Truchot’s (2009) concept of implicit language policies reminds us very much of what has been referred to here as bricolage. It is noteworthy that this kind of implicit language policy looks very similar to our own understanding of language practices as described and empirically captured by case studies in companies that employ participant observation (Lavric 2008b). In the case of explicit language policies, management intervenes in one direction or another, but the solutions adopted need not automatically become general rules for the future. An explicit and long-term language policy, according to Truchot (2009), is not necessarily better than bricolage, especially if it imposes English as a lingua franca. If anything, a well-reflected balance is needed between vehicular English, local languages (used in subsidiaries) and the language of the multinational company’s headquarters.
4Insights from other selected disciplines
4.1From applied linguistics to other disciplines: Towards interdisciplinary awareness
Up to now, we have covered the topic of language policies and practices in business and the economy from an applied (socio)linguistics perspective. Yet, as remarked in Section 1, related issues are also the object of study by various other disciplines, namely management and organisation studies, political science and economics. And, despite the interdisciplinary approach of applied linguistics, there is still a great lack of de facto cooperation, mutual awareness and reception between it and these other disciplines. All could gain much from looking outside the box and bundling their efforts. That is why we place special emphasis on this last part of our chapter, which aims at building bridges between disciplinary approaches that remain barely related.
4.2Management and organisation studies
It is true that sociological work on rhetorical issues, the social construction of meanings and discourses (in organisations) dates back to at least the 1960s (Foucault 1966, 1971; Berger and Luckmann 1967; Bourdieu 1977, 1982; for a comprehensive historical overview, cf. Deetz 2001). However, it was only around the turn of the millennium that the social and economic sciences experienced their “linguistic turn” (Alvesson and Kärreman 2000; Musson and Tietze 2004; Musson, Cohen, and Tietze 2007; Grosjean 2012 (tournant linguistique)). This development affected, in particular, critical management studies, and in the last fifteen to twenty years (international) management studies generally have shown heightened interest in (natural) languages and language-related topics. What seems to be new about this interest is a focus on the potentially unequal relationships of different languages in social interactions (e.g., the hegemonic position of vehicular languages over smaller regional or minority languages: see also Section 3.3) and on language diversity and multilingualism in organisations.
Additionally, it is quite recent that scholars have started to publish language-sensitive research in highly-respected management journals, such as the Academy of Management Review (Brannen 2004; Vaara and Tienari 2008), the International Journal of Human Resource Management (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch 1999; Piekkari et al. 2005; Harzing and Pudelko 2014), the Journal of World Business (Janssens, Lambert, and Steyaert 2004), the European Journal of International Management (Tietze 2010), Organization Science (Neeley 2013) or the Journal of International Business Studies (Luo and Shenkar 2006). In 2014, this last journal published a special issue on “The multifaceted role of language in international business”, with the purpose of establishing “a new domain in [International Business] scholarship originating from an explicit focus on language” (Brannen, Piekkari, and Tietze 2014: 495; see also the contributions of Hinds, Neeley, and Cramton 2014 and Janssens and Steyaert 2014). In the management literature produced since the late 1990s, therefore, we can locate more and more articles on employees’ linguistic practices, corporate language policies and organisational multilingualism.
Existing empirical studies on language practices and policies in organisations are primarily concerned with multinational corporations (Marschan,Welch, and Welch 1997; Barner-Rasmussen and Björkman 2005; Peltokorpi and Vaara 2012; Harzing and Pudelko 2013, 2014; Piekkari, Welch and Welch 2014) or with the linguistic challenges posed by organisational restructurings, such as mergers and acquisitions involving global companies (Piekkari et al. 2005; Vaara et al. 2005). Frequently studied are the establishment of a common corporate language and the special training and qualification needs of expatriates (Puck, Kittler and Wright 2008; Ishii 2012). Only rarely do empirical studies stray away from the field of global companies, which implies that in management studies there is still little consciousness of, and knowledge about the language practices and policies of small and medium enterprises (but see: Williams and Chaston 2004; Collin et al. 2011; Pohjanen-Bernardi and Talja 2011). Some authors emphasise the necessity of aligning language policy decisions with the human-resource management function and/or the company’s overall strategy (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch 1999; Feely and Harzing 2003; Piekkari et al. 2005). These studies again focus on multinational companies, even though small and medium-sized enterprises also engage in HR management activities, such as selecting, training, evaluating and compensating (multilingual) staff.
Some conceptually interesting works apply a specific theoretical lens to corporate language policy issues. The new institutionalism in organisational analysis, which originated in sociology, offers the concept of “institutional work” to describe “purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006: 215). Examples of such work are politically-motivated activities such as lobbying, and the imitation of best practices to create new institutions. Institutions in this context can be defined as habitualised and therefore quite stable expectations of reciprocal action, that is, socially-accepted practices and structures (Berger and Luckmann 1967: 72), as are, for instance, multilingual practices in organisations. Originally, the concept of institutional work was introduced to describe the political activity of social or regional language movements (e.g., Schneiberg and Lounsbury 2008; Lesk 2014) and only recently was it transferred to linguistic issues in the business sector and used to explain the concept and role of “language nodes” (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch 1999; Barner-Rasmussen and Aarnio 2011: 3‒4). Language nodes could be expatriates, or middle managers in a company headquarters or subsidiary, who connects and mediates between different groups of employees through their institutional “translation” and bridging work. In this perspective, they are cultural and political actors in the international communication process, responsible for spreading particular values, meanings and discourses within the global company (Janssens, Lambert and Steyaert 2004; Tietze 2010; Chidlow, Plakoyiannaki, and Welch 2014). In short, these articles, which focus on translation and cultural bridging processes in international business, integrate insights from translation studies as well as from sociology and organisational studies (institutional theory).
Whereas language-sensitive studies conducted by international and HR management scholars have become increasingly common in recent years, there seems to be surprisingly little awareness of the language issue in studies on diversity management in organisations. There, language is rarely mentioned, and most studies do not define it as a separate dimension of diversity, like gender, age, ethnicity or race (Hanappi-Egger 2006; Takagi 2011; Claes, Hanappi-Egger and Primecz 2012). Occasionally we can find in the management literature studies on language diversity carried out by researchers with a linguistic background (Janssens, Lambert and Steyaert 2004; Henderson 2005; Aichhorn 2015) or contributions to journals on business communication from affiliates of management / business administration departments (Lauring and Selmer 2012), but these remain exceptions. Consequently, integrating linguistic diversity into a comprehensive diversity management concept could be a challenging future project in research and practice.
Applied linguists working on language policies in organisations can profit from concepts and methods applied in, and findings derived from management and organisation studies in multiple ways.
