1Introduction

Negotiation, according to Bülow (2009: 142), is a process of communicative interaction through which two or more parties aim to solve their conflicting interests in a way that all parties regard as preferable to any alternative. Negotiation has also been described as an “activity of social decision making” (Firth 1995c: 6) or as “collaborative decision making” (Raiffa, Richardson, and Metcalfe 2002: title and passim). It occurs in a variety of contexts ranging from family disputes to conflicts concerning the daily distribution of labor at work, the discussion of contractual details, and controversies concerning the use of natural resources or standards of environmental protection, etc. (Mulholland 1991: 1; Raiffa 2002: 11). In the specific case of business negotiations, the range of activities and domains covered includes, among others, buying and selling, the transfer of know-how, the establishment of agency, distributorship or franchising contracts, cooperation agreements, mergers and acquisitions, and joint ventures. Evidently, the primary goal of business negotiations is to attain economic benefits via agreements (Dupont 2002: 375). According to Lampi (1986: 42), what distinguishes business negotiations from other types is their corporate role, the fact that negotiators act on behalf of their principals (see Nickerson 2000: 54–55 and references therein).

Due to its necessarily cross-disciplinary character, the topic of negotiation has been studied by students from different backgrounds, most prominently by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and political scientists. In the wake of globalization and the rise of free trade, the transformation of the general context in which negotiations take place has increasingly shifted the focus of research to the cross-cultural aspects of business communication, and business negotiation in particular. Researchers have shown that four elements of culture − behavior, attitudes, norms and values − may impact negotiating practice and, based on this insight, have set up catalogues of factors and variables to which negotiators should pay attention in intercultural settings (see, e.g., Salacuse 1999; Planken 2005). Although research on negotiation is thriving and “[n]egotiations represent one of the central research areas of Applied Linguistics” (Osterkamp, Kindts, and Albers 2000: 3), their linguistic aspects have been relatively neglected in the literature. Linguists’ interest has largely been confined to a few specific issues, such as (a) the study of cultural aspects of business negotiations (e.g., Usunier 2003; Gelfand & Brett 2004), including value systems, time orientation, and mindsets; (b) issues of pragmatics, such as the role of politeness (e.g., Thomsen 2000; Spencer-Oatey 2008); and (c) rather superficial analyses of communication styles, such as the question of direct vs. indirect style (e.g., Salacuse 1999).

There is also an astonishing scarcity of serious research on the specific vocabulary of business negotiation. By contrast, sweeping claims, for example, that “a basic function of language is to structure reality and organize experience” (Faure 2002: 396), with the inevitable, prosaic reference to the Inuits’ supposed 20 different lexemes for ‘snow’, are popular in the negotiation literature, and rather impressionistic “how to. . .” guidebooks proliferate. Moreover, despite the growing attention to the pedagogy of international business negotiation (e.g., Kirgis 2012), there is a remarkable dearth of publications that focus on training students and practitioners to negotiate in a second or third language other than English.

The aim of the present chapter is to offer a succinct overview of the scholarly production about business negotiation, focusing on linguistic and language-related aspects. The chapter is structured accordingly. After this brief introduction, Section 2 provides the reader with some reflections on the origin and semantics of the term negotiation and of neighboring terms. The core of the chapter is constituted by Section 3. It outlines the most relevant approaches to negotiation, which range from prescriptive to discourse-based, and is mainly concerned with the linguistic aspects of the sub-genre of business negotiation. Section 4 is a survey of a pedagogical perspective on linguistic training for international business negotiations and the role of English as lingua franca. Short conclusions close the chapter.

2Some terminological notes

The Oxford English Dictionary provides four readings of the noun negotiation (OED Online 2014: s.v.): 1a. ‘an act of dealing with another person; a private or business transaction (also in extended use)’; 1b. ‘trading, commerce’; 1c. ‘occupation, exercise’; 2. ‘a discussion or process of treaty with another (or others) aimed at reaching an agreement about a particular issue, problem, etc., esp. in affairs of state; an instance of negotiating’; 3. ‘the action, activity, or process of negotiating with another or others’; 4. ‘the action of crossing or getting over, round or through some obstacle by skilful manoeuvring; manipulation’. All meanings under 1 are flagged as obsolete. The earliest attestation of the noun negotiation in an English text (cf. example 1) is from 1425, in Speculum Sacerdotale 67/20 (Kurath, Lewis, and Kuhn 2001: 788), with the meaning of ‘an act of dealing with another person; a private or business transaction’.

