Language standardization in sociolinguistics and international business: Theory and practice across the table

Abstract

This chapter addresses the issue of language standardization from two perspectives, bringing together a theoretical perspective offered by the discipline of sociolinguistics with a practical example from international business. We introduce the broad concept of standardization and embed the study of language standardization in the wider discussion of standards as a means of control across society. We analyze the language policy and practice of the Danish multinational, Grundfos, and use it as a "sociolinguistic laboratory" to "test" the theory of language standardization initially elaborated by Einar Haugen to explain the history of modern Norwegian. The table is then turned and a model from international business by Piekkari, Welch and Welch is used to illuminate recent Norwegian language planning. It is found that the Grundfos case works well with the Haugen model, and the international business model provides a valuable practical lesson for national language planners, both showing that a "comparative standardology" is a valuable undertaking. More voices "at the table" will allow both theory and practice to be further refined and for the role of standards across society to be better understood.

‘If you use the right Arabic…’: Responses to special language standardization within the BBC Arabic Service’s linguascape

“…In shedding light on the multiple and interdependent levels of influence on professionals' responses to special language standardization, our study contributes to both language-sensitive IB and sociolinguistics research. Firstly, the research enriches language-sensitive IB literature addressing responses to corporate language standardization (Gaibrois & Steyaert, 2017;Heikkilä & Smale, 2011;Linn, Sanden & Piekkari, 2018), in particular in the case of a special language (Tietze et al, 2016). It supports the contention that responses to standardization are embedded within cultural and national contexts (Zander et al, 2011), and that they are affected by a range of issues at the individual, organizational and national level (Bordia & Bordia, 2015;Pudelko & Tenzer, 2019).…”

“…Standardized language has also been advocated as a means to secure market entry, control and access to untranslatable cultural knowledge (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). Using English language as the corporate language, moreover, has been considered as potentially supportive of the creation of an international brand (Linn et al, 2018). However, as with other attempts to implement corporate language strategies (Linn, 2010;Marschan et al, 1997), language standardization is considered to potentially lead to conflict, emerging in micro-level interactions between decision-makers and subordinates, and reflective of larger scale cultural distances, institutional orders, and socio-political and ideological stances (Angouri & Piekkari, 2018;Decock et al, 2018;Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017;Wilmot, 2017).…”

“…Scholars have also argued that to fulfil their strategic goals in language standardization processes, multinational and multilingual organizations are challenged to address language differences, exclusions and power imbalances (Fiset & Bhave, 2019;Gaibrois & Steyaert, 2017;Linn, Sanden & Piekkari, 2018;Tenzer, Pudelko & Harzing, 2014). In particular, researchers investigating responses to the introduction of corporate language strategies have shed light on the emergence of conflict and resistance (Bordia & Bordia, 2015;Marschan, Welch & Welch, 1997).…”

“…Previous studies have primarily focused on tensions and competition between the espoused corporate language, predominantly -albeit not exclusively -English, and subsidiaries' local languages (e.g. Heikkilä & Smale, 2011;Linn et al, 2018;Sanden & Lønsmann, 2018). To date, however, little is known about how professionals respond to attempts to standardize the special language of their practice.…”

Domain loss theory revisited: From multinational corporations to multicorporate nations

“…The work of Piekkari (previously Marschan/Marschan‐Piekkari), Welch and Welch (Marschan, Welch, & Welch, 1997; Marschan‐Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999a,b), as well as Feely and Harzing (2003) and Harzing and Feely (2008) among others, has significantly contributed to enhanced awareness about the ways in which language and linguistic diversity affect organisations from a business perspective. Much of the literature on corporate language management focuses on the role of English as a common corporate language (see e.g., Thomas, 2008; Tietze, 2010), where one may draw a parallel to the concept of language standardisation previously carried out in nations, as a way of minimising linguistic diversity by implementing one language as the standard language of a multilingual society (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011; Linn, Sanden, & Piekkari, 2018). In the international business and management literature, Louhiala‐Salminen, Charles, and Kankaanranta (2005), Marschan‐Piekkari et al (1999a), Millar and Jensen (2009), Piekkari, Welch, and Welch (2014: 209), and Thomas (2008: 310) observe that a common corporate language may provide certain benefits for the firm in the sense that it facilitates formal reporting, and eases access to professional and technical literature, and policy and procedure documents.…”