- Implicit language policies, which – according to our understanding – can be translated into human-resource management activities in the organisational context, may be studied systematically by including other human-resource functions apart from recruiting and training (see also Section 3.4). Hence political actors in companies (e.g., human-resource managers) can be recommended to implement a consistent organisational language policy which includes other human-resource functions (e.g., career management) and which also allows for bottom-up considerations (e.g., by covering individual linguistic needs of employees discovered in institutionalised career review processes).
- The fruitful theoretical debate about the different focuses of the concepts “language policy” and “language management” can contribute to revealing and explaining contradictions between implicit and explicit language policies. In this context, we can reflect on the different interests of (groups of) speakers in organisations and on underlying power relations (see also Section 3.3). In particular, the relationship between language and power entered the academic discourse of organisational researchers decades ago (Clegg 1987) and was taken up by critical management studies.
- Interference between different levels of language policies, the contradictions between them and the compromising strategies of actors could be investigated not only from a sociolinguistic perspective (see Section 3.2), but also within an institutional theoretical framework (new institutionalism in organisational analysis) in order to capture the “bigger picture”.
- To complement the methodological repertoire of linguistics, researchers of language policies in businesses could also draw on methods from social sciences (and vice versa).
4.3Political science
While findings stemming from management and organisation studies can be transferred with relative ease to (applied) linguistic research, transferring those of political science research is much less so. However, we think it is worth trying because political science is relevant to our topic of “language policies and practices in businesses”, especially in the following four ways:
–It is clear that a discipline called “political science” can make basic contributions to the terminology required to conceptualise the notion of language policies.
–Political scientists usually have a comprehensive understanding of political processes at the upper levels of policy-making (e.g., the state, the region) and are interested in the economic outcomes of policies. These aspects are crucial to the study of language policies at the macro level.
–Political science deals with power relations in any area, and this perspective can and should be applied to the issue of language choices at all levels (e.g., to an overt discussion of resource allocation to different speaker groups). In particular, this perspective might inspire critical approaches to language(s) in organisations.
–Political scientists with a philosophical background usually come up with epistemological reflections in their studies, a practice that can be fruitfully applied to linguistic research on language policies.
Sonntag (1996b: 75), one of the political scientists particularly relevant for linguistic research, defines “political science” as “the study of authoritative decision-making of a sovereignty regarding the allocation of scarce resources”. In recent times, sovereignty has usually been wielded by the governments of states. Language-sensitive political scientists frequently consider states as more or less multilingual, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious units. Consequently, governments must decide on the resources allocated to linguistic minorities, on the status of languages spoken (mostly) within their territory and on the linguistic rights of their speakers. In political science, the choice by the state of certain language policies over others is usually termed the currently prevalent language regime. Such regimes always comprise language practices as well as the assumptions about languages and language use that underlie specific government policies (Sonntag and Cardinal 2015: 6). During the second half of the twentieth century, as Sonntag (1996b: 76) stresses, very little research was done by political scientists on questions dealing with language contact, language conflict, language protection, language diversity or multilingualism in contemporary societies. However, a minority of political scientists have become more and more aware of, and interested in the topic of language(s), especially, in the following areas:
–Language standardisation;
–Regional autonomy and language;
–The presence of a common language as a key factor for state-building theories;
–Language competences and their impact on the social order within a community.
These researchers have tried to contribute to a future theory of political linguistics (Laitin 1988: 289‒290). In this regard, early work was done, among others, by Zolberg (1974), Pool (1979, 1991), Laponce (1984), Laitin (1988, 1994), Sonntag (1996a) and Safran (1999). Analysis of how such authors link their theoretical constructs (e.g., linguistic standardisation and non-standardisation, linguistic identity, etc.) shows that their studies have two main foundations. On the one hand, they assume certain causal relationships between linguistic factors and politics, sometimes in simplified form. On the other, they acknowledge a more interdependent relation between the two, which allows for compromise on language issues and therefore offers a more realistic picture of politics in modern societies (Sonntag 1996a).
Of the scholars mentioned above, a number remain active in the field. Sonntag (2005a, 2005b, 2009) is currently working on language politics in the context of globalisation, focusing on how the use of English impacts on specific jobs (e.g., the offshore call-centre industry) and on other social-political issues in various parts of India. Laponce (2012), who has been publishing since the 1960s in the field of political linguistics, is interested in the relationship between languages and territory. And Safran (2004: 8) perceives the relationship of language and the state as reciprocal, which allows for political mobilisation in the realm of language policy. This bottom-up view of language policy is currently also adopted by many sociolinguists.
Moreover, the scholarly community interested in political linguistics has been growing fast in the last decade or two. Thus Liu (2015) is greatly concerned to justify the use of lingua francas in different contexts worldwide by quantifying the effects on measures of stability, efficiency, and inclusivity. Dupré (2013) is investigating the challenging topic of linguistic identities in the Taiwanese context, while Albaugh (2007, 2009) has worked on language choice and language preferences in education, and on policy outcomes in Africa. Among other scholars worthy of mention are Garcia, on linguistic nationalism in Luxembourg (2014) and on language issues and educational policies in France and Germany (2015), and Iacovino and Léger (2013) on the issue of integrating immigrants into the Canadian system of multiculturalism in a bilingual society. In summary, it is striking that political scientists, like linguists but unlike management scholars, are finding fields for the empirical study of language-policies issues all over the world.
Finally, we wish to emphasise the inspiration that applied linguists can draw for their own research into language policies in business from political science. Specifically, this discipline can show how to add a philosophical-political perspective to such research through a more intensive epistemological reflection on linguistic rights. In deciding whether employees may or should speak the language of their choice at work, we could start from two different assumptions. Either we believe that linguistic diversity is an end in itself and must be protected, or we hold that communication should be as inclusive and, at the same time, as simple as possible. This second view will lead us to make linguistic standardisation with the aim of creating a lingua franca our primary objective. It corresponds to the paradigm of rational choice theory that prevails in economics. In contrast, the first approach is founded on the notion of linguistic rights. Those who adopt it base their call for tolerance and/or promotion of multilingualism and linguistic diversity on the linguistic dimension in other human rights, such as freedom of expression.
Take, for example, the context of immigration. If we consider language primarily as a means to communicate, the obligation to promote multilingualism exists only in the short term, until migrants have learnt the local language and are linguistically assimilated. But if we focus on the identity-related and expressive functions of language, and on its intrinsic value, we imply the existence of other, enduring claims; the preservation of heritage languages, for example, can be assigned a cultural and identity-related value. In practice, speakers and other stakeholders often have to make trade-offs between the two goals. Additionally, the decision to abandon the use of a language is ultimately one for its speakers themselves (another consequence of a bottom-up perspective). In theoretically conceptualising their work, researchers must choose one of the two approaches and make clear its basic assumptions (Kymlicka and Patten 2003; Sonntag 2009, 2010; Patten 2001, 2009; Réaume and Pinto 2012).
