigated foreign language processing in multilingual organizations fromthe cognitive neuroscience perspective. As an interdisciplinary area in language studies in IB,
cognitive study can be deduced to have great potential in future research.
Except the foregoing illustration, some peculiar elements in organizations have beenconnected with the language studies, such as Cuypers, Ertug and Hennart (2015), who havebuilt the link between language impact and equity stake by discussing the influence of
linguistic distance and lingua franca proficiency on the stake taken by acquirers in crossborder acquisitions, which investigated in depth rather than in a broad way. Another example
is that language can also be a necessary tool to improving corporate social responsibility(CSR) (Selmier II, Newenham-Kahindi, & Oh, 2014).

11

Table 1. Three stages of language studies in IB
THE STAGE OF INFANCY
CultureTHE STAGE OF TODDLER+

base
Concept of language studies in IB

THE STAGE OF PRESCHOOL+

Language and cultural measures
Language and diversity

Cultural accommodation and language priming
Language management and diversity climate

Language and culture/cultural distanceMultilingual organizations as “linguascapes”

Languagepolicies

Language barriers

Crossing language boundaries

andLanguage policies

Language ability and adjustment

practices

Lingua franca /corporate language in+

Concept and development of BELF+

Language and ethnicity

Language as resources
Language barrier and its solutions

MNCs

Linguistic Distance

Language competencies, policies and practices in multinational

language and business/corporate

Language and identity

corporations

communication

Language standardization and Internationalization

language and global operations

Language strategy/communication strategies
Multilingual franca
Multinational multilingualism

Language learning and international
management

Interunit knowledge transfer/ technology

Inter-organizational/ multilingual relationships

Language strategies for internationaltransfer

Language and cross-border merger/ acquisitions

companies
MNCs’

Ethnicity and intrafirm trade/ international trade+

Knowledge sharing within multinational
corporations+

Language as firm’s strategic assets; CSR
Language friction and partner selection in cross-border R&D

language

Language Barrier and HQ-Subsidiary

Language in global/ multilingual virtual teams

strategies

Relationships.

Language translation in the multinational corporation

Language and Inter-Unit Relationships

Language use in MNC subsidiaries/ subsidiary identification

Language diversity in international teams

Linguistic diversity on project network/ in task teams/ perceived teamMultilingual community/business environment

potency
Power dynamics in multinational teams

12

Expatriate selection
HQ andSubsidiaries

Knowledge sharing

Headquarters-subsidiary communication

+

base

Knowledge transfer between HQ andsubsidiaries

Expatriates and inpatriates+

Language decision in a cross-border merger

HQ-subsidiary relationship
Host country language and expatriate-HCE relationship
Intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries
Language fluency and host country adjustment

Humancentered+

Leadership+Power and status

Bilingual behavior, attitudes, identity and vitality
Common language, knowledge sharing and performance

language

Creative performance

perspective

Decision making
Emotional management
Employee commitment; group cohesiveness
Employees' willingness; voice; evaluation
Gender identity
Problem-solving
Recruitment, employment, and settlement
Trust formation
Turnover intentions; career mobility
Work-family conflict

13

Language Studies in IB in Japan
Research on language studies in international business has involved linguistic
strategies historically and attached interest among scholars (e.g., Feely & Harzing, 2003;
Harzing & Feely, 2008; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a, 1999b; Yoshihara, Okabe, &Sawaki, 2001). However, there are still quite a few scholars who have built explicit linguistic
strategies for MNCs to implicate. In this paper, we briefly review antecedents and make alink between Japanese corporations for the future implications.
Englishnization in Japan
Since Europe and North America are extremely diverse culturally and linguistically,
the issue of a common corporate language in post-merger integration becomes particularly
pertinent, which gives language fertile ground to develop and integrate (Piekkari, Vaara,
Tienari, & Säntti, 2005). Different from Europe, Japan is a homogenous country fromlocation, race, culture, and language.
Speaking of linguistic strategy in Japanese corporations, especially English as thefunctional language, Yoshihara (1999) can be a typical example. In Yoshihara’s (1999)
research, most of the subsidiaries of Japanese MNCs are managed by Japanese people in theJapanese language. Nevertheless, considering the globalizing process of Japanese
corporation, it is essential to promote English-language proficiency through HR practices(Yamao & Sekiguchi, 2015). Another famous example is the Englishnization at Rakuten Inc.,
which can be represented as milestone in linguistic management in Japan. However, it also
leads to loss of productivity, lack of time to study, and conflicted views among managers,which impedes staff success (Neeley, 2011). Thus, making English the chosen corporate