The English negotiation is a loan from the Middle French negotiation. In Middle French, the earliest attestation of negotiation[s] dates from 9 December 1323 (Fagniez 1900: 49) with the meaning of ‘commercial activity’; the generic meaning of ‘activity, occupation’ is attested in a document from ca. 1330, Pèlerinage de vie humaine (v. 11934), by Guillaume de Digulleville (ed. Stumpf). The etymon of Middle French negotiation is classical Latin negōtiātio ‑ōnis ‘business, trade, a commercial transaction’, from the verb negōtior ‘to do business, to act as a banker, to trade’, itself formed from negotium meaning ‘affair’ or ‘the state of no (nec) leisure (otium)’. In Latin, the noun has the readings of ‘banking business’, as in (2), and ‘(any kind of) business’, as in (3). The latter meaning is recorded also in the Middle Ages (4):

The turning point in the semantics of negotiation comes in the middle of the 16th century. In a French document from 27 February 1544 (Weiss 1842: 64), we find the meaning of ‘discussion aimed at reaching mutual agreement about a particular issue, especially in affairs of state’. Shortly afterwards, the same meaning is attested in the following passage of an English text from June 1563 (Bain 1900: 66).

By that step, the semantics of negotiation had extended from ‘doing business’ to ‘achieving an agreement about business’ (corresponding to reading 2 in the OED). The latter meaning applies to the current use of ‘business negotiation’ and is the one we are concerned with in this paper.

Many languages distinguish ‘negotiation’ from ‘bargaining’, though the details of the distinction may vary. Most European languages distinguish between ‘negotiating’, an “interaction involving complex social units (unions, nations, companies)”, and ‘bargaining’, an “interaction between individuals over a sale or purchase” (Lampi 1986: 15). This conceptual difference is mirrored in the terms used to express the two types of activity: German verhandeln vs. feilschen; Italian negoziare vs. mercanteggiare; French négocier vs. marchander; Russian vesti (peregovory) vs. torgovat’sya, etc. In other cultures and languages, the distinction is even neater in terms of connotation. For example, Arabic strictly differentiates between mufawadat, a term used for formal settings such as political negotiations, and musawama, bargaining over the price of goods. Persian and Turkish behave similarly. Here, the loan nouns Farsi mozákereh and Turkish müzakere (both derived from an Arabic root meaning ‘to mention, recite, praise’) refer to negotiation in the sense of courtly discussions conducted in a sociable atmosphere, whereas bargaining is rendered by words relating to the bazaar, connoting low status and with implications of petty haggling: Farsi čāne zadan (literally ‘chin strike’) and Turkish pazarlik (from Persian bazaar) (Cohen 2001: 80).

Even so, earlier studies use negotiation and bargaining as synonyms or even interchangeably (e.g., in Schelling 1960; Rubin & Brown 1975; Lim & Benbasat 1992; Putnam & Roloff 1992). However, the phenomena they denote are not perfectly co-extensive. Ontogenetically, bargaining is the basis of negotiation and in fact constitutes its very core; buyers aim to buy at the lowest price, while sellers hope to sell at the highest price. As Stevens (1958: 78–79) argues, there are good reasons to distinguish between the terms negotiation and bargaining. In exchange transactions, parties may be said to negotiate if they must settle a conflict by reaching a compromise and if the information communicated goes beyond that relating to the terms of exchange themselves (i.e. bargaining). According to Gulliver (1979: 71), bargaining is a sub-process of negotiation and consists of “the presentation and exchange of more or less specific proposals for the terms of agreement on particular issues”. In similar terms, Lampi (1986: 16) suggests that bargaining be limited to either a negotiation involving a single issue in which a conflict is prominent, or to that phase of a negotiation characterized by a conflict that needs to be resolved. The centrality of the idea of conflict borne by the concept of negotiation is attested by the Chinese word for it. In Mandarin Chinese, tanpan ‘negotiation’ is made up of a first syllable, tan, meaning ‘to talk, chat, discuss’ (or the respective nomina actionis), and a second syllable, pan, meaning ‘to distinguish, discriminate’ or ‘to sentence, condemn’. Thus tanpan implies the resolution of matters involving two conflicting parties, by means of a communicative process (Wilhelm 1994: 7). A simple but convincing distinction between bargaining and negotiation is drawn by Winkler (2006: 8) in the following observation: “a bargain describes the formation of demand, whereas negotiation describes the whole process of trading (i.e. also the necessary communication between the actors), including the bargain”. Both the ontogenetic primacy of bargaining over negotiation and its centrality for business negotiation are reflected in the fact that the first language-related discussions of the topic were focused not on negotiation but on bargaining, for example, Zeuthen (1930), Nash (1950), Angelmar and Stern (1978), Roth (1979), Putnam and Jones (1982), Roth (1985).