Such reflections, aired by political scientists in their own disciplinary context, might well enrich the perspective of other disciplines, e.g. philosophy, sociology or linguistics. Thus it could be highly profitable for researches in (applied) linguistics to keep in mind some philosophical and/or political background to their mostly empirical work. In other words, they could be inspired by political scientists to adopt an explicit epistemological and philosophical position.
4.4Economics
Economic approaches to language policy, referred to as the “economics of language” (Sprachenökonomie, économie des langues), first appeared in the second half of the last century (Marschak 1965; for historical overviews, see Coulmas 2005 and Alcouffe 2013), and with greater frequency in its last decade. They represent an interdisciplinary and mainly quantitative view of language policies in the economy or in business. Studies focus either on the macro-level (the economy of an entire state or region, etc.) or on the micro-level (companies and other organisations). This classification should not be confounded with Bäck’s division of factors in code choice into macro-, meso-, and micro-levels (see Section 3.2). In fact, Bäck’s meso-level equates to the micro-level in economic terms.
Researchers in the emerging field of the economics of language have adapted and further developed quantitative models stemming from (micro)economics in order to assess different language-policy measures in terms of their internal or external efficiency. Internal efficiency is a question of whether – with the means available – an economic allocation of resources can be attained, whereas external efficiency takes into account superior goals, perhaps cultural or symbolic, and evaluates the coherence of resource allocation in relation to these. The goals themselves – the meta-perspective – are not subject to assessment as they cannot be judged by means of economic analysis (Grin 2005: 9‒11).
Studies embedded in the conceptual and methodological framework of the economics-of-language paradigm stress the influence of linguistic variables on economic ones (e.g., of linguistic competences on labour income) or, in rare cases, vice versa, and predominantly investigate the level of the whole economy (Grin 1994, 1996a-b, 2003, 2005). Such analyses often suggest the existence of unidirectional causal relationships between linguistic and economic factors, a finding we regard with suspicion since it greatly simplifies the complex socially- and historicallyconditioned relations between interdependent variables. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the constructive contributions of economic approaches to language policy questions. In particular, the terminology and logic developed and applied by economists seem fairly accessible to decision-makers in business and politics. As a result, linguistic concerns enter into the considerations of politicians and practitioners. Generally pressed for time, they welcome, and can readily assimilate, hard data that might justify the perceived costs and benefits of lived multilingualism. Furthermore, models and studies derived from the economics-of-language perspective can help to legitimise language-policy measures, for instance by demonstrating the effects of linguistic diversity at work on (operational) value creation (Grin, Sfreddo, and Vaillancourt 2010: 105‒122). Somewhat surprisingly, since greater linguistic diversity always appears to raise costs (translation services, simultaneous interpreting), the same authors even managed to establish an optimal level of linguistic diversity in a given social setting (a country, a region, etc.). Starting from the assumption that such an optimal level exists, they usually argue against language policies that strive only for linguistic homogeneity as the balance of costs and benefits is most favourable, not in a monolingual setting, but when a degree of diversity is permitted and promoted (Grin 2010: 39‒41; Gazzola 2014: 67‒73). Yet, to reach such a conclusion, the linguisteconomist must have recourse to non-market elements in addition to monetary ones. The need for this conceptual trick, which introduces qualitative, soft factors into an intrinsically quantitative model, indicates once more the approach’s limitations, of which its representatives and supporters are usually aware (Grin 1996b: 28, 2010).
Recently, though, scholars of the economics of language have discovered interesting new applications for their models. They have found that the (trilingual) language regime adopted by the European Patent Office disadvantaged applicants who were speakers of non-official languages, and they developed strategies to overcome such imbalances (Gazzola and Volpe 2014; Gazzola 2015). Moreover, they have conceptualised models to evaluate different language regimes in terms of the relative efficiency with which they achieve goals such as effective communication, fairness, or linguistic justice, this last assessed by policies’ distributive consequences (Gazzola 2014: 73‒84). Another research strand is trying to shed light on the role of translation in maintaining and developing linguistic diversity in the context of different language policies, and in comparison to other, more frequently investigated factors such as foreign language learning, language rights or the use of a lingua franca. Grin (2010) discusses the impact of socio-economic and socio-cultural factors, as well as the dynamics of multilingualism, on translators’ and interpreters’ training, and on future demand for the services they offer. Burckhardt (2014) has studied the role of translation in fostering linguistic federalism under the Canadian and Swiss language regimes. In the Swiss case, he highlights the (vertically) asymmetric nature of the current public translation policy; whereas German and French translation services are widely available and integrated into all administrative levels, the same is not true of the country’s two other official languages, Italian and Romansh. What is more, the latter has a lower status altogether, being officially recognised only in communicative situations involving Romansh speakers.
Thus we can see the potential and usefulness of the economic approach to language(s) and appreciate the contributions of the research done in the field. Yet applied linguists, of course, must still choose an epistemological and methodological foundation for their work, and this is unlikely always to be in alignment with a truly economic mind-set.
5Conclusion
For various reasons, the relationship between language policies and practices is a very complex one. Of course, policies affect practices, which in turn have an impact on policies. However, the details of this interaction depend on how “policies” are defined. In particular, if we accept the existence of “implicit language policies”, then the two fields merge into each other. Moreover, even allowing communication practices to develop completely free from language-policy constraints reflects, in a sense, certain policy assumptions. At the same time, widely-used practices always have potential normative power. Thus language policies and practices are inevitably intertwined, and both are closely connected to the notion of “needs” (see Chapter 12 and our Fig. 13.1).
Originally, certain social and applied-linguistic concepts, such as language policy, di- and polyglossia, were applied almost exclusively to political units (states, regions, etc.). However, for some time now they have also been increasingly applied to organisations and companies. Furthermore, discussion of the role of languages in business is no longer confined mainly to the export context. Instead, the “language(s) factor”, including its power and identity aspects, is today given very serious consideration throughout internal and external communication – and in management research, which, thanks to the “linguistic turn”, is now addressing the question of which languages are or should be used in companies. Some management scholars (as well as linguists) tend to use the term language management; others prefer the notion language policy in companies. As a result, the two concepts often describe similar phenomena and can be regarded in some cases even as synonyms. Nonetheless, the connotation of language management may be primarily of economic efficiency, which is why in this contribution we have preferred to use language policy even in the business context.
Leaving aside these terminological or theoretical considerations, it is possible to identify a number of empirical studies of “language practices” that provide insights into how living and working with several languages actually functions in companies and organisations. Through a mixture of planning and bricolage, the choice of language is determined by a wide variety of internal and external factors (the participants in discussion, the situation, the discourse types concerned, the medium used, etc.). To date, exporting and communication with stakeholders have been the most researched areas of external language choice, while most studies of internal choice have dealt with the particular context of mergers and acquisitions.
