## Jakob Lauring* & Toke Bjerregaard*

## Language Use and International Business: What Can We Learn from Anthropology?

## Abstract

This article addresses the role of language use in international business. It argues that the  impact  of  linguistic  differences  on  the  daily  workings  of  international  business activities and communication is shaped by the way in which these differences intersect with the social and professional structures of international fi  rms. Thus, the analysis of management across linguistic variation requires an understanding of the character of the social and professional ties in which international business is embedded. The intensity of cross-linguistic challenges in international management is not given by the formal character and structure  of  linguistic  differences  only.  While  the  daily  practices  of  language use in an international fi  rm are shaped by its social and professional structure, linguistic practices may also strengthen the social and professional ties shaping the dissemination of information. The role of linguistic differences in everyday business communication both shapes and is shaped by the character of social and professional groupings and networks in an international fi  rm. For management, this means that handling linguistic variation and challenges also requires a consideration of the specifi  c social as well as professional structure of a given international fi  rm. The dynamics between language use and the social structures in which information and resources are embedded and communicated are multidirectional. This is especially clear in an international context. The article is informed by material obtained through an ethnographic fi  eldwork in a Saudi-Arabian subsidiary of a multinational corporation.

## Introduction

The business environment of today has changed in a number of ways. First of all, it has become increasingly global through the gradual dismantling of trade barriers leading to the formation of multinational corporations and joint ventures. In addition, the business environment has

* Jakob Lauring & Toke Bjerregaard Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus Department of Management Haslegaardsvej 10 DK-8210  Aarhus V Jala@asb.dk - Toke@asb.dk

105

also become increasingly more competitive leading to market expansion across the globe (Bhatia and Lung 2006). Thanks to these recent developments in the business world, according to Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006) cross-cultural communication and language use have become one of the most important research fi  elds.

There are no doubts that language use plays an important role in the management of international ventures. In a multilingual organization, language can be described as both a necessary communication device and an obstacle of management processes (Victor 1992; Gilsdorf 1998). Language both facilitates and impedes the processes of control and coordination and as a result, it also infl  uences  the  manager's  ability  to control international activities (Marschan-Piekkaria, Welch et al. 1999). When managing across cultural and linguistic boundaries, communication diffi  culties related to language have a great probability to weaken cross-cultural understanding in multinational organizations (Feely and Harzing 2003; 2004). This could be problematic since the personal  and  organizational  developmental  potential  of  cross-cultural  communication is generally conceived as being crucial in the present globalized  business  environment  (Harris  and  Kumra  2000;  Beamer  and Varner 2001; Harzing 2001). Subsequently, the understanding of the role  of  language  in  the  operation  of  multinational  corporations  is  of great importance. In fact, the successful international manager may be the one that is able to manage cross-cultural communication (Beamer 1998; Beamer and Varner 2001; Bonache and Brewster 2001).

By basing our study on anthropological theories proposing that language use is linked to social structure, we suggest that the social dynamics of language use is highly important to the practice of international management. This is illustrated through an ethnographic account of expatriates' use of language in a Saudi-Arabian subsidiary of a Danish company. Through the analysis of how expatriates used language strategically, we set out to outline the interrelation of language and social structure. Our main argument is that the social structure of the subsidiary shapes how employees use and perceive language in daily communication.

## Language and anthropology

To describe the interrelation between language, communication and social structure we look to anthropological theory. Language and communication have been objects of anthropological inquiry for more than a century and are central concerns within many different lines of anthropological research.

One central line of thought can be traced back to the founding father of American anthropology Franz Boas (1858-1943). Boas' work played an important role in clearing the way for the modern conception of culture in anthropology (Stocking 1983). Boas opposed the evolutionary and racist thought and separated culture from biology by advancing a cultural relativist approach. According to Boas, culture could be conceptualized in relation to the geographical distribution and diffusion of cultural  traits  and  their  integration  in  specifi  c  culture  patterns.  However, culture was not only to be found in objectifi  ed form in cultural objects or traits, but in the way people confer meaning to their experience of objects integrating them into a specifi  c culture pattern. Boas studied how variation in language and categories called forth different perceptions of the physical environment (Boas 1911). As an immigrant from Germany, he brought ideas about cultural particularism from German philosophy to American anthropology, e.g. ideas of Humboldt and Steinthal (Wolf 1974). Thus, the late Boas advanced a neo-Kantian conception of culture as consisting of cultural-specifi  c principles for classifi  cation of experiences (Sahlins 1976). This line of cultural relativist research was further developed by Boas' many students. One of these, Edward Sapir, formulated in collaboration with Benjamin Whorf what has become known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir 1921; Whorf 1956). According to Sapir and Whorf the grammar of language was the structure through which world-views were constructed; the structures in language determined perception. Through the study of language it was possible to grasp people's perception of the world inherent in linguistic structures. Thereby the work of Sapir was informed by linguistic determinism.

