The Effects of Language Diversity on the Managing of Multicultural Business Interactions

The Effects of Language Diversity on the

Managing of Multicultural Business Interactions

“Make up Your Mind”

Master Thesis

The Effects of Language Diversity on the Managing of

Multicultural Business Interactions

“Make up Your Mind”

by

CARINE ISABEL FUTSELAAR

MSc International Business and Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands

Celebesstraat 6A

9715 JE Groningen

06-11915114

c.futselaar@hotmail.com

Student number: 1733370

ABSTRACT

This study explores the manner in which language diversity affects the way students and managers manage their intraorganisational interactions in a multicultural business environment. Based on interviews with students of the Master in International Humanitarian Action on the University of Groningen and managers of Heineken and NNZ from 11 different linguistic backgrounds, it is argued that language diversity is mostly managed by the consideration of and adaptation to cultural differences. Subsequently, the common language is adapted to the social context and local culture to obtain most strategic advantages. Also control & coordination instruments, such as explicit knowledge, trainings and team sessions, and flexible language use, are implemented. Finally, individual behaviours, such as good feelings, respect, patience and willingness are crucial to overcome language diversity. The investigation also reveals that language diversity slows down the effectiveness and speed, which has considerable influences on the performance, which requires full consciousness at management and individual level.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

- 5 -

1

INTRODUCTION

- 7 -

1.1

MOTIVATION

- 7 -

1.2

INTRODUCTION ON LANGUAGE IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT

- 8 -

2

RESEARCH ORIENTATION

- 12 -

2.1

PROBLEM INDICATION

- 12 -

2.2

GOAL OF THIS STUDY

- 18 -

2.3

RESEARCH STRATEGY

- 20 -

2.4

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

- 20 -

3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

- 22 -

3.1

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

- 22 -

3.2

LANGUAGE

- 24 -

3.2.4 Formal structure of language - 28 -

3.3

INTERACTIONS

- 28 -

3.3.1 Culture - 28 -

3.3.1.1 Language embedded in culture - 29 -

3.3.1.2 High-context and low-context communication - 30 - 3.3.1.3 Verbal and non-verbal communication - 30 -

3.3.1.4 Speech act theory - 31 -

3.3.2 Individual behaviour - 32 -

3.3.2.1 Social identity theory - 32 -

3.3.2.2 Isolation and exclusion due to a lack of language competence - 32 -

3.3.2.3 Information denial - 33 -

3.3.2.4 Language as an influential factor - 33 -

3.3.3 One common language - 33 -

3.3.3.1 Common business language - 34 -

3.3.3.2 English as a Lingua Franca - 35 -

3.3.3.3 Choice of a language - 36 -

3.3.4 Control & coordination - 37 -

3.3.4.1 Expatriates - 38 -

3.3.4.2 Language nodes - 38 -

3.3.4.4 Style of language use - 39 -

3.3.4.5 Face-to-face communication - 40 -

3.3.4.6 Shadow structure - 41 -

3.4

LANGUAGE AND MULTINATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

- 42 -

3.5

CONCLUSION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

- 45 -

4

METHODOLOGY

- 48 -

4.1

SAMPLE

- 48 -

4.2

RESEARCH METHOD

- 52 -

4.3

DATA ANALYSIS

- 54 -

5

FINDINGS

- 56 -

5.1

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

56

-5.1.1 The effects of language diversity - 56 -

5.1.2 Culture - 61 -

5.1.3 Individual behaviour - 62 -

5.1.4 One common language - 64 -

5.1.5 Control & coordination - 65 -

5.1.6 Effective multicultural knowledge transfer - 67 -

5.1.7 Conclusion on the individual level - 69 -

5.2

FIRM LEVEL

73

-5.2.1 The effects of language diversity - 73 -

5.2.2 Culture - 77 -

5.2.3 Individual behaviour - 80 -

5.2.4 One common language - 81 -

5.2.5 Control & coordination - 83 -

5.2.6 Effective multicultural knowledge transfer - 88 -

5.2.7 Conclusion on the firm level - 92 -

5.3

RESULTS

97

-6

CONCLUSION

- 103 -

6.1

DISCUSSION

- 103 -

6.2

THE EFFECTS OF LANGUAGE DIVERSITY ON THE MANAGING OF INTERACTIONS

- 109 -

6.3

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT

- 111 -

6.4

LIMITATIONS

- 114 -

REFERENCES

- 117 -

APPENDIX I INTERVIEW DESIGN STUDENTS

- 122 -

APPENDIX II INTERVIEW DESIGN HEINEKEN AND NNZ

- 126 -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank those who made this thesis possible. Without these people this thesis could not have been performed in such a pleasant way.

I would like to thank Len Boot, CEO of NNZ, for his interest and time to give me the possibility to carry out interviews at NNZ. Last year, they also enabled me to conduct a market research for NNZ in Argentina and Chile, which I performed with great pleasure. I appreciate this chance to become familiar with such a prominent company and its (country) managers, whom I am thankful for their assistance, time and cooperation. During these interviews they have all provided me with useful information in a very open and honest way. I would like to reveal their names, in alphabetical order: Guillermo Alcover, Arunas Brazinskas, Lene Hultén, Brian Keasey, Hans Neu and Dino Sauchelli.

Furthermore, I would like to express my thanks to Dolf van den Brink, CEO of Heineken USA who enabled me to interview four, in Africa operating, managers. I appreciate his confidence in this thesis and assistance to allow me to contact the managers. In alphabetical order, I thank Ben Afrifa, Peter R. Huizing, Menno Lammerts van Bueren and Remco Rijsenbrij for their valuable input and information.

Special thanks go to the students of the Master International Humanitarian Action of the University of Groningen for their time and effort to let me interview them. They were all extremely helpful and friendly. Their names, in alphabetical order, Vincent Arah, Vassilia Bilak, Roger Dean, Maria Goreti, Peter Lundgren and Myrthe Wajer. Hopefully, I can be of help to them in a further stage of their study.

Furthermore, I am very thankful to Bo Yang Perotti for her time and willingness to share valuable information and experiences. She provided me guidance and support at a crucial moment when writing this thesis.