In looking to the future, we wish to distinguish between theoretical aims and practical, or applied goals. Since this is a relatively young research field, the first priority is to continue investigating empirically which languages are actually used in which corporate settings. To that end, the means of capturing language practices already in use and set out in this chapter (questionnaires; qualitative interviews) must be supplemented by others, such as participant observation or audio/video recording. More detailed investigation of the role played – or not played – by explicit and implicit language-policy measures in actual corporate language use is also required. Here it would be interesting to know whether, and to what extent, companies’ language policies are influenced by the attitudes of their top managers towards multilingualism, be they positive or sceptical. Of course, “ideology” always plays a role. Researchers with a linguistic background, in particular, tend to favour cultural pluralism, and so to see multilingual language policies as preferable to monolingual ones (e.g., English as corporate language). Hence the crying need for empirical research that would provide a sound basis for evaluating different types of language policies.
At the same time, as we emphasised in Section 4, applied linguistics could gain much by taking into account the theoretical concepts, methodological approaches and empirical results of other disciplines – management and organisation studies, political science and economics – that deal with the same phenomena. We have presented the main approaches, perspectives and research interests of these domains, with the aim of fostering interdisciplinary reception and cooperation such as that increasingly apparent in some pluridisciplinary conferences, publications and research projects.
Finally, in line with the declared aim of applied linguistics to help in solving real-life language and communication problems, this contribution has implications not only for research, but also for business practice. Of course, we cannot at this point identify once and for all the “optimal” language policy, nor do we wish to. Rather, it is a question of persuading more and more companies, and their managers, that the “language question” is crucial for both external and internal communication. Even if the “linguistic turn” is constantly referenced and invoked, it is by no means as widely accepted by society and business as might be desirable.
References
Aichhorn, Nathalie. 2015. Language in international business: Unravelling the positive and negative dynamics of language diversity in multinational companies. Ph.D. dissertation, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Albaugh, Ericka A. 2007. Language choice in education: A politics of persuasion. Journal of Modern African Studies 45(1). 1–32.
Albaugh, Ericka A. 2009. The colonial image reversed: Language preferences and policy outcomes in African education. International Studies Quarterly 53(2). 389–420.
Albel, Christina. 2009. Fremdsprachen im Tourismus: Eine Untersuchung zu Sprachkenntnissen, Sprachgebrauch und Spracheinstellungen in einem Tiroler Tourismusverband. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 25–38. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Alcouffe, Alain. 2013. Économie des langues et des politiques linguistiques. In Georg Kremnitz (ed.), Histoire sociale des langues de France, 209–224. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Alvesson, Mats & Dan Kärreman. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(2). 136–158.
Ammon, Ulrich. 1996. Sprachkontakt in multinationalen Betrieben. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1, 852–857. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ammon, Ulrich. 2010. Sprachenpolitik / Sprachpolitik. In Helmut Glück (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Sprache, 636 and 650. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Ammon, Ulrich, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Nelde (eds.). 2004. Codeswitching (= Sociolinguistica 18). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Auer, Peter. 1998a. Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 1–24. London: Routledge.
Auer, Peter (ed.). 1998b. Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge.
Bäck, Bernhard. 2004. Code choice im österreichischen Export in die Romania: Ein Modell und drei Fallstudien. Ph.D. dissertation, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Bäck, Bernhard & Eva Lavric. 2009. English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese? Code choice and Austrian export. International Journal of Multilingualism 6(1). 37–67.
Barakos, Elisabeth. 2014. The promotion of bilingualism in businesses in Wales: A critical language policy study. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Wien.
Barner-Rasmussen, Wilhelm & Christoffer Aarnio. 2011. Shifting the faultlines of language: A quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business 46(3). 288–295.
Barner-Rasmussen, Wilhelm & Ingmar Björkman. 2005. Surmounting Interunit Barriers. International Studies of Management & Organization 35(1). 28–46.
Bellak, Nina. 2014. Can language be managed in international business? Insights into language choice from a case study of Danish and Austrian multinational corporations (MNCs). Ph.D. dissertation, Copenhagen Business School. http://geml.eu/en/nina-bellaks-thesis/ (accessed 4 July 2015)
Berger, Peter L. & Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Bochmann, Klaus. 1993. Theorie und Methoden der Sprachpolitik und ihrer Methoden. In Klaus Bochmann (ed.), Sprachpolitik in der Romania: Zur Geschichte sprachpolitischen Denkens und Handelns von der Französischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart, 3–62. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Bothorel-Witz, Arlette & Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger. 2012. Les représentations du plurilinguisme et de la gestion de la diversité linguistique dans les entreprises: Les imbrications entre une monophonie collective et la polyphonie des énonciateurs singuliers. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée 95. 57–73.
Bothorel-Witz, Arlette & Thiresia Choremi. 2009. Le plurilinguisme dans les entreprises à vocation internationale: Comment saisir ce phénomène pluridimensionnel à travers le discours des acteurs? Sociolinguistica 23. 104–130.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1982. Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard.
Boyer, Henri. 1997. Conflit d’usages, conflit d’images. In Henri Boyer (ed.), Plurilinguisme: « Contact » ou « conflit » de langues?, 9–35. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Boyer, Henri. 2008. Langue et identité. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Boyer, Henri. 2010. Les politiques linguistiques. Mots 94(3). 67–74.
Brannen, Mary Yoko. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review 29(4). 593–616.
Brannen, Mary Yoko, Rebecca Piekkari & Susanne Tietze. 2014. The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5). 495–507.
Burckhardt, Till. 2014. Translation policy and federal governance: A Swiss-Canadian comparison. ÉLF Working Papers / Cahiers de Recherche ÉLF 16. Geneva: Université de Genève, Observatoire ÉLF. http://www.unige.ch/traduction-interpretation/recherches/groupes/elf/documents/elfwp16.pdf (accessed 9 July 2015).
Bürkli, Beatrice. 1999. Sprachvariation in einem Großbetrieb: Eine individuenzentrierte Analyse anhand sprachlicher Tagesläufe (Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 73). Tübingen & Basel: Francke.
Busch, Brigitta. 2012. The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5). 503‒532.
Charles, Mirjaliisa. 2002. Corporate policy and local realities in communication. In Eva Lambertsson Björk (ed.), Life-long learning in business and industry: Information and communication technology (ICT), 91–108. Halden: Høgskolen i Østfold.
Chidlow, Agnieszka, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki & Catherine Welch. 2014. Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5). 562–582.