14

language in non-Anglo firms is not always the best solution (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari,2002), and the implantation of standardized communication within the organization is repletewith difficulties.
English Proficiency Level
One of the barriers hindering Japanese corporations’ globalization is believed to be
the relatively low English proficiency level. In fact, Yoshihara, Okabe, and Sawaki (2001)
have shown that the Japanese are among countries having the lowest TOEIC score in theworld. However, there are for instance more than 2 million non-Japanese people studying
Japanese as a foreign language (H. Yoshihara et al., 2001), which is escalating now. This
problem will cause one-way communication problems and lead Japanese corporations into
disadvantage circumstance.
Linguistic Strategies
Language can promote the process of communication, coordination and control. At
the same time, it can also be an impediment due to forms of filtration and distortion(Marschan et al., 1997). Therefore, language should be included in the strategy loop of thecompany (Marschan et al., 1997).
Building on the results of Harzing, Köster and Magner (2011), the solution ofchoosing a corporate language and language training do not seem adequate in the short term.
That is why comprehending the language barrier well and matching the solutions in a varied
way may be right for the company context (Feely & Harzing, 2003). A combination ofsolutions might differ across different types of language interactions. For example, thecommunication mode is changed by the impact of language, as lack of shared language puts
15

the preference on written communication instead of oral communication (Harzing & Pudelko,2014). Expatriates will grease the wheels of communications and knowledge transfer between
HQs and subsidiaries (Harzing & Pudelko, 2014). Japanese corporations should adopt an
explicit linguistic strategy, such as linguistic adaption based on functional
departmentalization linguistic adaption to local market, bridging individuals (Harzing etal., 2011) and communication mode (Harzing & Pudelko, 2014).
As stated above, in Japan, several companies have adopted English as the lingua
franca such as Rakuten, Inc. However, they merely compel the employees to use English in
the workplace instead of establishing an explicit linguistic strategy according to concrete
circumstances. In addition, the major concern in language studies in international researchhas been the language barrier and the collision between English and the other languages, inlimited scope such as Scandinavian, Japanese and Chinese (Pudelko et al., 2014). Thus, wecall for more in-depth study on Japanese and the other languages rather than English.
Considering the needs of the economy, Japanese corporations should also adopt the otherlanguages such as Chinese and Korean rather than adhering to English as the corporate
language since there is a business relationship with China, Korea and other Asian countries.
Suggestions for Japanese Scholars
Referring to this area in Japan, the study of culture in IB has never stagnated. For
example, since 1992, theoretical advances and empirical tests have been assembled by
Schwartz (1992) in 20 countries including Japan to explore the significance of values inuniversal contexts. Brannen (2000) has also been discussing the organization of culture in a
German-Japanese joint venture. However, although scholars from western countries have
16