This thesis was made possible through the support and help of my supervisors, dr. Bartjan Pennink and prof. dr. Luchien Karsten. Their commitment and enthusiasm motivated me to write this thesis. I am grateful for their valuable advice and constructive comments, and providing me with interesting literature time after time.

confidence in me, which I admire in them. Warmly thanks to Marinel Futselaar, who is a sweet and loving sister to me. I can always count on her, as she always expresses her willingness to listen, to share experiences, and to make suggestions. My boyfriend Daniël Petitjean, who deserves special thanks, for his love, patience and willingness to always listen to my complaints and frustrations, for believing in me, and always cheering me up.

1 INTRODUCTION

Language and culture have raised my interest. As soon as I got the chance, I went to Spain to study abroad and meet people from all around the world. I wanted to become familiar with the Spanish culture and language, and of course with the local ‘fiestas’. I believe that being part of a network that consists of a variety of nationalities and languages is an enrichment, however, since I am convinced that I would like to pursue a career at a multinational company, it has raised my curiosity how international management experiences the existence of language diversity.

1.1 Motivation

Last summer, I joined the International Business Research of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. This project is aimed at performing quality research for Dutch companies in emerging markets. As I have a weakness for the Spanish language, I applied for doing research in Argentina. Months later on, I was on my way to Argentina and Chile to investigate the market of packaging material for vegetables and fruit and whether supply would be possible. During my stay in South-America, I was exposed to several languages every day. The official language of Argentina and Chile is Spanish. However, I noticed that Spanish in Argentina and Chile was not totally similar as in the country Spain itself. The same words can have different meanings and one should be careful not to embarrass yourself or even worse to insult someone else. I was very fortunate to speak Spanish myself, however, my colleague did not. So we tried to continue in English with the local people, but generally spoken, the whole Argentine and Chilean workforce spoke Spanish only. Consequently, I spoke Spanish with the local people and with my colleague, I communicated and translated in Dutch, our mother tongue. Occasionally, I was so confused why the Argentine and Chilean did not understand the Spanish words I used. The translation I used for small packaging for vegetables and fruit was ‘embalaje’ or ‘envase’. However, after interviewing many people and still not having seen these small packaging, I realised that the word they used for small packaging was ‘fraccionar’, which can be literally translated into ‘to divide up’. I would have never thought about translation as being a verb. I sometimes failed to express myself correctly due to insufficient language knowledge. However, I am not the only one!

Crown Prince Willem-Alexander unintentionally used a vulgar Spanish expression while speaking at an energy seminar in Mexico City1_{. The prince used an impolite Spanish phrase}

and mispronounced it. Instead of saying “al corriente”, he used “a la chingada”. Although ‘chingada’ is part of the daily language in most countries of South America, it means “got screwed” in Mexican Spanish and is considered vulgar.

Moreover, an entire book is dedicated to the English language of Dutch people, “I always get my sin”, written by Maarten H. Rijkens. He concentrates on bizarre mistakes that Dutch people have (publically) made when speaking business English. As a former managing director of Heineken, for many years, he has observed many Dutch people speaking English in business and social situations. It shows the importance of the language issue, and surely not everybody masters the language perfectly.

The constant need for proper language use and translation is of course very time and energy consuming. Language capability is deemed to be essential for the success of international operations. Besides, due to my two studies, the HBO programme International Business and Languages and the Master’s degree in International Business and Management, being taught in English, I have become aware of language being indispensable for international management. It is this linguistic perspective on international business that inspires me to conduct this research. I would like to increase awareness of language issues in companies and encourage research in this area. I also want to help companies, networks, universities, etc. to globalize and to operate successfully. I want to do research that can be of added value when educating future multicultural managers in a business environment.

1.2 Introduction on language in international management

management requires a language policy. Arising out of these assertions, one would expect the role of language in international management to be researched and discussed frequently. However, this is not the case. It seems to be that language, the medium to communicate, is being neglected and has scarcely been measured, which is very unfortunate.

As Marschan et al. (1997) put it, language has become the forgotten factor in multinational management. Although the impact of psychic distance, which includes language as an important element, was observed in the early research on companies’ internationalization patterns, Marschan et al. believe that language has almost disappeared from research on international operations. Also Welch et al. (2001: 194) argue that ‘language was bundled into the psychic distance package’. Although research into cross-cultural management, like the cultural ‘gurus’ Hofstede, Trompenaars etc., has been extensively performed and commonly accepted to be a barrier in doing international business, including the communication component, very little research has been conducted in order to investigate the effect of language on communication and international management (Guirdham, 1999; Harzing & Feely, 2008; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Méndez García & Pérez Cañado, 2005; Welch et al., 2005). This is remarkable as the globalization has facilitated the internationalization of firms, and has led to a multitude of tongues being present in international firms (Tietze, 2008).

Jensen and Szulanski (2004) have examined the adaptation of organisational practices in cross-border knowledge transfer. Knowledge assets as organisational practices do often not transfer easily to different geographical markets within MNCs. As Jensen and Szulanski formulate, the knowledge transfer is often sticky, meaning that it is difficult to transfer. The success of a MNC’s subsidiary can be decreased when the transfer of firm-specific assets is impeded by stickiness. The authors focus on factors like adapting to the essential characteristics of the local institutional environment, in which legitimation is the main purpose and beneficiary of adaptation. Then, the motivation of the receiver of the transfer will be increased, resulting in accepting and utilizing the transferred asset. However, they neglect the medium to communicate, language, when adapting to different geographical markets.

Tietze (2008) is the first author writing a book combining two important subject areas, namely international management, and language and communication in multi-language contexts, showing that ‘language matters’ in international business issues. She explains that due to the globalization, business and management networks exist in which knowledge sharing is essential. She argues that the importance of language should be stressed in order to understand these increasingly global and networked realities of business and management. Through such networks, knowledge is flowing, and this knowledge has to be coded in semantic systems of syntax and generated in cultural, political, and historical contexts.