Cichon, Peter. 2012. Le plurilinguisme: Ses représentations populaires et leur impact sur la politique linguistique. In Peter Cichon, Sabine Ehrhart & Martin Stegu (eds.), Les politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en domaine francophone (Synergies PG 5), 11–20. Berlin: Avinus.
Claes, Marie-Therese, Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger & Henriett Primecz. 2012. Gender and diversity across cultures. In Mary Ann Danowitz, Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger & Heike Mensi-Klarbach (eds.), Diversity in organizations. 93–108. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Clegg, Stewart R. 1987. The language of power and the power of language. Organization Studies 8(1). 61–70.
Collin, Paul-Marc, Eric Thivant, Bruno Moriset & Olivier Brette. 2011. Spécificité des PME de services supérieurs françaises à l’international: Le rôle des technologies de l’information et de la communication. EconPapers. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/haljournl/hal-00671899.htm(accessed 9 July 2015).
Coulmas, Florian. 1996. Language contact in multinational organizations. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1, 858–864. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Coulmas, Florian. 2005. Economic aspects of languages – Ökonomische Aspekte von Sprachen. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International handbook of the science of language and society. Vol. 3.2, 1667–1674. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Currivand, Thierry & Claude Truchot. 2010. Du traitement des langues aux politiques linguistiques dans l’entreprise. Le journal de l’école de Paris du management 81. 17–24. http://www.cairn.info/revue-le-journal-de-l-ecole-de-paris-du-management-2010-1-p-17.htm (accessed 22 July 2015).
Deetz, Stanley. 2001. Conceptual foundations. In Fredric M. Jablin & Linda L. Putnam (eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods, 3–46. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Duchêne, Alexandre. 2008. Ideologies across nations: The construction of linguistic minorities at the United Nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Duchêne, Alexandre. 2011. Néolibéralisme, inégalités sociales et plurilinguisme: L’exploitation des ressources langagières et des locuteurs. Langage et société 136(2). 81–108.
Duchêne, Alexandre & Monica Heller. 2012. Language policy and the workplace. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 323–335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duchêne, Alexandre, Melissa Moyer & Celia Roberts. 2013. Introduction: Recasting institutions and work in multilingual and transnational spaces. In Alexandre Duchêne, Melissa Moyer & Celia Roberts (eds), Language, migration and social (in)equalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work, 1–21. New York: Multilingual Matters.
Duchêne, Alexandre & Ingrid Piller. 2011. Mehrsprachigkeit als Wirtschaftsgut: Sprachliche Ideologien und Praktiken in der Tourismusindustrie. In Georg Kreis (ed.), Babylon Europa: Zur europäischen Sprachlandschaft, 135–157. Basel: Schwabe.
Dupré, Jean-François. 2013. In search of linguistic identities in Taiwan: An empirical study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(5). 431–444.
DYLAN. 2006. DYLAN: Language dynamics and management of diversity. http://www.dylan-project.org/Dylan_en/home/home.php (accessed 4 July 2015).
Ehrhart, Sabine. 2012. Une nouvelle vision de recherche pour les politiques linguistiques francophones. In Peter Cichon, Sabine Ehrhart & Martin Stegu (eds.), Les politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en domaine francophone (Synergies PG 5), 21–30. Berlin: Avinus.
European Commission. 2006. ELAN: Effects on the European economy of shortages of foreign language skills in enterprise. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/elan_en.pdf (accessed 4 July 2015).
European Commission. 2011. Report on language management strategies and best practice in European SMEs: The PIMLICO project. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/pimlico-full-report_en.pdf (accessed 4 July 2015).
Feely, Alan J. & Anne-Wil Harzing. 2003. Language management in multinational companies. Cross Cultural Management 10(2). 37–52.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15. 325–340.
Feurle, Carina. 2009. Huppenkothen GmbH & Co. KG: Erfolg macht selbstbewusst. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 147–160. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 13(2). 29–38.
Flynn, Francis J. 2005. Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review 30(4). 737–750.
Fombrun, Charles J., Noel Tichy & Mary Anne Devanna (eds.). 1984. Strategic human resource management. New York: Wiley.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1971. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
Franceschini, Rita. 2010. Mehrsprachigkeit: Forschungsperspektiven. In Cornelia Hülmbauer, Eva Vetter & Heike Böhringer (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit aus der Perspektive zweier EU-Projekte, 17–39. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Garcia, Núria. 2014. The paradox of contemporary linguistic nationalism: The case of Luxembourg. Nations & Nationalism 20(1). 113–132.
Garcia, Núria. 2015. Tensions between cultural and utilitarian dimensions of language: A comparative analysis of ‘multilingual’ education policies in France and Germany. Current Issues In Language Planning 16(1/2). 43–59.
Garstenauer, Therese. 2017. Preodolenie iazykovykh bar’erov. Ispol’zovanie inostrannykh iazykov i iazykovoi menedzhment v kompaniiakh v Rossii. In Tat’jana Milekhina & Renate Ratmajr (eds.), Korporativnaia Kommunikatsiia v Rossii: Diskursivnyi analiz. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur.
Gazzola, Michele. 2014. The evaluation of language regimes: Theory and application to multilingual patent organisations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gazzola, Michele. 2015. Identifying and mitigating linguistic inequalities in the management of patent information in Europe. World Patent Information 40. 43–50.
Gazzola, Michele & Alessia Volpe. 2014. Linguistic justice in IP policies: Evaluating the fairness of the language regime of the European Patent Office. European Journal of Law and Economics 38(1). 47–70.
Graber, Sarah. 2009. Adaptationsstrategie auch bei Verkäufermärkten? In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 191–204. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Grin, François. 1994. The economics of language: Match or mismatch? International Political Science Review 15(1). 25–42.
Grin, François. 1996a. Economic approaches to language and language planning: An introduction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121. 1–16.
Grin, François. 1996b. The economics of language: Survey, assessment, and prospects. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121. 17–44.
Grin, François. 2003. Language planning and economics. Current Issues in Language Planning 4(1). 1–66.
Grin, François. 2005. Économie et langue: De quelques équivoques, croisements et convergences. Sociolinguistica 19. 1–12.
Grin, François. 2010. Translation and the dynamics of multilingualism. ÉLF Working Papers 3. Geneva: Université de Genève, Observatoire ÉLF. http://www.unige.ch/traduction-interpretation/recherches/groupes/elf/documents/elfwp3.pdf (accessed 9 July 2015).
Grin, François, Claudio Sfreddo & François Vaillancourt. (eds.). 2010. The economics of the multilingual workplace. New York: Routledge.
Grosjean, Sylvie. 2012. Où en sommes-nous avec le “tournant linguistique”? Sur les traces d’une rupture paradigmatique. Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels 18(46). 77–94.
Hanappi-Egger, Edeltraud. 2006. Gender and diversity from a management perspective: Synonyms or complements? Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 3(2). 121–134.