3The linguistic aspects of business negotiation

Negotiation is more often discussed in the non-linguistic than in the linguistic or language-related literature. Five different approaches to negotiations have been identified by Firth (1995b: 11–26, see also Koeszegi and Vetschera 2010, for a synopsis of theoretical frameworks):

In addition, business negotiations have been studied from the perspective of genre theory (e.g., Orr 2007) and of support systems, that is, computer techniques which support the social or analytical aspects of the negotiation process (e.g., Robinson and Volkov 1998; Moor and Weigand 2004; Schoop 2010). Furthermore, and as already mentioned, by transforming the general context of negotiation globalization has increasingly shifted the focus of research into business negotiation towards intercultural communication (e.g., Garcez 1993; Marriott 1995; Salacuse 1999; Gimenez 2001; Grindsted 2009; Zhu 2011; Yoon and Yang 2012). Technological progress and the consequent growing interest in automation processes is mirrored in studies on e-negotiations that focus on machine learning, in which we also find applications of the principles of pragmatics (e.g., Zeng and Sycara 1998; Su et al. 2001; Li et al. 2002).

In the research landscape of the 1980s, very few studies on bargaining and negotiation were concerned with the role of communication and of language (among the few exceptions are Putnam and Jones 1982 and Donohue and Diez 1985). However, Lampi’s (1986) study of the linguistic components of strategy in business negotiations marked a turn towards a language-focused approach. Since then, linguistically oriented work has flourished, as testified in particular by publications such as Mulholland (1991), Ehlich and Wagner (1995), Firth (1995c), Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1997), Poncini (2002), McCarthy and Handford (2004), Handford (2010).

Applied linguists have approached business negotiation mostly from two lines of research: conversation analysis and discourse analysis. Francis (1986) and Firth (1990; 1995c) are examples of analyses based on the former approach, Vuorela (2005) of work conducted within a discourse analysis framework. Others have combined the tradition of discourse analysis with the framework of conversation analysis. Among these, Lampi (1986) figures most prominently. She reviews a number of preexisting linguistic concepts and looks at their possible application to the study of negotiations; she also warns that “the categories of non-linguistic communicative studies cannot be applied to a detailed study of verbal interaction unless the terminology and findings are translated into linguistic concepts and defined accordingly” (Lampi 1986: 41–42). In this vein, Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1997) analyze the functions of pronouns, discourse markers, metaphors, and thematic progression; McCarthy and Handford (2004) combine quantitative corpus data of frequency, keyword, and cluster lists with the qualitative analysis of lexico-grammatical types, such as pronouns, modal expressions, and discourse markers. Spencer-Oatey (2008: 21) proposes studying the management of social relations (“rapport management”) in negotiations, on the basis of five interrelated domains: (a) illocution (speech acts, such as offers, requests, apologies); (b) discourse (topic choice and topic management, sequencing of information); (c) participation (turn taking, inclusion/ exclusion of people present, use or non-use of listener verbal and non-verbal responses); (d) style (choice of tone, choice of appropriate lexis, choice of terms of address or honorifics); and (e) nonverbal communication (gestures, eye contact, proxemics).