The view from French anthropology differed from American cultural anthropology in several ways. Here structural linguistics as developed by Ferdinand de Saussure (e.g. 2000) had a considerable infl  uence, especially  represented  in  the  structuralist  approach  to  cultural  systems embraced by Levi-Strauss (1963; 1966). This structuralist perspective was informed by Saussure's idea of language as consisting of a system of differences, langue ,  that determined the meaning of the individual units of language as well as existed independently of and in an arbitrary relation to actual speech, parole . Levi-Strauss found that many different cultural systems of communication and exchange share an underlying structure similar to the system of langue. Levi-Strauss was inspired by Durk  heim's neo-Kantian idea that the structures of classifi  cation in cultural systems such as religion are related to the social structures of society. Levi-Strauss found that structures of exchange in kinship, myth and totemism were sharing a similar structural logic to that of language. Thus language has been one among several systems of communication and exchange studied in anthropology, and questions associated with language  and  communication  concern  general  anthropological  questions of how to conceive of the symbolic forms through which people convey meaning.

However, in opposition to the structural-linguistic approach to the study of cultural systems informing anthropology in France as well as the culturalist approach to culture patterns and codes in USA, a theoretical perspective emphasizing the practices, interests and motives involved in the formation and use of meaning systems emerged. Thereby a critique was levelled against the structural linguistic approach of Saussure and its distinction between langue as an abstract system and parole as secondary execution (Gumperz and Hymes 1964; Wolf 1973; Sahlins 1976).

The critique  concerning  the  sharp  distinction  between langue and parole was already levelled by Malinowski who emphasized how language was functionally related (cf. Grillo 1989). This critique concerning the conceptualization of culture and communication as abstract systems, codes or schemes was further elaborated in the 1960s by social linguistics or what Hymes called The Ethnography of Speaking (1962). Sociolinguists such as Hymes, Gumperz (1965) and Labov (1966) addressed the social, economic or political context explaining the variation in the formation and use of language. The focus was oriented toward speech practice, everyday communication and how communication styles evolved in different speech communities.

Research questions developed within sociolinguistics also informed some of the work of Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu 1991; Bourdieu and Passeron 1994). Contrary to earlier contributions (Radcliffe-Brown  1952),  Bourdieu  opposed  the  idea  of  the  structures  of language or symbolic systems as abstract, self-suffi  cient systems implied  in  the  distinction  between langue and parole (Bourdieu 1977). Bourdieu strove to fi  nd an answer to the question of why actual practices of exchange and communication follow paths differing from formal prescriptions and norms (Bourdieu 1977). According to Bourdieu, actual practices should not be conceived of as products of rules, e.g. grammatical rules. Instead they follow strategies shaped by the interests and experiential knowledge of actors as embodied in their habitus (ibid.). Being a competent speaker of a certain language is to have the competencies necessary to engage in the continuous transaction and negotiation of its form and purpose (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu 1991). In other words, producing a linguistic practice in accordance with the legitimate norms of expression in a particular social fi  eld requires specifi  c competencies not freely available for people to obtain. As people embody different competencies, interests and resources guiding their linguistic practice, their attempts to realize the same rules and norms will follow different strategies or styles (Bourdieu 1991).  Bourdieu fi  nds this logic of practice in a wide range of fi  elds such as in the differentiation of the styles of symbolic and linguistic expression in literary or political fi  elds (Bourdieu 1991); styles of consumption in the fi  eld of cultural goods (Bourdieu 1998); art styles and 'schools' in the fi  eld of art (Bourdieu 1995); styles of exercising discretion in administering in the fi  eld of local-level bureaucracies (Bourdieu 2005); and strategies of competition within the economic fi  eld of fi  rms. In analyzing language use in an international context it can be useful to analyze communication strategies as ways in which individuals contribute to the production and reproduction of social structures.

## The fi  eldwork

This study is based on a full-scale ethnographic fi  eldwork conducted by one of the authors of this article in a Saudi-Arabian subsidiary of a large Danish multinational corporation - here called Dan Firm. At the time of the fi  eldwork, the subsidiary employed 470 employees of thirteen dif- ferent nationalities, mainly Indian, Egyptian, Philippine, Saudi-Arabian - and 20 Danish managers.