Handle, Fabienne. 2009. Tiroler Sparkasse – Hilfe, die Italiener kommen! In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 69–78. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Harder, Kathrin. 2009. Multilingualism in professional contexts: A study on aspects of language planning in internationally active companies. In Eva Lavric, Fiorenza Fischer, Carmen Konzett, Julia Kuhn & Holger Wochele (eds.), People, products, and professions: Choosing a name, choosing a language. Fachleute, Firmennamen und Fremdsprachen, 97–109. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Harzing, Anne-Wil & Markus Pudelko. 2013. Language competencies, policies and practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic MNCs. Journal of World Business 48(1). 87–97.
Harzing, Anne-Wil & Markus Pudelko. 2014. Hablas vielleicht un peu la mia language? A comprehensive overview of the role of language differences in headquarters–subsidiary communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management 25(5). 696–717.
Heis, Cornelia. 2009. Der Gast ist König: Sprachliches Entgegenkommen als oberstes Gebot im Tourismus. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 59–68. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Heller, Monica. 2003. Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4). 473–492.
Heller, Monica & Josiane Boutet. 2006. Vers de nouvelles formes de pouvoir langagier? Langue(s) et identité dans la nouvelle économie. Langage et société 118(4). 5–16.
Henderson, Jane Kassis. 2005. Language diversity in international management teams. International Studies of Management & Organization 35(1). 66–82.
Hinds, Pamela J., Tsedal B. Neeley & Catherine Durnell Cramton. 2014. Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5). 536–561.
Hudson, Alan. 2002. Diglossia, bilingualism, and history: Postscript to a theoretical discussion. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157. 151–165.
Iacovino, Raffaele & Rémi Léger. 2013. Francophone minority communities and immigrant integration in Canada: Rethinking the normative foundations. Canadian Ethnic Studies 45(1/2). 95–114.
Ishii, Kumi. 2012. Dual organizational identification among Japanese expatriates: The role of communication in cultivating subsidiary identification and outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(6). 1113–1128.
Janssens, Maddy & Chris Steyaert. 2014. Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding: Toward a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5). 623–639.
Janssens, Maddy, José Lambert & Chris Steyaert. 2004. Developing language strategies for international companies: The contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business 39(4). 414–430.
Jernudd, Björn H. 1983. Evaluation of language planning – What has the last decade accomplished? In Juan Cobarrubias & Joshua A. Fishman (eds), Progress in language planning: International perspectives, 345–378. Berlin: Mouton.
Jernudd, Björn. 2009. Epilogue: An apology for Language Management Theory. In Jiří Nekvapil & Tamah Sherman (eds.), Language management in contact situations: Perspectives from three continents, 245–252. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Jernudd, Björn & Jiří Nekvapil. 2012. History of the field: A sketch. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 16–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klammer, Maria. 2009. Die interne und externe Kommunikation in einer Speditionsfirma. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 205–216. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Krappmann, Lothar. 2004. Identität. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. Vol. 3.1, 405–412. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kremnitz, Georg. 1994. Gesellschaftliche Mehrsprachigkeit: Institutionelle, gesellschaftliche und individuelle Aspekte. Ein einführender Überblick. Wien: Braumüller.
Kremnitz, Georg. 1995. Dimensionen und Dynamik kollektiver Identitäten: Beispiele aus dem okzitanischen und katalanischen Sprachgebiet. Sociolinguistica 9(1). 67–87.
Kremnitz, Georg. 2004. Diglossie – Polyglossie. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. Vol. 3.1, 158–165. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kymlicka, Will & Alan Patten. 2003. Language rights and political theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23. 3–21.
Laitin, David D. 1988. Language games. Comparative Politics 20(3). 289–302.
Laitin, David D. 1994. The Tower of Babel as a coordination game: Political linguistics in Ghana. The American Political Science Review 88(3). 622–634.
Laponce, Jean A. 1984. The French language in Canada: Tensions between geography and politics. Political Geography Quarterly 3(2). 91–104.
Laponce, Jean. 2012. Language and sovereignty referendums: The convergence effect. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18(1). 113–128.
Lauring, Jakob & Jan Selmer. 2012. Positive dissimilarity attitudes in multicultural organizations. The role of language diversity and communication frequency. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 17(2). 156–172.
Lavric, Eva. 2000. Zur Ökologie der Sprachwahl an einem Sprachinstitut. In Bernhard Kettemann & Hermine Penz (eds.), ECOnstructing language, nature and society: The ecolinguistic project revisited, 145–171. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Lavric, Eva. 2001. Qui parle quelle langue avec qui? Sociogramme linguistique d’un institut de langues. In Sara Cigada, Silvia Gilardoni & Marinette Matthey (eds.), Comunicare in ambiente professionale plurilingue, 195–216. Lugano: USI.
Lavric, Eva. 2008a. Fifteen theses about business language choices: Plurilingual strategies of companies and of individuals within companies. Fachsprache 30(3-4). 156–169.
Lavric, Eva. 2008b. Über „English only“ hinaus: Sprachen in Unternehmen im Licht qualitativer Fallstudien. In Sabine Tritscher-Archan (ed.), Fremdsprachen für die Wirtschaft: Analysen, Zahlen, Fakten, 191–215. Wien: ibw.
Lavric, Eva. 2008c. Code choice in der internen und externen Unternehmenskommunikation. In Florian Menz & Andreas P. Müller (eds.), Organisationskommunikation: Grundlagen und Analysen der sprachlichen Inszenierung von Organisation, 243–268. München & Mering: Rainer Hampp.
Lavric, Eva (ed.). 2009a. Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Lavric, Eva. 2009b. Tiroler Variationen zum Thema der Sprachwahl in der Unternehmenskommunikation. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 9–24. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Lavric, Eva. 2009c. Code choice / Code switching in professional contexts: FL departments, business, FL classrooms. In Eva Lavric, Fiorenza Fischer, Carmen Konzett, Julia Kuhn & Holger Wochele (eds.), People, products and professions: Choosing a name, choosing a language. Fachleute, Firmennamen und Fremdsprachen, 137–154. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Lavric, Eva. 2012a. Politiques conscientes et “bricolage” linguistique dans les entreprises et dans les équipes de football. In Peter Cichon, Sabine Ehrhart & Martin Stegu (eds.), Les politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en domaine francophone (Synergies PG 5), 165–186. Berlin: Avinus.
Lavric, Eva. 2012b. Unternehmenskommunikation. In Joachim Born, Robert Folger, Christopher F. Laferl & Bernhard Pöll (eds.), Handbuch Spanisch: Sprache, Literatur, Kultur, Geschichte in Spanien und Hispanoamerika. Für Studium, Lehre, Praxis, 391–397. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Lawrence, Thomas B. & Roy Suddaby. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B. Lawrence & Walter R. Nord (eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies, 215–254. London: Sage.