The question that naturally arises at this point is whether business negotiation constitutes a genre in its own right. Genres are structured communicative practices made up of conventionalized features (Bhatia 1993: 13), and “serve as mental models for members of a community that both enable and constrain their discourse production and interpretation” (Orr 2007: 99). Thus, assigning genre to a text is a way of classifying it on the basis of its own properties and of the text-external context (e.g., purposes) in which it is embedded. The following sub-sections will review the study of linguistic elements occurring in business negotiation in order to understand whether business negotiation is a genre of its own or, rather, a sub-genre of business language.

4Training business negotiation

As a practical skill, business negotiation is predestined for pedagogical approaches. The title of an article by Loewenstein and Thompson (2006), “Learning to negotiate: Novice and experienced negotiators”, is symptomatic of the great interest in learning and teaching how to negotiate in business that has emerged in the last few decades. Negotiation skills are a popular topic not only in business English textbooks (Gimenez 2001: 169); much of the specialized literature is also concerned with how to teach businesspeople to negotiate successfully (examples are Mulholland 1991; Neu and Graham 1995; Rehbein 1995; Rathmayr, Fellerer, and Klingseis 1998). This trend is the result of a long tradition, which derives from the need to instruct merchants on how to bargain, especially in foreign languages, as is evident from the great relevance that merchant phrasebooks have had in the course of history (see also Chapter 2 of this handbook). Some titles include the German Das älteste italienisch-deutsche Sprachbuch from 1424 (Pausch 1972), the Middle Low German phrasebook by Tönnies Fenne from 1607 (Gernentz 1988), the Italian-Dutch phrasebook Een koopman in Venetië from the late Middle Ages (van der Helm et al. 2001), or the Vocabularium Latinis, Gallicis et Theuthonicis verbis scriptum (n.n. 1514), in which a German merchant could learn how to bargain about accommodation and supper in a harborage in French (Kaltz 2010: 123) (see also Messner 2000, for Spanish-German instructions from the 17th century).

Most authors stress that courses in business negotiation should be aimed at increasing not just students’ negotiating skills but also their analytical abilities and knowledge of business in general (Salacuse 2010: 217). Others, like Neumann (1995: 36), focus on the professional, pragmatic, and linguistic relevance of certain speech-acts, such as formulating requests, and plead (e.g., Trosborg 1989: 216; Trosborg 1995) for greater attention to socio-pragmatic aspects and discourse competence in language teaching. Other authors again warn that different cultures have different degrees of communicative complexity, for example, in terms of possible language variants. Classic examples are the Greek diglossia, comprising modern vernacular dimotikí vs. the artificially archaic katharevousa, and the Arabic triglossia, which includes a number of spoken regional (and supra-regional, e.g. Egyptian) varieties vs. classical Arabic, the language of the sacred texts, vs. Modern Standard Arabic, a standard predominantly used in the media. Mulholland (1991: 82–83) suggests that this issue must be taken seriously since it may have consequences for the negotiation process. A potentially dangerous scenario would be misinterpreting a switch between one variety (e.g., katharevousa) and another (e.g., dimotikí) in intercultural business negotiations. Such a switch, intended by the speaker as a move from formal to friendly, might be interpreted by a fellow negotiator not acquainted with the socio-cultural value of the two varieties as a move from serious to trivial. Specifically, an English-speaking negotiator might then feel free to switch to casual uses of colloquial English, which the other party could perceive as inappropriate.

A hotly debated topic in the context of business negotiation training is the use of a lingua franca in intercultural settings (see Firth 1990; Stalpers 1993; Rehbein 1995; Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005; Nickerson 2005; Planken 2005). Originally, “lingua franca” referred to a Romance-based pidgin (mostly made up by varieties of Italo-Romance, but also including elements from Spanish, French, Portuguese, as well as Arabic, Turkish, Greek and Persian; Wansbrough 1996: 137) used for purposes of trade along the south-eastern Mediterranean between the 15th and the 19th century (Meierkord and Knapp 2002: 9). Nowadays, the object of research on lingua franca is almost exclusively English (e.g., Seidlhofer 2011) because it has become the language of trade, business and international financial transactions. Nevertheless, most authors concur in warning that English is not adequate as the generalized language of commerce, and especially in business negotiations. For example, Rehbein (1995: 98) stresses that the buyer’s native language is fundamental, and claims that its use is preferable. Some authors (e.g., Frade 2005: 155) take a practical stance and propose offering specialist courses in English for international business, in order to reduce any kind of asymmetry due to different levels of language proficiency. Planken (2005) has tested two groups of negotiators, all of them lingua-franca speakers of English for specific business purposes, one being composed of professional negotiators, the other of novices. She observes that both groups have access to a similarly limited linguistic repertoire, in terms of vocabulary, ungrammaticality, etc., but that the professionals nevertheless do better in terms of tactical effect. Her conclusion is that the main differences in verbal behavior between the groups studied derive from pragmatic and strategic competence rather than language proficiency (Planken 2005: 398). Yet, although the current trends outlined so far show a growing attention to the teaching of courses in international business negotiation (Salacuse 2010; Kirgis 2012), there is still a remarkable lack of publications in languages other than English on the need to train students to negotiate in a second or third language, and on how to do that. They are urgently needed.