The methodology of ethnographic fi  eldwork was applied during a three-month period using participant observation and semi-structured interviews  as  data  collection  tools.  Participant  observation  was  carried  out  through  the  daily  presence  in  the  subsidiary. An  explorative approach allowing the researchers to be open towards new unexpected information was selected. This has been done as a circular methodological movement, in which new questions as well as answers were integrated continually in observation schemes and interview guides (Spradley 1980; Marcus 1998). The explorative approach departs from an ideal of generating questions as well as answers in close relation to the research fi  eld  and  subsequently  adding  a  necessary  fl  exibility  during the collection, analysis and writing up of the material (Marcus 1986; Geertz 1988; Van Maanen 1988). Through observation and participation, research questions are developed, changed or focused upon in mutual interaction with the daily activities of the informants (Jorgensen 1989; Schwartzman 1993; Olila 1994).

Altogether, 35 interviews were conducted with Danish expatriates and employees of different nationalities. Generally, the interviews were kept  as  an  open  dialogue  between  the  researcher  and  the  informant. Apart from 16 interviews in Danish, all other interviews were conducted in English, all but one being with non-native speakers. The use of an  interpreter  was  deemed  inappropriate  and  unnecessary,  given  the possibilities of interpreter distortion during the data collection process. The ethnographic qualitative  approach  to  a  great  extent  also  utilizes interviews, discusses and documents the fi  ndings gathered in the daily observation (Kvale 1996; Alvesson 2003). Thereby, the interviews become an extension of the iterative approach introducing new information and questions to  the  research  cycle  (Spradley  1980;  Bernard 1995). Through the application of the circular qualitative approach the researcher can reach an understanding of issues which the informants may take for granted. Issues that are not mentioned but can be observed in action - such as the relation between language and social structure (e.g. Bourdieu 1977).

## Case: language, power and social structure

Expatriating Danish employees in the Dan Firm Corporation had many different purposes, and not all of them were valued equally. The parent company had formally described how the fi  rm, when sending expatriates to subsidiaries, aimed at utilizing the potential for knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. The cross-cultural interaction was meant to develop international skills such as language and knowledge of the market and business situation. In spite of those general formulations, the Saudi-Arabian subsidiary was mainly perceived as a sales company. The Danish expatriate management was evaluated exclusively on the basis of sales targets and market shares and for many years, Dan Foods Saudi had been the Dan Firm Corporation's most successful foreign subsidiary. Those evaluation criteria had a great effect on the daily running of the subsidiary in regard to cross-cultural communication.

All the Danes lived together in a large compound. This created a very tight-knit group with a lot of socialization of members and newcomers. The structure of the Danish group had a great infl  uence on the relation to the other nationalities at the workplace. Hence, it was the decision to maintain the traditional Saudi-Arabian organizational form in the subsidiary. The subsidiary, subsequently, was organized in what could be called an ethnically segregated hierarchy - nationality defi  ning all positions.  Hence, one had to be European to be manager and Egyptian to be supervisor. The Philippine employees often had good technical skills and they were therefore generally employed in technical positions or vehicle maintenance. The Indians were lowest in the hierarchy and worked mainly in the production. In other words, there was an overlap between ethnicity and professional hierarchy constituting an ethnically segregated as well as vertically segmented workplace.

The ethnic segregation and segmentation could be said to somewhat ease  the  daily  communication  because  the  different  national  groups were able to use their own natural languages most of the time. However, a problem of this particular managerial structure was that it fostered a certain discrimination of particular groups. As an example, the Egyptian supervisors would often give the best selling products to Egyptian salesmen making it more diffi  cult for other nationalities to collect their sales bonus. The organization of the workforce - with very little interaction between the different nationalities - to a large extent also affect- ed the use of language in the subsidiary. As the single British manager expressed it: ' we have very much a situation where the Danes are divorced from the rest like feudal landlords '. Hence, it was very uncommon to see employees of different nationalities engaged in longer conversation, while the national groupings internally exercised an extensive informal socialization. This way the management didn't involve other nationalities in the discussion of business issues at all. As it was expressed by a Egyptian middle manager: ' If you want to work in this company you have to be like those monkeys that cover their mouth and eyes and ears . We have to be their monkeys '.

Even the British manager was kept out of the conversation and when attending social arrangements, he was totally excluded from the conversation. He did not understand the language and could not even relate to the content which was seen mostly from a Danish context. The British manager felt that the Danes were behaving so rudely that he did not want to participate in the embarrassing scene. As he said: ' Communication is only for the Danes. No question. Nothing has changed in that respect. As you have seen it here in formal or informal get-togethers inevitably the conversation moves to Danish' .