A great number of tongues are present in MNCs (Welch et al., 2005). This, because many organisations and communities are likely to become increasingly multilingual and multicultural. Multinational companies consist of geographically diffused subdivisions, dealing with different language environments. Harzing and Feely (2003) suggest that as many as three out of four multinational companies now command networks of twenty or even more overseas operations. Although MNCs and their subsidiaries are more and more fundamental for the global business landscape as Harzing and Feely (2008) argue, they are confronted with difficulties to manage these geographically, culturally, and linguistically diverse networks.

intercultural communication are influenced. To firstly examine developments in the role of language in interactions between typical Masters’ graduates of international studies should then be obvious, as they are the future global managers and are operating in a business school environment. They are part of teams, that consist of a variety of nationalities and linguistic backgrounds, and where they come from includes great geographical distance and a range of time zones, due to the globalization (Oertig & Buergi, 2006). Oertig and Buergi argue that diversity has led to poor performing teams, which should therefore be observed in depth. The transfer of knowledge between people and units of business across borders is an important process in defining the efficiency and understanding of certain communication flows. Based on the above mentioned arguments, it is assumed that language affects this process. The purpose of this study is to better understand the complex process of how people relate to each other across the language barrier, based on empirical evidence. In this study language is seen as an independent variable, having its own specific effects on strategy, structure, and management in multicultural business environments (Harzing & Feely, 2008). The purpose of this study is converted in the following problem definition:

In what manner does language diversity affect the way students and managers manage their intraorganisational interactions in a multicultural business environment?

In this research question, based on previous literature, the assumption is made that people manage their interactions according to the social constructionism theory (Tietze, 2008). Besides, Fredriksson et al. (2006) started to stress the challenges of managing language diversity in MNCs. To explore this topic and to discover language’s impact, interviews are firstly conducted with students of a Joint European Master’s in International Humanitarian Action, lectured at the University of Groningen in order to examine their attitudes on language. Thereafter, interviews are carried out with managers of two multinational companies, i.e. NNZ, a multinational company in producing and supplying packaging material for vegetables and fruit, headquartered in The Netherlands and Heineken, a Dutch beer brewery, located and doing business worldwide. The various participants will acquire more insight into dealing with language diversity on different levels, i.e. an education and a business environment.

2 RESEARCH ORIENTATION

This research explores language’s impact on interactions within multinational groups. The importance of language in international management is already accepted by several researchers. However, whether and to what extent multinational companies are being influenced by language in the way how they manage their subsidiaries, remains unclear in past research (Hurn, 2007). The negative and positive effects of language are not always explicit and obvious (Welch et al., 2005). Although, some authors focus on the positive effects of language diversity, the majority has shown that language-related issues can impact negatively on group interaction, teamwork, and relationship building (Lagerström & Andersson, 2003; Henderson, 2005). Management perceives language differences in basic terms, indicating that some consider language simply as a mechanical translation problem. According to them, this can easily be solved and becomes less costly with the appearance of information technology (IT) tools. This should be extended and further elaborated into the international management field. Therefore, some recent research developments on the impact of language in the multinational context will be discussed.

2.1 Problem Indication

‘Global connectivity’ is the main thought of the twenty-first century (Nihalani, 2008). The world today has become a small ‘global village’ due to the revolution in communication technology. Globalization as being an objective has been exchanged for being essential, according to Nihalani. Markets and geographic barriers are gradually more disappearing, resulting in an ‘inextricably interconnected world’, as Nihalani calls it, in which communication is one of the keywords. However, only few researchers have considered language an active factor in a multicultural business environment.

developing formal language alliances at the organisational level, indicating that managers change tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Furthermore, personnel should learn the company language. Thus, the language factor has both positive as negative impacts on inter-unit communication and the MNC’s functioning. It depends on people’s skills, which should be trained by human resource management.

Also Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999) have based their research on an in-depth, exploratory case study. They argue that language has its own effects on communication flows and personal networks. When examining the role of language and its effect with respect to control and coordination processes and procedures, language as a source of power, and language and organisational structure, the authors conclude that language can be a barrier and a facilitator to inter-unit communication. A high fluency in the relevant language leads to people exerting more power and language has resulted into a so-called shadow structure. The shadow structure, based on language clusters, influences the formal control mechanisms, i.e. the organisational structure, which represents the relations between functions, processes, individuals and units. The language clusters were formed due to a lack of fluency in the corporate language. As a result, people outside these clusters had unequal possibilities to exert the same power. Then, when possessing relevant language skills, Marschan-Piekkari et al. conclude that individuals often have more power than their function would usually imply. The authors have indeed observed that misunderstanding in communication occurs caused by language. This also applies for written communication that has to be translated. Besides, next to the misunderstanding in the communication itself, negative consequences of language barriers can be found in the limited possibilities for subsidiary staff to build horizontal relationships with other units and headquarters. Moreover, the language barrier can prevent staff from attending training programmes, which also diminishes building relationships, and thereby losing the opportunity to receive assistance and help from informal communication networks. To overcome the language barrier, intermediaries (Marschan et al., 1997) and expatriates were used. However, the country of origin and ‘mother tongue’ can be a barrier itself in cross-cultural communication. According to Perlmutter (1969), this so-called ethnocentrism may lead to misperception, misinterpretation and misevaluation of information. Marschan-Piekkari et al. have observed that language can also facilitate communication flows. Then, one should think of facilitating personal relationships, i.e. language can lead to a higher opportunity of networking. Besides, language could have a range of exchanges as a result, meaning that units with similar languages join training programmes.

of which the language as a power tool, the transfer of expatriates, the use of translators, the development of formal and informal relations between international units and the adoption of a common language, including the role of English.

Then, Feely and Harzing (2003) offer a conceptual framework regarding language in a multicultural business environment. In 2003, the authors provided an article addressing how companies should manage language best. They offered a range of possibilities for MNCs to conduct, like: applying a lingua franca, i.e. relying on for instance the company’s native language; applying functional multilingualism, meaning that a mix of languages is used; making use of external language resources, such as translators and interpreters; paying attention to personnel development by offering language training; adopting a single corporate language; establishing certain ‘language nodes’ who are linguistically skilled personnel and manage relationships between the company and the external world; selecting people who are already fluent in the appropriate language; assigning expatriates to handle the relationship between headquarter and subsidiary; inpatriating subsidiary personnel into the office operation of the headquarter; making use of machines to translate and interpret; and finally establishing a controlled language, i.e. vocabulary and syntax rules are limited in order to better understand the message by the non-native speaker. Furthermore, Feely and Harzing examined the impact of the language barrier and concluded that the most probable consequences are: companies are affected by the language of the countries where they want to sell its products, compared to their more linguistically skilled competitors; Welch et al. (2001) assume that foreign market expansion is aimed at countries using English as general language; joint ventures are established when language differences exist and where risk can be shared; headquarter and subsidiary relations are characterized by doubts, mistrust and conflicts; and finally companies with different host country and parent languages will earlier employ expatriates.

their networks often becomes impossible to outsiders. Welch et al. conclude with the choice of a common corporate language, which can evoke strong emotions and negative reactions, since language can create certain power differences.