5Conclusion

In this chapter, I have provided an overview of linguistically inspired research on business negotiation and shown how this is necessarily cross-disciplinary in nature. Those aspects of business negotiation found to be linguistically relevant include: pragmatics, particularly in the form of speech act theory; pronoun choice; the use of specialized lexis; vague language; and hypothetical direct reported speech. The discussion has revealed a general interest in the topic, but also, and most strikingly, a dearth of serious work on (i) the specific vocabulary of business negotiation and (ii) linguistic training for negotiators in a second or third language other than English.

References

Alemi, Minoo & Sajedeh Razzaghi. 2013. Politeness markers in English for business purposes textbook. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 2(4). 109–123.

Angelmar, Reinhard & Louis W. Stern. 1978. Development of a content analytic system for analysis of bargaining communication in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research 15(1). 93–102.

Arnaud, Pierre J. L. 2015. Noun-noun compounds in French. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 1, 673–687. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Asmuß, Birte. 2002. Strukturelle Dissensmarkierungen in interkultureller Kommunikation: Analysen deutsch-dänischer Verhandlungen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. 2nd edn. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Bain, Joseph. 1900. Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: volume 2: 1563–69. http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=44135 (accessed 30 March 2015).

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca & Sandra Harris. 1997. Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Catherine Nickerson & Brigitte Planken. 2007. Business discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.

Bhatia, Vijay K. 2002. A generic view of academic discourse. In John Flowerdew (ed.), Academic discourse, 21–39. London: Longman.

Bülow, Anne M. 2009. Negotiation studies. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini (ed.), The handbook of business discourse, 142–154. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Charles, Mirjaliisa. 1996. Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. Business English 15(1). 19–36.

Charles, Mirjaliisa & David Charles. 1999. Sales negotiations: Bargaining through tactical summaries. In Martin Hewings & Catherine Nickerson (eds.), Business English: Research into practice, 71–82. Harlow: Longman.

Chatterjee, Kalyan. 2010. Non-cooperative bargaining theory. In D. Marc Kilgour & Colin Eden (eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation, 141–149. Dordrecht: Springer.

Cohen, Raymond. 2001. Language and negotiation: A Middle East lexicon. In Jovan Kurbalija & Hannah Slavik (eds.), Language and diplomacy, 67–92. Msida, Malta: DiploProjects.

Donohue, William A. & Mary E. Diez. 1985. Directive use in negotiation interaction. Communication Monographs 52(4). 305–318.

Dupont, Christophe. 2002. International business negotiations. In Viktor A. Kremenyuk (ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues. 2nd edn., 375–391. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ehlich, Konrad & Johannes Wagner (eds.). 1995. The discourse of business negotiation (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 8). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5(1). 25–66.

Fagniez, Gustave M. 1900. Documents relatifs à l’histoire de l’industrie et du commerce en France, II: XIVe et XVe siècles. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils.

Fant, Lars. 1992. Scandinavians and Spaniards in negotiation. In Annick Sjögren & Lena Janson (eds.), Culture and management in the field of ethnology and business administration, 125–153. Stockholm: Invandrarminnesarkivet.

Faure, Guy-Olivier. 2002. International negotiation: The cultural dimension. In Viktor A. Kremenyuk (ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues. 2nd edn., 392–415. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Firth, Alan. 1990. ‘Lingua franca’ negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World Englishes 9(3). 269–280.