Another example of the way the Danes tried to contain information from the rest of the company was presented to me by one of the Philippine employees. He told me one day that ' big guests ' would soon arrive, so we should dress accordingly the coming few days. I asked him how he knew that, and I was told that he had just seen the carpets being cleaned and had noticed that this happened every time 'big guests' arrived. At lunch with the other Danes later that day it was confi  rmed that there would be a board meeting a few days later. Such an event was never publicly announced or mentioned in other ways. Only through the  internal  Danish  conversation  (or  from  observing  the  fl  oor  being cleaned) could the information be achieved. There was no formal information system in the company but messages moved orally - both between the Danish families in the compound and between the non-Danish members of the organization. Even in eventful situations there was no formal information, and employees outside the group of Danes had to rely on rumors and guesses.

The Danish management was aware that information was spread informally and tried to prevent other nationalities from acquiring knowl- edge of the business. They deliberately spoke Danish when other nationalities  were in the room and prohibited the foreign secretaries to read incoming fax messages. This was done to stop information leaks, even though most of the information they tried to protect seemed quite harmless to share with other employees - as the knowledge of an opcoming board meeting. But the Danes generally were annoyed with the curiosity of the subordinates and felt more confi  dent keeping information within the managerial group.

It was explained to me by the general manager that it was a deliberate strategy to keep the management team all Danish to increase the decision making speed and not having to deal with cultural or linguistic  barriers.  The  ethnical  segregation  strategy  was  applied  by  organizing  the  remaining  part  of  the  subsidiary  for  the  same  reasons  -  to limit  confl  icts  and  misunderstandings  communicating  across  linguistic and cultural boundaries. Hence, language and communication style was strategically used to fulfi  ll the personal aim of the expatriate managers. Through intensive internal socialization and recruitment of likeminded people, the Danes reproduced the social structure of ethnical stratifi  cation  along  with  cultural  and  linguistic  exclusion. At  least  in their opinion this was the most obvious way to run the subsidiary effi  ciently. Even the managers of the marketing department refrained from communicating with non-Danes, which left the department with very limited knowledge of the customers' and consumers' needs. Instead, a ' trial and error principle ' (informant) was developed to close in on the right campaigns. This approach among other things, resulted in a million-euro loss, when a commercial fi  lm was created showing a young boy and a girl walking hand in hand. The fi  lm did not appeal to the Saudi-Arabian consumers and had to be withdrawn immediately. As one of the Danes explained: 'It is strange to work with a group of people you don't understand. We have some ideas but we really don't know how they differentiate the products. The idea is that the Saudi-Arabians cannot be competent, because the general perception is that they are lazy and they cannot read'.

The fi  eld study presented describes the effects of language use in relation to the maintenance of a stratifi  ed social structure and has highlighted how important this factor can be in the execution of long-term corporate strategies of international development. The Danish management team of the Saudi-Arabian subsidiary strategically utilized their powerful position to reinforce a general practice of language use that excluded other nationalities from participation in the decision making process. By this approach the managers felt they had a better grasp of communication and could make fast responses to market changes. Furthermore, through this practice the position of the expatriates could not be challenged and decision making was comfortably in the hands of the Danish managers. By using language to restrict access to information and participation, the Danes placed themselves in a totally dominating position.

## Conclusion: What can we learn from anthropology?

In this article we have argued that formal structures of language and linguistic  differences  do  not  account  for  the  role  of  language  use  in shaping communication in multilingual fi  rms. Using an anthropological perspective such as Bourdieu's approach, it is possible to grasp how the practices of language use in international business are shaped by social and professional structures. Understanding the impact of linguistic challenges on international management requires an analysis of how everyday language usage is informed by social and professional structures and the way in which these intersect with language communities. In a situation where linguistic differences overlap with a corresponding professional and social differentiation of the workplace, language use may reinforce the embedding of information in closed professional groups and networks. Consequently, language use in an ethnically segmented fi  rm may contribute to the reproduction of a social or professional structure of 'strong ties' constraining the communication of information (Granovetter 1973). This question concerning the dynamics between linguistic as well as cultural variation and social structure has been  a  central  research  theme  within  anthropology.  Further  research into the role of linguistic variation in international business could apply anthropological theory to the interrelation between linguistic as well as cultural differences and the varieties of social structures in which information and resources are communicated and transacted. Anthropological research may in this way contribute to linking the fi  eld of crosscultural management to the expanding fi  eld of research addressing the impact of social structures or social capital on business activities and competitiveness (Granovetter 1973).