Méndez García and Pérez Cañado (2005) have done an empirical test concerning the role of language in establishing power relations in multicultural teams. The authors concluded that being fluent in the appropriate language is related to the possession of power, native or native-like skills being the most important element. Timidity and anxiety are even diminished when having sufficient language skills, leading to a convinced representation during meetings and negotiations. Besides, a hierarchy of languages is observed, indicating that the corporate language, generally English, and the parent language perform most power. Then, people speaking similar languages create special groups and feel relatively related to the headquarter when their language distance is being noticed. People who speak related languages not only unite for professional reasons, but also for informal chats. Furthermore, Méndez García and Pérez Cañado argue that non-native speakers of English insert their own cultural and linguistic background onto their use of the English language, being prone to intercultural misunderstandings. Besides, non-native speakers repeat, draw or rephrase words in order to be understandable and their efforts are positively approached by native-speakers who reduce the importance of their mistakes, which gives non-native speakers more power.

Charles (2007) continues with the investigation of individual employees’ attitudes towards language issues and how they perceive their everyday communication, based on data of communication in four multinationals. With his study, Charles proved the need for a reconceptualization of ELF (English lingua franca) into BELF (business English lingua franca). The latter differs in that it is only used in a business context and spoken by a globalized business community, having its own cultural backgrounds in stead of in ELF where national cultures of native speakers are present and which focuses on identifying basis linguistic elements that should conform with the expectations of native speakers, such as differences of vowels and phonetic understanding. Companies need strategies in order to apply their language choice, which have a great impact on individual employees in globalized environments. Some of Charles’ findings are in line with previous authors. Firstly, language skills can enable individuals to exert more power, and thereby giving access to corporate level information. Then, language influences the view individuals have on themselves or on others, resulting in possible frustration or loosing dignity when having an inability to communicate. Furthermore, language causes cohesion and relationships to occur between people sharing one language. However, language can also divide people, which is in line with the ‘language clusters’ of Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999), having negative consequences, since people are not communicating anymore with those people with whom they should communicate according to their professional tasks. Then, Charles has examined the importance of informal, oral communication, such as face-to-face chats, namely 63%, which exceeds the formal oral and written communication. The author proved that people were faced with more difficulties concerning the right expressions in informal chats or expressing opinions and actively participating during meetings or negotiations, than learning specific business jargon in another language. Finally, Charles conclude that BELF is a language with cultural characteristics. Non-native speakers build upon a common grammatical core of English and include their own sociopragmatic assumptions and expectations, which enables them relatively well to communicate mutually, however, possibly difficult to comprehend for native speakers.

like vowels and consonants. A speaker can add exactness and subtlety of meaning by using intonation. Proficiency in intonation is needed in order to encode inter-meanings between the speaker and the receiver in a multilinguistic environment.

Subsequently, Harzing and Feely (2008) try to start a discussion about the impact of language on headquarter-subsidiary relationships. They first offer a communication circle model in which they explain the causes and the nature of the language barrier. Then, they show how the language barrier influences the management of the headquarter-subsidiary relationship. Misunderstandings easily exist due to a loss of rhetorical skills, needed in, for example understanding humour, negotiation and sensitivity. This loss can result in uncertainty, anxiety and mistrust, and a fail to appreciate leadership skills. Then, group identities can be caused by the communication failure and even by a post-colonial history, which Harzing and Feely argue to be even more influential on group identities. As a result, the actions and motives of outsiders will be negatively attributed. When using code-switching (second language users start to use their mother tongue), power-authority distortion (parent companies which are located in countries with a minority language and need to change their language during meetings with subsidiaries which have a majority language) and parallel information networks (communication channels that are established by language skills in stead of by formal motives), suspicion and resistance can be deteriorated, leading to a higher risk of conflict. These negative consequences will strengthen stereotypes, which will further break up the relation between the headquarter and its subsidiaries. The communication problems will be reflected in the decision-making, as decision-making is based on communication, knowledge flows and understanding. The company is likely to reduce risks of insufficient language skills and will deploy expatriates or other personnel, competent in the parent language, as national managers. Thereafter, the company will introduce new global integration strategies, aiming at improved information systems, transfer of knowledge and technology, and cooperatively developing new products and processes. To regulate the language barrier, subsidiaries will be strictly controlled by means of centralization of key decision-making. As a result, more formal relationships exist and communication is even worse.

of resources the subsidiary possesses (Nohria and Ghoshal, 1994), or on the knowledge flows and the strategic roles of the foreign subsidiary (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991), or on the nationality and the size of the MNC and on the way the subsidiary is set-up (Harzing, 1999). Björkman and Piekkari (2009) conclude the following: centralization in strategic decision-making was used more often to control subsidiaries who possessed a low language competence than subsidiaries with high language competence. Formalization was also a highly used control mechanism for subsidiaries with low language competence, rather than with high language competence. Then, the use of output control is not affected by language competence. Finally, language competence is not related to the use of socialization mechanisms.

In conclusion, theories about internationalization processes within a global business context have included language (Welch et al., 2001). Considering the language issue within a multicultural business environment, only the previously mentioned authors have investigated language as an independent, influential role in various aspects of international business. Investigating language as an independent factor involves some problems, as language skills are competencies possessed by individuals, called language sophistication (Tietze, 2008), not by organisations (Welch et al., 2001). As the authors assert, the foreign language ability of a company is basically the sum of the employees’ language ability. Since managers of all types, business executives, members of the professions, people at work, and students of international studies interact mutually, and their communication should be successful, it is their linguistic knowledge and their reaction to the use of one or another language that should be captured and investigated (Méndez García & Pérez Cañado, 2005; Thomas, 2008).

