See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230817884

Culture as communication: A theory of perception and dissonance in

intercultural interaction

Conference Paper · January 2010

DOI: 10.1145/1841853.1841867

CITATIONS READS
4 1,043

1 author:

Olivier Irrmann
JUNIA (previously Yncréa) - engineering school at the Catholic University of Lille
23 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A new research method based on learning expeditions: OWEE View project

OWEE narrations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olivier Irrmann on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Culture as Communication:
A Theory of Perception and Dissonance in Intercultural
Interaction
Olivier Irrmann
Aalto University- SimLab
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
PO Box 19220 – FI-00076 Aalto
Espoo, Finland
+358-50-384 1606
olivier.irrmann@tkk.fi
ABSTRACT
We posit that cultural interactions are composed primarily
of communication and interpretation of communicative
events. A model of communication dissonance is
introduced, putting perceptions and communication
processes at centre stage. We analyze how the attempts by
one side of an intercultural encounter to communicate
content and relations can be culturally interpreted by the
other side, what consequences these interpretations can
have and the subsequent resistance or cooperation dynamics
they could trigger. We argue that looking at communication
dissonance could be more fruitful for intercultural business
process research than the notion of cultural differences.
Author Keywords
Communication, Processes, Cross-Cultural Management,
Dissonance, Pragmatics, Language
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces, Computer-
supported cooperative work, Theory and Models ;
H.4.3 Communications Applications
General Terms
Human Factors, Management, Theory, Languages
CULTURE AS COMMUNICATION: SHIFTING TO THE
STUDY OF CULTURAL INTERACTIONS
A great deal of effort has been dedicated to the description
and codification of nationally determined business systems,
cultures, and management styles. However, these rich
comparisons of management systems and models tend to
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee.
ICIC’10, August 19–20, 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-4503-0108-4/10/08...$10.00.
87
consistently overlook an important factor: the interaction
between individuals. The real important issue may not be
the existence of differences per-se, but rather the way these
behavioural differences are perceived and interpreted by
members of other managerial/organizational/national
cultures, and particularly how the interactions - the
“contact” across these cultures – are socially constructed
and managed.
Our starting point is to consider cultural interaction as
composed primarily of communication and interpretation of
communicative events. Management and organizational
scholars have many conceptualization of culture, but they
tend to agree that culture consists of patterns of meaning
underlying a variety of manifestations . It is the
interpretations of these manifestations and the resulting
meanings given by members of a collective that forms the
focus of most research on cultures in organizations. We
consider communication as one of this manifestation, and
the interpretation of communicative events as a central
activity in intercultural interaction in organizations.
Language and communication have always been considered
as playing an important role in organizational life and in the
practice of management (Mintzberg, 1973, 1975;
Orlikowski, and Yates, 1994; Fiol, 1995, 2002; Yates, and
Orlikowski, 2002; Kappos, and Rivard, 2008) but have
remained in the shadow of management research, and
surprisingly so in international management research. The
international dimension is an important one, as scholars in
communication have stressed the challenges of
communication across cultures for a considerable period of
time (Gudykunst, et al., 1985; Scollon, and Scollon, 1995).
Problems stem from situations where participants in a
conversation hold different assumptions and misinterpret
each others’ actions or messages due to a lack of common
language or concepts, or due to differing world images, or
because of membership in different groups (Scollon, and
Scollon, 1995: 73). What matters is not only what is said,
but also how it is said. This “how” often obeys rules that
are culturally relative and people at the workplace will
enact or express their cultural expectations about what is an
appropriate communicative or negotiation behavior
(Gumperz, John .J., 1982; Holmes, 1992).
In this paper we look specifically at how communicative
events are interpreted and result in the perception of
cultural differences, allowing or impeding processes of
collaboration within firms. We focus on the managerial
symbolic interaction, centered on the way individuals
interpret the actions and intentions of their counterparts. We
therefore part from the vision of culture as unified system
of values and rather concentrate on culture as interaction.
Rather than considering cultural dimension scores being the
main explanation behind “cultural clashes”, we take an
interpretativist and dialectical stance on the topic and look
at "communication clashes" as the real marker of perceived
cultural differences.
COMMUNICATION DISSONANCE AND PRAGMATIC
FAILURE
Communication dissonance could be defined as the general
feeling that something in the interaction between
individuals does not quite correspond with one’s
expectations, creating ambiguity and stress. Ambiguous
interpretations of new procedures, perception of a breach in
the logic behind integration initiatives, feelings of
frustration while trying to convince the other party, are all
constitutive of communication dissonance. Such dissonance
can stem from any kind of differences on any identified
dimension: organizational or national culture,