## Reference

- Alvesson, M. 2003: Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics, and Localists: A refl  exive approach to interviews in organisational research. Academy of Management Review 28(1): 13-33.
- Beamer, L. 1998: Bridging Business Cultures. China Business Review 25(3): 54-58.
- Beamer, L. and I. Varner 2001: Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace . New York: McGraw-Hill Irvin.
- Bernard, R. H. 1995: Research Methods in Anthropology, Qualitative and Quantitative approaches . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
- Bhatia, V. K. and J. Lung 2006: Corporate Identity and Generic Integrity in Business Discourse. Intercultural  and  International  Business  Communication .  J.  C.  Palmer-Silveira, Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel F. & Fortanet-Gómes, Inmaculada. Bern: Peter Lang.
- Boas, F. 1911: The mind of primitive man: a course of lectures delivered before the Lowell institute, Boston, Mass., and the National university of Mexico, 1910-1911 . New York: The Macmillan company.
- Bonache, J. and C. Brewster 2001: Knowledge Transfer and the Management of Expatriation. Thunderbird International Business Review 43(1): 3-20.
- Bourdieu, P. 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bourdieu, P. 1991: Language & Symbolic Power . Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. 1994: Academic Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Bourdieu, P. 1995: The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Bourdieu, P. 1998: Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste . London: Routledge.
- Bourdieu, P. 2005: Viden om viden og refl  eksivitet: forelæsninger på Collège de France 2000-2001 . København: Hans Reitzel.
- Feely, A. J. and A.-W. Harzing 2003: Language management in multinational companies. Cross Cultural Management 10(2): 37-53.
- Feely, A. J. and A.-W. Harzing 2004: The language barriers and its implications for HQ-subsidiary relationships .  Working  Paper  n°  1, Australian  Center  for  International Business.
- Geertz, C. 1988: Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Gilsdorf, J. W. 1998: Organizational Rules on Communicating: How Employees Are - and Are Not - Learning the Ropes. Journal of Business Communication 35(2): 173-201.

- Granovetter, M. S. 1973: The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360-80.
- Grillo,  R.  D.  1989: Social  Anthropology  and  the  Politics  of  Language .  London: Routledge.
- Gumperz, J. J. 1965: Language. Biennial Review of Anthropology 4: 84-120.
- Gumperz, J. J. and D. Hymes (eds.) 1964: The Ethnography of Communication . American Anthropologist (66)6, Part 2 (Special issue) .
- Harris, H. and S. Kumra 2000: International Manager Development. Journal of Management Development 19(7): 607-620.
- 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.
- Hymes, D. 1962: The ethnography of speaking. Anthropology and Human Behavior . T. Gladwin and W. C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C., Anthropological Society, Washington : 13-53.
- Jorgensen, D. L. 1989: Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies . London: Sage.
- Kvale,  S.  1996: Interviews:  An  Introduction  to  Qualitative  Research  Interviewing . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
- Labov, W. 1966: The Social Stratifi  cation of English in New York Cit y. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Linguistics.
- Levi-Strauss 1963: Structural Anthropology . New York: Basic Books.
- Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966: The Savage Mind . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Marcus, G. E. 1986: Afterword: Ethnographic Writing and Anthropological Careers. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography . J. o. G. E. M. Clifford. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Marcus, G. E. 1998: Sticking with Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Ethnography through Thick and Thin . G. E. Marcus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Marschan-Piekkaria, R., D. Welch, et al. 1999: In the shadow: the impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review 8: 421-440.
- Olila, J. 1994: Participant Observation where it's needed. Antropologische Verkenningen 13( 2).
- Palmer-Silveira, J. C., M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, et al. 2006: Facing the future of intercultural and international business communication. Intercultural and International Business Communication . J. C. Palmer-Silveira, Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel F. & Fortanet-Gómes, Inmaculada. Bern, Peter Lang.
- Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952: Structure and Function in Primitive Society .  Glencoe: The Free Press.
- Sahlins, M. 1976: Culture and Practical Reason . Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.

- Sapir, E. 1921: Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech . New York, Harcourt: Brace & Co.
- Saussure, F. 2000: Course in General Linguistics . London: Duckworth.
- Schwartzman, H. B. 1993: Ethnography in Organizations .  London:  SAGE Publications.
- Spradley, J. P. 1980: Participant Observation . New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
- Stocking, G. W. 1983: The Ethnographer's Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski. Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork . G. W. Stocking. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- Van Maanen, J. 1988: Tales of the Field. On Writing Ethnography . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Victor,  D.  1992: International  Business  Communication .  New York:  Harper  Collins Publishers.
- Whorf, B. 1956: Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Wolf, E. R. 1974: Anthroplology . New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

118