2.2 Goal of this study

business environment are examined and the role of language diversity on these interactions is determined in greater depth in terms of: culture, individual behaviour, one common language and control & coordination. The Master students and the managers will be interviewed in order to determine to what extent these elements play a role. Eventually, the effect of language diversity on the knowledge transfer will be determined. The research question, ‘In what manner does language diversity affect the way students and managers manage their intraorganisational interactions in a multicultural business environment?’ is therefore divided into several sub-questions, which are based on the four elements, each having an influence on the way multicultural interactions are managed, and will be answered throughout this study:  Culture: What is the role of culture on the effect of language diversity?  Individual behaviour: What effect do language diversity and adaptation to a foreign

language have on individuals?

 One common language: To what extent is one common language efficiently used as a means to deal with language diversity?

 Control & coordination: To what extent does language diversity determine control and coordination performed by multicultural groups?

 Knowledge transfer: What is the impact of language diversity on the knowledge transfer, i.e. performance?

The relationship language diversity, intraorganisational interactions, knowledge transfer and performance is visually represented in figure 1. When having effective multicultural interactions, I assume the knowledge transfer is stimulated. The positive relationship is also supposed to apply for the performance, i.e. by means of effective knowledge transfer in a multicultural business environment, the performance of the students and the MNC is expected to improve.

By means of this research, the following goal can be obtained: since valuable insights into the interactions within different business contexts are provided, this study will eventually determine whether language diversity is an issue based on the four elements, whether and how language issues could be overcome, and the implications for individuals and for international management regarding improvement of the multicultural knowledge transfer and the role of individuals within this process.

2.3 Research Strategy

Since new aspects of language will be acquired, language diversity should be examined from different perspectives. Brewer and Hunter (1989) argue that social research has become very diverse, including its methodology. Problems are analysed from a number of different theoretical and research perspectives. Multimethod research is such an approach that enables methodological diversity. Therefore, this research is based on multiple method analysis. It involves using different data collection methods and analysing those data from different perspectives (Brewer & Hunter, 1989). This data will be analysed qualitatively. Qualitative research is according to Thomas (2006) based on meaningful explanations or narratives and verbal data. Since this study will explore human behaviour and explanations what manage human behaviour, a qualitative method is desired. The aim of qualitative research is defined as insight, enlightenment and illumination (Shank, 2006).

This research approach is in line with the grounded theory, which utilizes qualitative data and enables theory-building in order to understand and model complex social actions and interactions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This research will only work and fit when it is based on grounded theory, explained by Wester (1995) as a theory developed from data, rather than one hypothesized and tested against data. This theory is considered to be an appropriate choice for this research, as language has not been adequately described in international management and only few theories yet explain it.

Moreover, an inductive approach is used. Induction is defined in many different ways. Induction is about reasoning to a probable conclusion. In qualitative terms, Shank (2006) argues that inductive means the process of moving from the specific to the general. Firstly, specifics are collected, then, a more general pattern of order is proposed (Shank, 2006:149). The results will be compared with the existing literature in chapter 6, which is necessary for inductive, grounded stage of theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989) in order to define its relevance, reliability and validity.

2.4 Research objective

should concern the role of individuals, since a competitive advantage can be obtained from effective communication. This research provides novel insights into the intraorganisational interactions within multicultural environments. With these insights, this research contributes to past literature in a couple of ways.

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework provides a detailed description of the four elements culture, individual behaviour, one common language, and control & coordination with which language diversity is measured. These elements define this research, determined by means of the problem indication. Most authors who discussed language, have partly addressed these elements and claim that language is being influenced by these. The following paragraphs theorize what connects language and culture, individual behaviour, one common language, and control & coordination and reflects the relationships. The theories are used in order to explain and understand language and to offer a systematic framework to make sense of the world.

3.1 Conceptual model

Based on the literature described in chapter 2, the following concepts have been defined to analyse ways in which individuals and firms deal with language diversity: culture, individual behaviour, one common language and control & coordination. This chapter specifies several aspects that belong to each concept separately. Besides, the relationship with language diversity and knowledge transfer, i.e. performance is also made. These concepts are all part of the theoretical framework of this research. The conceptual model is depicted in figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual model

Understanding happens when the expectations and meanings of people in interactions match with each other (Guirdham, 1999). Misunderstanding, on the other hand, exists due to the way language is used, unexpected or misinterpreted communication patterns and linguistic cues, different values and belief systems and cognitive incongruities. Misconception and miscommunication occur because of differences in nuances and diminished meaning due to foreign language use and different usages of the English language (Tietze, 2008). This can be explained by linguistic features (e.g. pronunciation, grammar and syntax, orthography), language use (e.g. oral: code switching; written: developing of logical structures; and type of address) and sociolinguistic differences (e.g. tone: politeness strategies).

3.2 Language

The term ‘language diversity’ in this paper is used, since a focus is made on concrete speech events between individuals in the process of interaction (Henderson, 2005). The definition of ‘language diversity’ in this paper is based on Henderson’s vision: “team members speak a variety of mother tongues and hear in a variety of different ways” (2005: 69). The latter one depends on the speakers’ diverse cultural backgrounds, which lead to different interpretations. Henderson argues that these different interpretations occur unconsciously, even if speaking in a shared language, e.g. English. Also the receiver of the message is being influenced by language diversity, as this person could be interpreted in various ways due to different speech communities of individuals. Guirdham (1999) indicates that in communication with people who are familiar, language is largely being used at a level below consciousness, with various degrees of effectiveness. However, when communicating with people from different backgrounds, consciousness of how language is being used, is highly required in order to have effective communication. Therefore, in this study, language is explained by using the overall theoretical framework: social constructionism, in which language is central to the understanding, explanation and enacting of the social world. This theory is also the basis of the different dimensions of language, which explain why language matters. Then, language use should be further elaborated in order to detect its effectiveness.

3.2.1 Social constructionism

active, cooperative enterprise of persons in relationship. Social constructionism contains ideas about reality and knowledge and assumes that managers are not only talking to each other or exchanging information, more they are creating social and organisational worlds of work (Tietze, 2008). International managers are even contributing to construct gradually more global realities, when communicating across national, cultural, and organisational boundaries. Since meaning and discourse, i.e. meaning systems and their use (Tietze, 2008), are important concepts for this research, rather than grammar and morphologic, social constructionism is an appropriate orientation, having a language-sensitive perspective. This is also supported by a Russian Ph.D. student on the University of Groningen who stated that at a working level, language should not be measured on grammar and rules, rather on meaning and knowledge. This research applies several features of social constructionism as a guideline. Firstly, the importance of language is stressed in its relation with the everyday ‘going-ons’. These social and construction processes are created through language, which finally lead to meaning (Allen, 2005; Charles, 2007). Allen (2005) asserts that meanings, social identities, and roles, created and changed by organisational actors, can be clarified by an analysis of language activities. The ‘going-ons’ between people result into a shared description of the world, in which common knowledge is created (Tietze, 2008).