Firth, Alan. 1995a. ‘Accounts’ in negotiation discourse: A single-case analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 23(2). 199–226.

Firth, Alan. 1995b. Introduction and overview. In Alan Firth (ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace, 3–39. New York: Pergamon.

Firth, Alan (ed.). 1995c. The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace. New York: Pergamon.

Fisher, Roger, William Ury & Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. 2nd edn. New York: Penguin Books.

Frade, Celina. 2005. Asymmetries in the negotiation of international contracts in Brazil. In Anna Trosborg & Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen (eds.), Business discourse: Texts and contexts, 139–160. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.

Francis, David W. 1986. Some structures of negotiation talk. Language in Society 15(1). 53–79.

Friedman, Ray. 2004. Studying negotiations in context: An ethnographic approach. International Negotiation 9(3). 375–384.

Garcez, Pedro de Moraes. 1993. Point-making styles in cross-cultural business negotiation: A microethnographic study. English for Specific Purposes 12(2). 103–120.

Gelfand, Michele J. & Jeanne M. Brett (eds.). 2004. The handbook of negotiation and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gernentz, Hans J. 1988. Untersuchungen zum russisch-niederdeutschen Gesprächsbuch des Tönnies Fenne, Pskov 1607. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Gibbons, Pamela, James J. Bradac & Jon D. Busch. 1992. The role of language in negotiation: Threats and promises. In Linda L. Putnam & Michael E. Roloff (eds.), Communication and negotiation, 156–175. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gimenez, J. C. 2001. Ethnographic observations in cross-cultural business negotiations between non-native speakers of English: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 20(2). 169–193.

Graham, John L. 1983. Brazilian, Japanese, and American business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies 14(1). 47–61.

Grindsted, Annette. 2009. Intercultural negotiations − theories revisited. In Victoria Guillén-Nieto, Carmen M. Llorca & Chelo Vargas-Sierra (eds.), Intercultural business communication and simulation and gaming methodology, 119–131. Bern: Peter Lang.

Gulliver, P. H. 1979. Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Handford, Michael. 2007. The genre of the business meeting: A corpus-based study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham.

Handford, Michael. 2010. The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, Michael E. 1992. Phase structures in negotiation. In Linda L. Putnam & Michael E. Roloff (eds.), Communication and negotiation, 83–107. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jensen, Astrid. 2009. Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English for Specific Purposes 28(1). 4–18.

Kaltz, Barbara. 2010. Wie lernte man in der Frühen Neuzeit Französisch in Augsburg und Nürnberg? In Mark Häberlein & Christian Kuhn (eds.), Fremde Sprachen in frühneuzeitlichen Städten: Lernende, Lehrende und Lehrwerke, 121–134. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kıbrıs, Özgür. 2010. Cooperative game theory approaches to negotiation. In D. Marc Kilgour & Colin Eden (eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation, 151–166. Dordrecht: Springer.

Kirgis, Paul F. 2012. Hard bargaining in the classroom: Realistic simulated negotiations and student values. Negotiation Journal 28(1). 93–115.

Koester, Almut. 2014. “We’d be prepared to do something, like if you say”: Hypothetical reported speech in business negotiations. English for Specific Purposes 36. 35–46.

Koeszegi, Sabine T. & Rudolf Vetschera. 2010. Analysis of negotiation processes. In D. Marc Kilgour & Colin Eden (eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation, 121–138. Dordrecht: Springer.

Kurath, Hans, Robert E. Lewis & Sherman M. Kuhn. 2001. Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

La Haye, Jean de (ed.). 1636. Opera omnia sancti Bernardini senensis. Paris: Dyonisius Moreau.

Lampi, Mirjaliisa. 1986. Linguistic components of strategy in business negotiations. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.

Li, Haifei, Chunbo Huang, Stanley Y. W. Su & Benny Higdon. 2002. Design and implementation of business objects for automated business negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 11(1). 23–44.

Lim, Lai-Huat & Izak Benbasat. 1992. A theoretical perspective of negotiation support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 9(3). 27–44.

Loewenstein, Jeffrey & Leigh L. Thompson. 2006. Learning to negotiate: Novice and experienced negotiators. In Leigh L. Thompson (ed.), Negotiation theory and research, 77–97. New York: Psychology Press.