utilized large amounts of data from Japanese corporations (e.g., Andersson, Forsgren, &Holm, 2002; Brannen & Salk, 2000; Harzing et al., 2011; Neeley & Dumas, 2015; Pudelko &Tenzer, 2011), Japanese scholars rarely showed solicitude in this area. Therefore, our paper
aims to open up the debate of language studies in IB in Japan, and we formulate oursuggestions from the aspect of research method and research content.
Previous Research Method in Language in IB
Although quantitative research has occupied dominance in the field of IB, quality
research still has much chance and room for future researchers (Pudelko et al., 2014). There
are opportunities for qualitative research with the evolution of IB studies (Birkinshaw,
Brannen, & Tung, 2011). Other research methods, such as experimental research (e.g.,
Akkermans et al., 2010; Ayçiçegˇi & Harris, 2004; Puntoni, De Langhe, & Van Osselaer,2009), could also provide innovative foreground in language studies in IB. For example,
Akkermans, Harzing and Van Witteloostuijn (2010) argued that language will affectcooperative and competitive behavior by using the experimental research method of
Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Hence, we call for Japanese researchers to manipulate mixed
methods such as making a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods(Phakiti, 2015), and we can also opt for an experimental research method, which we believe
can bring novel insights in this interdisciplinary area.
Research Content
First, although research on the language issue between HQ and subsidiaries has
provided a major step forward, there is still much with which we can engage. For instance, it
is believed that the language interactions and relationship among different subsidiaries, which
17still remains largely absent, has great potential in the future. Building a communication link
not only with HQ, but also with the other subsidiaries, can be revealed in the future. Second,reliance on a single language is a strategy that is fatally flawed. The existing literature inlanguage studies in international business in Japan is too scant to form a basis for formulating
and testing proposals for Japanese corporations. Scholars in Japan should develop adiversified and concrete linguistic strategy for the Japanese corporation to implant. What ismore, scholars can also engage in this area from a relatively interdisciplinary andintrapersonal perspective; for instance, cognitive approach in language studies can also be analluring prospect. Furthermore, Japanese scholars may also compare language studies inwestern countries with Japan and elaborate if the language barrier, solutions to the language
barrier and linguistic strategies in western countries are also appropriate to Japan. In addition,in order to be on a par with western scholars in this area, Japanese scholars should clarify thedistinguishing characters of language issues in Japanese corporations. We suggest Japanesescholars replenish the basic research of language in IB along with various research methods,
rather than only imitating past studies established in western countries. Last but not least,
scholars in Japan should also build the research link in English. Since language ininternational business is an interdisciplinary area in which importation and exportation isessential, we suggest that scholars in Japan should contribute more papers in English andbuild a connection between Japan and other countries’ research communities. This can foster
Japanese scholars to use the experiences of other countries for reference.

18

Conclusion
Although language is one of the most pivotal factors in IB, it is still in the seminal
stage in Japan. In this paper, we formulate a narrative and systematic review for the priorresearch on the standing of Japanese scholars. Japanese researchers should investigate
language issues and pull them out of the shadow of culture. However, culture effects should
not be ignored. Instead of that, Japanese researchers should make a better clarification of therelationship between culture and language (Pudelko et al., 2014) and implicate it in thespecific research environment in Japan. Our contribution seeks to open up the debate oflanguage studies in Japan with a new agenda. We hope Japanese scholars will pay more
attention in this area and link the Japanese research community in language and IB with othercountries. Meanwhile, we call for conceptual and innovative investigation to contribute tolanguage studies in international business research in Japan. Figuring out how to bolster
language systems to meet development needs such as coordination, integration, andexpansion (Luo & Shenkar, 2006) is imperative and far-reaching for Japanese scholars. We
believe our research can provide an underpinning review and propose an approach for the
future operationalization of language studies in IB in Japan.

19References
Akkermans, D., Harzing, A. W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). Cultural accommodationand language priming: Competitive versus cooperative behavior in a prisoner's dilemma
game. Management International Review, 50(5), 559-584.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2002). The strategic impact of external networks:
subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational
corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 979-996.
Ayçiçegˇi, A., & Harris, C. (2004). BRIEF REPORT Bilinguals' recall and recognition ofemotion words. Cognition and Emotion, 18(7), 977–987.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Björkman, I. (2007). Language fluency, socialization and inter-unit
relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries. Management and Organization
Review, 3(1), 105–128.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., & Mäkelä, K. (2014). Cultural andlanguage skills as resources for boundary spanning within the MNC. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 45(7), 886–905.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. (2011). From a distance and generalizable toup close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international
business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 573–581.
Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context.
Organization Studies, 15(2), 275–295.