Hence, the relation knowledge and language. Social constructionism explains that language use creates and shares knowledge. Allen (2005:37) argues that, “We use language to produce and reproduce knowledge as we enact various roles within various contexts”. Two studies of Kalla and Doz, and Santos and Williamson, mentioned in Charles (2007), argue that knowledge sharing is seen as the knowledge diffused around the organisation or its stakeholders through the formal and informal exchanges of social interactions. Berger and Luckmann (1967) argue that social interactions develop and maintain all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality.

Finally, that leads to the last feature of social constructionism, which takes on a critical position towards taken-for-granted ways of understanding society (Charles, 2007; Tietze, 2008). This means the theory questions the normality of words and social processes, as these are culturally and historically bound. It is in this sense that it can be said that reality is socially constructed.

Besides, sociolinguistics acknowledge the interaction between cultures and language use. As Yamada (1992) examined, the complex business discourse cannot only be analysed by the simplistic linguistic aspects. Also cultural assumptions and behaviours should be taken into account as well, as they influence the nature of the discourse. The main aim is to show the effect of diversity on interpretation. For that reason, this research focuses on language in social contexts, i.e. behavioural habits shared by a community, and includes the various cultural backgrounds and tries to discover the impact of language diversity on the social multicultural interactions.

However, some theorists have a critical stance towards social constructionism. No exploration has been done on one’s native language (Tietze, 2008). The theory does not make a distinction between, for instance a group of American managers or a group of French managers. This research, building on the principles of social constructionism, therefore, includes different groups of language users.

3.2.2 Dimensions of language

UNESCO argues that worldwide approximately 6,700 languages are spoken2_{. However, 95% of}

the world’s population speaks one of about 100 various languages. The number of languages that large numbers of people speak is even smaller than that. Yet, a considerable amount of language diversity exists. According to Welch et al. (2005), various levels of language exist and are being used in the workplace. Figure 3 represents these levels.

Figure 3. The layers of language (Welch et al., 2005)

This research is based on normal, social language, which can be defined as everyday spoken and written language that can be applied for interpersonal, inter-unit, and external communication (Welch et al., 2005). This research is based on meaning that arises from social interactions, created through language. For that reason, both company speak and technical language are not appropriate here as these languages are specific to the company. However, it is important to note that these layers are interconnected. As a result, language cannot be

easily controlled, increasing the chance of communication problems. Henderson (2005), Tietze (2008) and Welch et al. (2005) add that language cannot be framed as simply a mechanical problem through translation. Language has a creative function and is inevitably connected with social reality. UNESCO asserts that language is essential in order to express yourself, and a way to transfer knowledge and culture. Tietze (2008) defines language according to four dimensions:

Firstly, language has a descriptive, categorizing function. Thomas (2002) defines language as a symbolic code of communication, which consists of a couple of sounds with understood meanings and rules to construct messages. Tietze (2008) explains language as combining signs with meanings through a symbolic sign system. As a result, categories are constructed, which explain what things are. Secondly, language also has a phatic dimension, which implies that the messages people convey are often unimportant. Language is a social act, which indicates that it helps to establish relationships with other people and to create a certain sense of unity between people. Then, language expresses power. It is not only a description that certain verbs express, however, these verbs ‘do’ something: certain actions are performed. Finally, language also encloses hegemonic dimensions, which implies that dominate ideas have been accepted by groups who pursue their own interests under the cover of common sense. This common sense logic that some groups, e.g. managers, express, is difficult to refute. As a result, they take advantage of the use of language in a way that they create a world which would be beneficial to their success.

3.2.3 Language use

the speaker performs an act when communicating and has intentions with this act, initiated by G. Austin and further elaborated by John Searle (1969). A speech act is successful when the intention has been understood correctly. However, the intentions can vary across cultures. Paragraph 3.3.1.4. will further elaborate this theory. Therefore, the expression and understanding of the intentions are essential to a receiver. A receiver will build on his cognitive scheme in order to detect the meaning. They use assumptions to understand their experience, based on the particular time and place. However, in intercultural situations speakers might have a lack of knowledge of what beliefs are most relevant to the receiver. Finally, language itself may cause problems intercultural, due to its ambiguity by nature. Besides, problems can arise due to the need to draw conclusions about meanings, based on two main sources: the language a speaker has used and the speaker’s knowledge of the world; conclusions are made quickly; and are inclined to be fixed instead of tentative.

3.2.4 Formal structure of language

The difficulty of a language process of a certain culture is recognised by the use of slang and jargon, euphemisms, idioms, and proverbs and maxims (Thomas, 2002). Slang, described as a typical, informal language used by a particular group, can be very hard for outside members of a group to know, just like jargon, which is an even more specialized form of language. Likewise, euphemisms are less direct expressions that are used for words that are not spoken in public by tradition. For that reason, an in-depth knowledge of another culture is needed in order to know which words can be used and which words are not allowed. Idioms, the combination of words to express a particular meaning, are unique to every language. As a result, certain sentences will differ from its literal meaning, what makes translation difficult. Finally, proverbs and maxims are an expression that applies to a certain culture. Across cultures the same meanings can often be found.

3.3 Interactions

This paragraph explains whether interactions are positively or negatively influenced by culture, individual behaviour, one common language and control & coordination. Besides, the relationship between language diversity and the knowledge transfer is explained.