Louhiala-Salminen, Leena, Mirjaliisa Charles & Anne Kankaanranta. 2005. English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes 24(4). 401–421.

Marriott, Helen E. 1995. ‘Deviations’ in an intercultural business negotiation. In Alan Firth (ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace, 247–268. New York: Pergamon.

Martin, Gillian. 2005. Indirectness in Irish-English business negotiation: A legacy of colonialism? In Anne Barron & Klaus P. Schneider (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English, 235–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

McCarthy, Michael & Michael Handford. 2004. “Invisible to us”: A preliminary corpus-based study of spoken business English. In Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 16), 167–201. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Meierkord, Christiane & Karlfried Knapp. 2002. Approaching lingua franca communication. In Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua franca communication, 9–28. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.

Mercelot, Gérard. 2006. Négociations commerciales et objectifs spécifiques: De la description à l’enseignement des interactions orales professionnelles. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.

Messner, Dieter (ed.). 2000. Los manuales del español impresos en Viena en el siglo XVII. Salzburg: Institut für Romanistik der Universität Salzburg.

Moor, Aldo de & Hans Weigand. 2004. Business negotiation support: Theory and practice 9(1). 31–57.

Mulholland, Joan. 1991. The language of negotiation: A handbook of practical strategies for improving communication. London: Routledge.

n.n. 1514. Vocabularium Latinis, Gallicis et Theuthonicis verbis scriptum. Lyon: Jehan Thomas.

Nash, John. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18(2). 155–162.

Nash, John. 1953. Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21(1). 128–140.

Nelson, Mike. 2000. A corpus based study of business English and business English teaching materials. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.

Neu, Joyce & John L. Graham. 1995. An analysis of language use in negotiations: The role of context and content. In Konrad Ehlich & Johannes Wagner (eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 8), 243–272. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Neumann, Ingrid. 1995. Realisation of requests in intercultural negotiations: On pragmatic method. Hermes 15. 31–52.

Nickerson, Catherine. 2000. Playing the corporate language game: An investigation of the genres and discourse strategies in English used by Dutch writers working in multinational corporations. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.

Nickerson, Catherine. 2005. English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes 24(4). 367–380.

OED Online. 2014. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/.

Orr, Winnie W. F. 2007. The bargaining genre: A study of retail encounters in traditional Chinese local markets. Language in Society 36(1). 73–103.

Osterkamp, Swen, Walther Kindt & Wulf Albers. 2000. Verhandlung und Argumentation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 33. 3–44.

Pausch, Oskar. 1972. Das älteste italienisch-deutsche Sprachbuch: Eine Überlieferung aus dem Jahre 1424 nach Georg v. Nürnberg. Wien: Böhlau.

Planken, Brigitte. 2005. Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes 24(4). 381–400.

Pohle, Stephanie. 2009. “I tell you what we could do, we could say, cut it to a hundred and ninetyfive, and offer you a significant discount on breakfast” − Expressing commitment in business discourse: An empirical analysis of offers in Irish English negotiations. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Bonn.

Poncini, Gina. 2002. Investigating discourse at business meetings with multicultural participation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 40(4). 345–373.

Putnam, Linda L. & Tricia S. Jones. 1982. The role of communication in bargaining. Human Communication Research 8(3). 262–280.

Putnam, Linda L. & Michael E. Roloff. 1992. Communication perspectives on negotiation. In Linda L. Putnam & Michael E. Roloff (eds.), Communication and negotiation, 1–19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raiffa, Howard. 2002. Contributions of applied systems analysis to international negotiation. In Viktor A. Kremenyuk (ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues: 2nd edn.; 5–21. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raiffa, Howard, John Richardson & David Metcalfe. 2002. Negotiation analysis: The science and art of collaborative decision making. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Rathmayr, Renate, Jan Fellerer & Katharina Klingseis. 1998. Argumentation und Sprachgemeinschaft am Beispiel deutsch-russischer Verhandlungen. Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management 1. 61–98.

Rehbein, Jochen. 1995. International sales talk. In Konrad Ehlich & Johannes Wagner (eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 8), 67–102. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Robinson, William N. & Vecheslav Volkov. 1998. Supporting the negotiation life cycle. Communications of the ACM 41(5). 95–102.