20

Bordia, S., & Bordia, P. (2014). Employees' willingness to adopt a foreign functional
language in multilingual organizations: The role of linguistic identity. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 46(4), 415–428.
Brannen, M. Y., Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. (2014). The multifaceted role of language ininternational business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a criticalchallenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies,45(5), 495–507.
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering Across Borders: Negotiating Organizational
Culture in a German-Japanese Joint Venture. Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487.
Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal
communication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9–29.
Chen, S., Geluykens, R., & Choi, C. J. (2006). The importance of language in global teams: A
linguistic perspective. Management International Review, 46(6), 679–696.
Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. Sage.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differenceson cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management
Journal, 34(4), 827–847.
Cuypers, I. R., Ertug, G., & Hennart, J.-F. (2015). The effects of linguistic distance and lingua
franca proficiency on the stake taken by acquirers in cross-border acquisitions. Journal21

of International Business Studies, 46(4), 429–442.
Dunning, J. H. (1989). The study of international business: A plea for a more interdisciplinary
approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(3), 411-436.
Erickson, B. H. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American journal of
Sociology, 102(1), 217-251.
Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J. L. (2002). The global challenge. McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company.
Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A. W. (2002). Forgotten and Neglected. Language: The Orphan ofInternational Business Research, Paper presented to the 62nd Annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Denver.
Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A. W. (2003). Language management in multinational
companies. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 37-52.
Halsey, A. H., Lauder, H., Brown, P., & Wells, A. S. (1997). Education: culture, economy andsociety. Oxford University Press.
Harzing, A. W., & Feely, A. J. (2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQsubsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1),49-61.
Harzing, A.W., Köster, K., & Magner, U. (2011). Babel in business: The language barrier andits solutions in the HQ-subsidiary relationship. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 279–
287.
22

Harzing, A.W., & Pudelko, M. (2013). Language competencies, policies and practices in
multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and comparison of Anglophone,
Asian, Continental European and Nordic MNCs. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 87–
97.
Harzing, A.W., & Pudelko, M. (2014). Hablas vielleicht un peu la mia language? A
comprehensive overview of the role of language differences in headquarters–subsidiarycommunication. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(5),696–717.
Henderson, J. K. (2005). Language diversity in international management
teams. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66-82.
Henderson, J. K., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2011). Does language affect trust in global
professional contexts? Perceptions of international business professionals. Rhetoric,
Professional Communication and Globalization, 2(1), 15-33.
Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2013). Language as a lightning rod: Power
contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 45(5), 536–561.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values (Vol. 5). Sage.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.