3.3.1 Culture

3.3.1.1 Language embedded in culture

In cross-cultural communication, the language being used should obviously be considered (Thomas, 2002). Language has an important function in the way culture is transferred. The meanings that are attached to words by a language, are entirely chosen randomly. However, it is the culture that controls the features of language use. A word or phrase with a certain meaning in one culture, can mean something completely different in another (Hurn, 2007). Hurn asserts that one’s frame of reference determines the code interpretation. A person describes the words received according to his or her own mind. Thomas (2002) adds that people encode things in mind through a particular language. Thus, language exerts a certain control over the content of a society’s mental representation of their environment, i.e. culture. Guirdham (1999) defines culture according to Kroeber and Kluckhohn’s view: the members of a culture system share a set of ideas, and especially, values, explicit and implicit, produced by the past actions of a group and its members and transmitted by symbols. ‘Anthropological culture’, as it is called by Guirdham (1999), is relevant to the international business and is defined as the ways in which one group or society of humans live that are different from the ways in which other groups live. Deep culture, in contrast with surface culture, cannot be accessed directly by the human sensory organs, i.e. it is the hidden part. Language is an element of this hidden part, being very essential, as the other elements of deep culture can only be transmitted through language. Besides, language shapes the way the people who use it think and view the world (Guirdham, 1999; Thomas, 2002), assisting to perpetuate a culture’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavioural habits.

Hymes (1971) therefore argues that language competence is not only referring to grammatical competence, which is to master grammar and syntax. Speakers also have to be able to use language which is culturally appropriate and accurate, based on their tacit knowledge, referring to communicative competence. Hymes is also of the opinion that language is culturally embedded and the kind of language required depends on the specific context. Henderson (2005: 69) refers to the concept of ‘sociolinguistic competence’, which signifies ‘the capacity to interpret the social meaning of language and to respond appropriately in the context of interactions’. Context implies the relationship between speakers, the setting or situation and the topic being discussed. When operating across language borders, both language and communication or sociolinguistic competence is required in order to have effective communication.

2005). Several studies have revealed the overlap of the concepts of language and culture (Tietze, 2008).

3.3.1.2 High-context and low-context communication

In order to detect difficulties for the communication process caused by language differences, it is also important to consider those aspects that go beyond the specific language being spoken. Edward Hall (1976), as described by Guirdham (1999) and Thomas (2002), developed the distinction between high-context and low-context communication, caused by differences in cultures. High-context and low-context communication are communication behaviours, which are based on the values and norms of a specific culture (Thomas, 2002). A high-context communication implies that people depend mostly on the overall situation to interpret messages, i.e. meaning is derived from situational cues, which are established on trust (Buelens et al., 2006). Explicitly spoken messages can then be indirect, in the physical context or internalized in the person. Low-context communication, however, relies upon the explicit code of messages. The primary meaning is derived from written and spoken words (Buelens et al., 2006). This communication is characterized by a personal style and is less formal, indicating that personal identity is more important than social position, meanwhile interactions in high-context cultures are formal and based on a role-orientated style, i.e. the importance of social roles of the participants. The cultural differences, being anchored in language, provide insight into the context that makes communication difficult.

3.3.1.3 Verbal and non-verbal communication

Cultural differences in communication are mostly confirmed in non-verbal communication (Guirdham 1999). However, theorists argue about the notion that language differs across (sub)cultures, people of different socio-economic status or ethnicity, and between gender. Nevertheless, they conclude that a hierarchical structure of sentences and their interrelationships are equally complex in all languages. Language is part of verbal communication, i.e. speech and writing and is used for communicating information and intentions. Meaning is conveyed with words and symbols which are coded into messages. However, meaning is not easily transferred, as the receiver should decode and interpret the message. Since language is more explicit, partly due to the rules for grammar and syntax, a speaker’s intention can be transferred better, though the problem arises when people speak different languages. As a result, many terms cannot be translated and differences in meanings exist within and across cultures (Guirdham, 1999).

non-verbal communication in communication across the language borders. The communication between people talking in the same language consists as much as 60%-70% of non-verbal behaviour, as suggested by several theorists (Buelens et al., 2006; Thomas, 2002). Non-verbal communication is used in order to shape identity, resulting in different non-Non-verbal behaviours across groups, such as speech style, accent, facial expression, and the use of personal space. Guirdham (1999) and Thomas (2002) notice in particular the different meanings of non-verbal behaviour across cultures. Besides, non-verbal behaviour is more prone to be misunderstood (Buelens et al., 2006). Verbal and non-verbal behaviour can therefore influence language use.

3.3.1.4 Speech act theory

3.3.2 Individual behaviour

It has been empirically tested that language features have certain relations with how individuals behave and feel. Welch et al. (2005) argue that language is person-bound, penetrating all elements of multinational activities and behaviour. Language diversity may be an important contributing factor to people’s behaviour, which is further explained in this paragraph.

3.3.2.1 Social identity theory

Björkman and Piekkari (2009) have investigated the relationship between socialization and language. Person to person interaction between MNC’s managers and employees lays the foundation for socialization. Harzing and Feely (2008) explain the impact of language, drawing on social identity theory. This theory implies that effective communication in organisations is not only based on interpersonal contact. However, it also deals with the interaction due to a certain belongingness of employees to a group, i.e. language is seen as an important element of one’s national identity. This is confirmed by Tietze (2008) who states that language is a form of social action, and by using language for certain actions, social cohesion and belongingness are created. Also Henderson (2005) asserts that language is not only about talking, it is, however, critical in the formation of social groups, contribution to team building, and efforts for power and prestige among groups (Gao, 2009). Harzing and Feely (2008) continue that people categorize others with language, which have implications for intergroup relationships.

3.3.2.2 Isolation and exclusion due to a lack of language competence

language can be found in dissatisfaction and friction, and being an outsider. Also Tietze (2008) argues that a limited access to English can lead to social stigma and exclusion, since competence in English is indispensable in the area of business and management. Furthermore, code switching, present when second language users, generally at important moments in a meeting, come together and revert to talk between themselves in their native language, results into exclusion and frustration felt by the others. Having confidence and trust in colleagues are, therefore, considered very importantly when lacking the linguistic skills (Welch et al., 2005).

3.3.2.3 Information denial

Marschan et al. (1997) argue that individuals have discarded important information, which was transferred in a language in which they had a lack of skills. Besides, foreign subsidiaries sometimes hide behind the language barrier in order to refuse the headquarter’s aim. These subsidiaries may deliberately ignoring or disregarding relevant information, which is meant for them, because of a lack of language competence (Welch et al., 2005). Furthermore, during translation by the receiver, the message may also be altered, be it intentionally or unintentionally, because of local concerns instead of headquarter’s (Welch et al., 2005).