Roth, Alvin E. 1979. Axiomatic models of bargaining (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 170). Berlin: Springer.

Roth, Alvin E. (ed.). 1985. Game-theoretic models of bargaining. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, Bert R. & Jeffrey Z. Brown. 1975. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Salacuse, Jeswald W. 1999. Intercultural negotiation in international business. Group Decision and Negotiation 8(3). 217–236.

Salacuse, Jeswald W. 2010. Teaching international business negotiation: Reflections on three decades of experience. International Negotiation 15(2). 187–228.

Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schoop, Mareike. 2010. Support of complex electronic negotiations. In D. Marc Kilgour & Colin Eden (eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation, 409–423. Dordrecht: Springer.

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca: A complete introduction to the theoretical nature and practical implications of English used as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory: 2nd edn., 11–47. London: Continuum.

Stalpers, Judith. 1993. Progress in discourse: The impact of foreign language use on business talk. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg.

Stevens, Carl M. 1958. On the theory of negotiation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 72(1). 77–97.

Stumpf, Béatrice. Édition électronique du Pélerinage de Vie Humaine de Guillaume de Digulleville, Manuscrit BNF, fr. 1818 (1a-119a). http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/VieHumaine/.

Su, Stanley Y. W., Chunbo Huang, Joachim Hammer, Yihua Huang, Haifei Li, Liu Wang, Youzhong Liu, Charnyote Pluempitiwiriyawej, Minsoo Lee & Herman Lam. 2001. An internet-based negotiation server for e-commerce. The VLDB Journal 10(1). 72–90.

Thomsen, Christa. 2000. Stratégies d’argumentation et de politesse dans les conversations d’affaires: La séquence de requête. Bern: Peter Lang.

TLFi. Le Trésor de la Langue Française Informatisé. Nancy: ATILF. http://atilf.atilf.fr.

Tripp, Thomas M. & Harris Sondak. 1992. An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency. Decision Processes in Negotiation 51(2). 273–295.

Trosborg, Anna. 1989. Strategies in negotiation. Hermes. 195–218.

Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Request strategies in non-native and native speakers of English. In Anna Trosborg (ed.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 223–244. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Usunier, Jean-Claude. 2003. Cultural aspects of international business negotiations. In Pervez N. Ghauri & Jean-Claude Usunier (eds.), International business negotiations. 2nd edn., 97–135. Oxford: Pergamon.

van der Helm, José, Fons van Buuren, Maria van Donkelaar, G. Gerritsen-Geywitz & Orlanda S. Lie (eds.). 2001. Een koopman in Venetië: Een Italiaans-Nederlands gespreksboekje uit de late Middeleeuwen (Middelnederlandse Tekstedities 7). Hilversum: Verloren.

Vuorela, Taina. 2005. How does a sales team reach goals in intercultural business negotiations? A case study. English for Specific Purposes 24(1). 65–92.

Wansbrough, John E. 1996. Lingua franca in the Mediterranean. Richmond: Curzon Press.

Weiss, Charles (ed.). 1842. Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle: D’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Besançon. Vol. 3. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.

Wilhelm, Alfred D. 1994. The Chinese at the negotiating table: Style and characteristics. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.

Winkler, Klaus. 2006. Negotiations with asymmetrical distribution of power: Conclusions from dispute resolution in network industries. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Yong, Zhang & Sayedeh P. Saeidi. 2012. The study on international business negotiation strategy based on incomplete information. In Yanwen Wu (ed.), Advanced Technology in Teaching − Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Conference on Teaching and Computational Science (WTCS 2009) (Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing 117), 141–146. Berlin: Springer.

Yoon, Yeonhee & Kiwoong Yang. 2012. An inter-cultural communication approach to teaching business Korean: A case study of a mock negotiation between Korean and American college students. Global Business Languages 17. 123–135.

Zeng, Dajun & Katja Sycara. 1998. Bayesian learning in negotiation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48(1). 125–141.

Zeuthen, Frederik. 1930. Problems of monopoly and economic warfare. London: Routledge.

Zhu, Yunxia. 2011. Building intercultural alliances: A study of moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings. Text & Talk 31(1). 101–125.