23

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1997). Cultures and organizations. McGraw
Hill New York, NY.
Jeanjean, T., Stolowy, H., Erkens, M., & Yohn, T. L. (2014). International evidence on theimpact of adopting English as an external reporting language. Journal of International
Business Studies, 46(2), 180–205.
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry
mode. Journal of international business studies, 19(3), 411-432.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture andinternational business: Recent advances and their implications for future research.
Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357–378.
Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. (2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual community:
Language and organization in a global context. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 37(3), 321–339.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999a). Adopting a common corporate
language: IHRM implications. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
10(3), 377–390.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999b). In the shadow: The impact oflanguage on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International
Business Review, 8(4), 421–440.
Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in24multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591–598.
Neeley, T. (2011). Language and globalization: ‘Englishnization’ at Rakuten(A). Harvard
Business School Organizational Behavior Unit Case (412-002)
Neeley, T. B., & Dumas, T. L. (2016). Unearned status gain: Evidence from a global language
mandate. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 14-43.
Phillips, M. E. (1994). Industry mindsets: Exploring the cultures of two macro-organizationalsettings. Organization Science, 5(3), 384–402.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration? Human
resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-bordermerger. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 330–344.
Pratt, J., & Beaulieu, P. (1992). Organizational culture in public accounting: Size, technology,
rank, and functional area. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(7), 667–684.
Pudelko, M., & Tenzer, H. (2011). Conflict in foreign subsidiaries of Japanese and western
multinational corporations: The impact of cultural distance and differences in home-hostcountry combinations. Zeitschrift Für Betriebswirtschaft, 81(3), 49–71.
Pudelko, M., Tenzer, H., & Harzing, A. W. (2014). Cross-cultural management and language
studies within international business research: past and present paradigms andsuggestions for future research. Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management.
Pudelko, M., Tenzer, H., & Harzing, A. -W. (2015). Cross-cultural management and language
studies within international business research: Past and present orthodoxies and25

suggestions for future research. In N. Holden, S. Michailova, & S. Tietze (Eds.), The
Routledge companion to cross-cultural management (pp. 85–94). New York: Routledge.
Puntoni, S., De Langhe, B., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2009). Bilingualism and the emotional
intensity of advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1012–1025.
Reiche, B. S., Harzing, A. W., & Pudelko, M. (2015). Why and how does shared language
affect subsidiary knowledge inflows? A social identity perspective. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 46(5), 528-551.
SanAntonio, P. M. (1987). Social mobility and language use in an American company inJapan. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3-4), 191–200.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan
Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoreticaladvances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.
Schweiger, D. M., Atamer, T., & Calori, R. (2003). Transnational project teams and networks:
making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World Business, 38(2),127–140.
Selmier II, W. T., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Oh, C. H. (2014). [ldquo] Understanding thewords of relationships [rdquo]: Language as an essential tool to manage CSR incommunities of place. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(2), 153–179.

26

Shenkar, O. (2004). One more time: International business in a global economy. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 35(2), 161–171.
Slangen, A. H. (2011). A Communication-Based Theory of the Choice Between Greenfieldand Acquisition Entry. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1699–1726.
Śliwa, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). How non-native English-speaking staff are evaluated inlinguistically diverse organizations: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 45(9), 1133–1151.
Tenzer, H. (2012). The impact of language barriers on shared mental models in multinational
teams. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2012, No. 1, pp. 1-1). Briarcliff
Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2013). Leading across language barriers: Strategies to mitigate
negative language-induced emotions in MNCs. In Academy of Management Proceedings(Vol. 2013, p. 12852). Academy of Management. hTenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A.-W. (2013). The impact of language barriers on trust
formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 508–
535.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power ina merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 595–623.
Volk, S., Köhler, T., & Pudelko, M. (2014). Brain drain: The cognitive neuroscience of
foreign language processing in multinational corporations. Journal of International

27

Business Studies, 45(7), 862–885.
Yamao, S., & Sekiguchi, T. (2015). Employee commitment to corporate globalization: The
role of English language proficiency and human resource practices. Journal of World
Business, 50(1), 168–179.
Yoshihara, H. (1999). Glibal Operationsa Managed by Japanese and in Japanese.
Yoshihara, H., Okabe, Y., & Sawaki, S. (2001). Eigo de Keieisuru Jidai–Nihon Kigyo no
Chosen (The age of business management in English-The challenge for Japanesecompanies). Tokyo Japan: Yuhikaku Publishing Co Ltd.
Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart? Building aknowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 13(1), 15–29.
Zander, L. (2005). Communication and country clusters: A study of language and leadershippreferences. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 83–103.
Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., Harzing, A.-W., Baldueza, J., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Barzantny,
C., … others. (2011). Standardization and contextualization: A study of language andleadership across 17 countries. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 296–304.

28