Lechner, Claudia. 2010. Vouloir c’est pouvoir – Les choix linguistiques et les stratégies linguistiques dans une PME autrichienne. Master’s thesis, Universität Innsbruck.
Leeb, Liana. 2007. Ein Unternehmen – Viele Sprachen: Fremdsprachenbedarf in der Post-Merger-Phase einer internationalen Bankfusion am Beispiel der Unicredit und BA-CA. Master’s thesis, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Lesk, Susanne. 2014. Institutional work of regional language movements: Options for intervention at the regional level taken Brittany as an example. JournaLIPP 3. 101–123. http://www.lipp.unimuenchen.de/publikationen/journalipp/index.html (accessed 5 July 2015).
Lesk, Susanne. 2016. Implizite Sprachenpolitik in Organisationen aus personalwirtschaftlicher Perspektive: Ein Beitrag zur systematischen Gestaltung von sprachlichen Fördermaßnahmen (am Beispiel von Zertifizierungen in mehrsprachigen Regionen Frankreichs und der Schweiz). In Antje Lobin & Holger Wochele (eds.), Das Französische im wirtschaftlichen Kontext, 99–119. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried-Egert-Verlag.
Libert, Chantal & Danièle Flament-Boistrancourt. 2006. Formations en langues en entreprise à grande échelle: Une réponse de type industriel. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 11(1). 85–102.
Liu, Amy H. 2015. Standardizing diversity: The political economy of language regimes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Loretz, Rosa-Maria. 2009. Johann Ischia & Co Im- und Export GmbH & Co. KG: Die Eroberung Spaniens im Alleingang durch den Chef. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 231–244. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Lüdi, Georges. 2012. Le français comme objet de la gestion des langues dans des entreprises suisses: Un champ de tension entre la philosophie de l’entreprise, la doxa des acteurs et les pratiques. In Peter Cichon, Sabine Ehrhart & Martin Stegu (eds.), Les politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en domaine francophone (Synergies PG 5), 147–163. Berlin: Avinus.
Lüdi, Georges, Lukas A. Barth, Katharina Höchle, & Patchareerat Yanaprasart. 2009. La gestion du plurilinguisme au travail entre la ‘philosophie’ de l’entreprise et les pratiques spontanées. Sociolinguistica 23. 32–52.
Luo, Yadong & Oded Shenkar. 2006. The multinational corporation as a multilingual community: Language and organization in a global context. Journal of International Business Studies 37(3). 321–339.
Marschak, Jakob. 1965. Economics of language. Behavioral Science 10. 135–140.
Marschan, Rebecca, Denice Welch & Lawrence Welch. 1997. Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management. European Management Journal 15(5). 591–598.
Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca, Denice Welch & Lawrence Welch. 1999. Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications. International Journal of Human Resource Management 10(3). 377–390.
Mäser, Stefanie. 2009. Gebrüder Weiss – Die orange Welt. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 217–230. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
McAll, Christopher, Carl Teixeira, Catherine Montgomery & Louise Tremblay. 2001. Plurilinguisme et nouvelles technologies dans l’industrie aérospatiale à Montréal. In Sophie Pène, Anni Borzeix & Béatrice Fraenkel (eds.), Le langage dans les organisations: Une nouvelle donne, 149–158. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Menz, Florian & Heinz K. Stahl. 2008. Handbuch Stakeholderkommunikation: Grundlagen – Sprache – Praxisbeispiele. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Meyer, Bernd, Kristin Bührig, Ortrun Kliche & Birte Pawlak. 2010. Nurses as interpreters? Aspects of interpreter training for bilingual medical employees. In Bernd Meyer & Birgit Apfelbaum (eds.), Multilingualism at work: From policies to practices in public, medical and business setting, 163–184. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Millar, Sharon, Sylvie Cifuentes & Astrid Jensen. 2012. The perception of language needs in Danish companies: Representations and repercussions. Bulletin VALS-ASLA 95. 75–96.
Minkkinen, Eila & Ewald Reuter. 2001. Suomalais-Saksalainen yritysviestintä pirkanmaalla. Väliraportti / Finnisch-Deutsche Unternehmenskommunikation in der Region Pirkanmaa. Zwischenbericht. Tampere: Germanistisches Institut der Universität.
Mrázová, Žofia. 2005. Le choix des langues dans une équipe de vente multinationale en France: Communication externe avec les clients, et interne au sein de l’entreprise. Master’s thesis, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Mrázová, Žofia. 2009. Sprachenpolitik und Sprachgebrauch in der internen und externen Kommunikation eines internationalen Unternehmens in Frankreich. In Eva Lavric, Fiorenza Fischer, Carmen Konzett, Julia Kuhn & Holger Wochele (eds.), People, products, and professions: Choosing a name, choosing a language. Fachleute, Firmennamen und Fremdsprachen, 75–81. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Musson, Gill & Susanne Tietze. 2004. Places and spaces: The role of metonymy in organizational talk. Journal of Management Studies 41(8). 1301–1323.
Musson, Gill, Laurie Cohen & Susanne Tietze. 2007. Pedagogy and the “linguistic turn”: Developing understanding through semiotics. Management Learning 38(1). 45–60.
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1983. The negotiation of identities in conversation: A theory of markedness and code choice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 44. 115–136.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1990. Codeswitching and borrowing: Interpersonal and macrolevel meaning. In Rodolfo Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching as a worldwide phenomenon, 85–110. New York: Peter Lang.
Neeley, Tsedal B. 2013. Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science 24(2). 476–497.
Nekula, Marek, Christoph Marx & Kateřina Šichová. 2009. Sprachsituation in Unternehmen mit ausländischer Beteiligung in der Tschechischen Republik. Sociolinguistica 23. 53–85.
Nekvapil, Jiří. 2009. Prologue: The integrative potential of Language Management Theory. In Jiří Nekvapil & Tamah Sherman (eds.), Language management in contact situations: Perspectives from three continents, 1–11. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Nekvapil, Jiří & Marek Nekula. 2006. On language management in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2-3). 307–327.
Nekvapil, Jiří & Tamah Sherman. 2015. An introduction: Language Management Theory in language policy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 232. 1–12.
Neustupný, Jiří Václav & Jiří Nekvapil. 2003. Language management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 4(3-4). 181–366.
Patten, Alan. 2001. Political theory and language policy. Political Theory 29(5). 691–715.
Patten, Alan. 2009. Survey article: The justification of minority language rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 17(1). 102–128.