3.3.2.4 Language as an influential factor

Furthermore, the effect of language as an influential factor is investigated in previous research. Marschan et al. (1997) and Welch et al. (2001 & 2005) conclude that individuals who possess the specific language skills of the MNC’s corporate language may exert more power and act as a powerful control mechanism. As a result, they have access to information of the company, which is confidential and strategic and normally not attributed to the individual’s formal status. This information provides them the possibility to act as gatekeepers and decide what information is transferred to headquarter and/or subsidiary. It happens mostly in situations where there exists a lack of language skills. This is also the case for individuals possessing a top management position of a MNC unit and having the language skills compared to the other employees. Consequently, their position power is enhanced by the language. However, the possession of power can also work out positively, i.e. to facilitate communication flows. Since language requires considerable people management skills, the individuals’ behaviour and feelings should not be underestimated.

3.3.3 One common language

by one speaker, and the effects of second-language ability (language fluency) should be considered in order to achieve successful intercultural knowledge transfer (Thomas, 2002).

3.3.3.1 Common business language

In order to communicate effectively, one common language used by both parties should be selected (Thomas, 2002). Poncini (2003:18) explains, regardless of the involvement of the number of cultures, “Participants in international business activities who do not share the same native language must choose a language that will allow them to communicate”. Fredriksson et al. (2006: 409) use Sørensen’s (2005) definition of a common corporate language: “An administrative managerial tool which is derived from the need of an international board of directors and top management in an MNC to run global operations”. International communication between organisational units, which often deals with different language environments is then made possible due to a common ground. Most theories stress the positive effects of using a common corporate language. Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999a) and Sørensen (2005) argue that the common corporate language is introduced in order to increase efficiency by overcoming misunderstandings, reducing costs, avoiding time-consuming translations, improving access to corporate documents, promoting trust and the emergence of shared visions (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007), and creating a sense of belonging and cohesion within the firm. Marschan et al. (1997) assert that the use of a corporate language is part of a corporate identity and reminding people of their membership in a global team. Fredriksson et al. (2006: 409) add that the reason for a common language is simple: “Once it is in place, it is assumed that the daily communicative routines function smoothly between the centre and the periphery”. Welch et al. (2001) assert that firms adopt a common language to facilitate the transfer of information and communication between the headquarter and its foreign units and among these units, since global linguistic homogeneity is encouraged (Thomas, 2008).

the language. Organisational members will possess different levels of language competence, especially those who work at lower hierarchical levels. For that reason, Welch et al. (2001) are of the opinion that the language problem will only be pushed further down, out of the sight of top management. Feely and Harzing (2003) argue that the introduction of a common corporate language is a long-term strategy before the entire MNC possesses the language competence in the specific language.

Hence, finding a common corporate language, basically indicates that one of the two parties must speak in a second language (Thomas, 2002). Besides, Thomas (2008) argues that the common language is almost no one’s native language. The use of a second language has various consequences for cross-cultural communication. Feely and Harzing (2003) argue that speaking in a second language is seen as a less rich means of communication compared to one’s native language. Moreover, cognitive strain is induced when speaking a second language, meaning that second language use could be exhausting as it requires more effort on the part of the second language speaker. Subsequently, when second language users speak fluently, their competency in other perspectives is also expected to be high. Besides, this ‘language fluency’ as called by Thomas can be perceived as having identical beliefs and norms of the foreign-language group. Then, people in cross-cultural communication, while using their mother tongue, are likely to respond to less competent linguistic speakers by changing aspects of their talk, like slowing the rate of speech and reducing sentence complexity. This can have different results, i.e. better communication due to eliminating redundancy of the content or it can be observed as ingratiating, which might not be received well. This refers to ‘stylistic accommodation’, implying that one’s communication style is being adapted to that of the other participant, which aims at bridging the cultural distance and improving communication. Finally, the second user can pretend to understand the message, since the speaker does not want to be embarrassed, nor the speaker wants to be perceived as incompetent. This might be the case when the first language speaker is not aware of the lack of understanding of the second language user, or the first language speaker does not leave space to the second language user in order to check for misunderstandings. Consequently, in order to obtain effective transfer of knowledge and understanding, both parties should devote time to the process of cross-cultural communication.

3.3.3.2 English as a Lingua Franca

USA; the development of modern information and communication technologies; the growth of international mergers and acquisitions; and the increasing number of international students, especially business students (Welch et al., 2001). Besides, much professional management education is taught in English. This all has influenced the use of English in international environments. Hence, MNCs have chosen English more as their official business language (Méndez García & Pérez Cañado, 2005) in order to facilitate internal communication between headquarters and foreign subsidiaries (Fredriksson et al., 2006). Hurn (2007) defines international negotiating as the agreement of people of different nationalities by harmonized dialogue. This, of course, can be achieved easier, when conducting dialogues in one language. The important role of English is therefore decisive in MNCs in establishing language strategies and choices (Fredriksson et al., 2006). Although English has become the world’s first language after Mandarin, the most common second language, and is the main language used for diplomacy, air traffic control, computer industry, pop music, and business and scientific papers, it is still not spoken by everyone, nor everyone wants to speak English (Hurn, 2007). Fredriksson et al. (2006) and Loos (2007) add that English might perhaps not as much spoken throughout the organisation as firstly proposed by top management. Remarkably, approximately 80% of verbal English communication is spoken by people using English as their second or foreign language (Gnutzmann, 2000). Only a small part of people in multicultural teams are native speakers of English. Charles (2007) adds that an updated estimate of non-native speakers of English would even be around 90%. Also the majority of MNCs is not located in English speaking countries (Harzing & Feely, 2008).

Moreover, English is very confusing and complex, as the language has a number of variants, for example in Australia and the USA (Hurn, 2007). As such, many foreigners, especially experienced business people, are likely to speak a type of ‘International English’, or, as it is sometimes called, ‘Off-shore English’. Hurn explains this as a form of ‘‘low-risk English’’, using words, phrases and grammatical structures, which will have less chance to be misunderstood, and thereby avoiding idioms, jargon and complex structures. ‘International English’ can be understand as people with other first languages speaking English, having learned it as adults for practical rather than academic purposes. Consequently, a multiplicity of different ‘Englishes’ exists. Besides, culture causes language to vary, even among English speakers (Thomas, 2002). For that reason, the use of English can lead to misunderstandings as differences in meanings are neglected and inequality of access exists (Tietze, 2008).

3.3.3.3 Choice of a language