Peltokorpi, Vesa & Eero Vaara. 2012. Language policies and practices in wholly owned foreign subsidiaries: A recontextualization perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 43(9). 808–833.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Petzold, Hilarion G. 2012. Transversale Identität und Identitätsarbeit. In Hilarion G. Petzold (ed.), Identität: Ein Kernthema moderner Psychotherapie – Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, 407–603. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Piekkari, Rebecca & Susanne Tietze. 2012. Language and international human resource management. In Günter K. Stahl, Ingmar Björkman & Shad S. Morris (eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management, 549–565. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Piekkari, Rebecca, Denice E. Welch & Lawrence S. Welch. 2014. Language in international business: The multilingual reality of global business expansion. Glos: Edward Elgar.
Piekkari, Rebecca, Eero Vaara, Janne Tienari & Risto Säntti. 2005. Integration or disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(3). 330–344.
Piller, Ingrid & Kimie Takahashi. 2013. Language work aboad the low-cost airline. In Alexandre Duchêne, Melissa Moyer & Celia Roberts (eds), Language, migration and social (in)equalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work, 95–117. New York: Multilingual Matters.
Pohjanen-Bernardi, Kristiina & Katriina Talja. 2011. Language strategies of small and medium-sized enterprises. Master’s thesis, Aalto University School of Economics. http://epub.lib.aalto.fi/fi/ethesis/pdf/12530/hse_ethesis_12530.pdf (accessed 9 July 2015).
Poncini, Gina. 2003. Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English. Journal of Intercultural Studies 24(1). 17–32.
Pool, Jonathan. 1979. Language planning and identity planning. Journal of the Sociology of Language 20. 5–21.
Pool, Jonathan. 1991. The official language problem. The American Political Science Review 85(2). 495–514.
Puck, Jonas F., Markus G. Kittler & Christopher Wright. 2008. Does it really work? Re-assessing the impact of pre-departure cross-cultural training on expatriate adjustment. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19(12). 2182–2197.
Réaume, Denise & Meital Pinto. 2012. Philosophy of language policy. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 37–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reichl, Christine. 2009. Innsbruck Information – Kompetenz durch Sprachenvielfalt. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 39–58. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Reuter, Ewald. (ed.). 2003. Internationale Wirtschaftskommunikation auf Deutsch: Die deutsche Sprache im Handel zwischen den nordischen und den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Frankfurt/ M.: Peter Lang.
Safran, William. 1999. Politics and language in contemporary France: Facing supranational and infranational challenges. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137. 39–66.
Safran, William. 2004. Introduction: The political aspects of language. Nationalism & Ethnic Politics 10(1). 1–14.
Schmidt, Angelika. 2013. Organisationales Commitment und Beschäftigungsverhältnisse: Eine Operationalisierung unter dem Aspekt sich verändernder Beschäftigungsverhältnisse. Frankfurt/ M.: Peter Lang.
Schneiberg, Marc & Michael Lounsbury. 2008. Social movements and institutional analysis. In Royston Grennwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin & Roy Suddaby (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of organizational institutionalism, 650–672. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Schweiger, Theresia. 2009. Sprachwahl in grenznahen Klein- und Mittelunternehmen: Untersuchung zum Bedarf an Tschechisch- und Slowakischkenntnissen im Weinviertel. In Eva Lavric, Fiorenza Fischer, Carmen Konzett, Julia Kuhn & Holger Wochele (eds.), People, products, and professions: Choosing a name, choosing a language. Fachleute, Firmennamen und Fremdsprachen, 83–96. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Sonntag, Selma K. 1996a. Multilingualism and politics. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1, 399–405. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Sonntag, Selma K. 1996b. Political science and contact linguistics. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1, 75–81. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Sonntag, Selma K. 2005a. Appropriating identity or cultivating capital? Global English in offshoring service industries. Anthropology of Work Review 26. 13–20.
Sonntag, Selma K. 2005b. Ideology and policy in the politics of the English language in North India. In Thomas Ricento (ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English, 133–149. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sonntag, Selma K. 2009. Linguistic globalization and the call center industry: Imperialism, hegemony or cosmopolitanism?. Language Policy 8(1). 5–25.
Sonntag, Selma K. 2010. La diversité linguistique et la mondialisation: Les limites des théories libérales. Politique et Sociétés 29(1). 15–43.
Sonntag, Selma K. & Linda Cardinal. 2015. Introduction: State traditions and language regimes: Conceptualizing language policy choices. In Linda Cardinal & Selma K. Sonntag (eds.), State traditions and linguistic regimes, 3–26. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2009. Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2012. What is language policy?. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stegu, Martin. 2009. Code switching awareness – Ein Sonderfall von Sprachbewusstheit. In Eva Lavric, Fiorenza Fischer, Carmen Konzett, Julia Kuhn & Holger Wochele (eds.), People, products and professions: Choosing a name, choosing a language. Fachleute, Firmennamen und Fremdsprachen, 157–167. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Stegu, Martin. 2012a. Les politiques linguistiques entre linguistique appliquée et linguistique populaire. In Peter Cichon, Sabine Ehrhart & Martin Stegu (eds.), Les politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en domaine francophone (Synergies PG 5), 31–36. Berlin: Avinus.
Stegu, Martin. 2012b. Sprachenpolitik aus der Sicht von folk linguistics und language awareness: Allgemeine Zusammenhänge und besondere Überlegungen zur Mehrsprachigkeitsbewusstheit von Wirtschaftsstudierenden. In Peter Cichon & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Eine Welt? Sprachen, Schule und Politik in Europa und anderen Kontinenten, 157–180. Wien: Präsens.
Steiner, Barbara. 2009. Arbeitssprache zu 95 % Italienisch: Sprachwahl in dem traditionellen Tiroler Unternehmen Binder Holz. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 101–116. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Steiner, Jasmin. 2014. “Iñaki, du musch ummi laufen!” – Empirische Analyse von Mehrsprachigkeit und Kommunikationsstrategien in einer Fußballmannschaft. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Innsbruck.
Stiebellehner, Julia. 2009. Englisch stillt den Durst: Fremdsprachenpolitik des erfolgreichen Osttiroler Fototechnik-Unternehmens. In Eva Lavric (ed.), Sprachwahl in Unternehmen: Tiroler Fallstudien. Ergebnisse eines Projektseminars an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 177–190. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Stingeder, Anja. 2015. Tourisme et plurilinguisme en Alsace: Paysage et besoins linguistiques à Strasbourg et sur la Route des vins. Master’s thesis, Universität Innsbruck.
Takagi, Junko. 2011. Multicultural identities and culture work. In Stefan Gröschl (ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Multi-disciplinary and international perspectives, 79–88. Farnham: Gower.
Tietze, Susanne & Dick Penny. 2013. The victorious English language: Hegemonic practices in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry 22(1). 122–134.
Tietze, Susanne. 2010. International managers as translators. European Journal of International Management 4(1/2). 184–199.