communication styles, work-related values, social
background, occupational culture, age, gender, discourse
system. The important thing in our analysis is that this
dissonance is “perceived” and constructed in the successive
interactions between individuals.
During interactions the different parties will act and
communicate according to their respective cultural
expectations. Trying to convey content and intent, they may
face misunderstandings that will hamper their ability to
negotiate cooperation and exchange of knowledge. Lack of
knowledge about the prerequisites of the meeting, about
facts and conversational norms related to social, cultural
and business backgrounds lead to pragmatic failures, an
inability to understand "what is meant by what is said"
(Thomas, 1983).
The grammar of language includes rules of phonology,
which describe how to put sounds together to form words;
rules of syntax, which describe how to put words together
to form sentences; rules of semantics, which describe how
to interpret the meaning of words and sentences; and rules
of pragmatics, which describe how to participate in a
conversation, how to sequence sentences and how to
anticipate the information needed by an interlocutor
(Pragmatic, in Oxford English Dictionary). The
grammatical competence of a speaker is related to the
88
knowledge and mastery of the first three types of rules. The
pragmatic competence of a speaker refers to the ability to
use language effectively in context, in order to achieve a
specific purpose.
Pragmatic failures occur when the rules of pragmatics
followed by two interlocutors do not match and create
misunderstandings. In her seminal article on cross-cultural
pragmatic failure, Jenny Thomas (1983) distinguishes
between two types of pragmatic failure: a) pragmalinguistic
failure and b) sociopragmatic failure.
The pragmalinguistic dimension is related to the way the
language grammatically conveys a specific meanings (such
as asserting, promising, inquiring, ordering – what linguists
call the illocutionary force of a sentence) and politeness
values. Pragmalinguistic failures occur when the pragmatic
force intended by a speaker is different from that normally
assigned by the other speaker.
The sociopragmatic dimension relates to the speaker's
ability to make judgements about the socially appropriate
linguistic behaviour and knowing how, when, and why to
speak. Sociopragmatic failures happen when there are a
cross-cultural mismatches in the assessment of social
distance (using the proper way to address the other), of
what constitutes an imposition (topics one should not talk
about), of when an attempt at a "face threatening act"
should be abandoned, and in evaluating relative power,
rights, and obligations.
Every competent native speaker knows that there are times
when what is said cannot be taken at face value but must be
interpreted according to different ground rules. Speakers
doing grammatical errors show that they are less than
proficient language-user, and therefore their apparent
impoliteness or unfriendliness is likely to be attributed to
language deficiency. On the contrary someone speaking
fluently and committing a pragmatic failure will be seen as
a bad person showing ill-will or boorishness. This issue of
value judgments generated by pragmatic failures is
enhanced in a situation where both parties are non-native
speakers, as none of the party to the exchange can fully
assess the language competence of the other. Yet
negotiators are mainly not fully aware that their evaluation
of other's behavior is rooted in culturally-based "ways of
talking", and they generally conclude that their interlocutors
are “difficult", "awkward", or the like. This "dissonance"
(Mariott, 1995) often results in failure to reach common
understanding, particularly when misunderstandings are
linked to the affective or relational dimension of
interaction.
Pragmatic failures affect not only the outcome of the
negotiation but also the mutual evaluations of the
participants. The consequences can be serious during
intercultural interactions, where negative perceptions of the
other party can easily create resistance to change and
reduce cooperation. This dissonance is often interpreted in
terms of cultural conflicts or cultural clash.
In our model of Communication Dissonance we identify
two major groups of pragmatic failures that are the sources
of dissonance. The first one originates in the linguistic and
communication patterns of the locutors, akin to the
pragmalinguistic failure identified by Thomas (1983). The
second one comes from different perceptions of the
business context and the perception of management styles,
similar to the sociopragmatic failure category in Thomas
(1983).
One of the important tasks performed by organizational
actors is an attempt to convince the other party. For
instance, in the case of corporate acquisitions, staff and
managers of both acquired and acquirer companies will try
to discover the new channels and patterns of
communication and influence within the extended
organization. From the acquirer standpoint, the legitimacy
of ownership does not guarantee full access to the
knowledge embedded in the acquired organization, and
getting access necessitates identifying new ways of gaining
cooperation and compliance. It is during this identification
process that communication dissonances may generate
misunderstandings and open or latent conflicts, lack of
cooperation. Differences in “corporate cultures” are rooted
in, and may not be more than, differing rules of
communication (Schall, 1983;Gilsdorf, 1998).
LINGUISTIC PRAGMATIC FAILURES: ORIGINATING IN
THE LINGUISTIC AND COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
The category we label “linguistic pragmatic failure” can be
analyzed from three different sources, leading possibly to
misunderstandings and non-cooperative behaviors. The first
one is about the form of the discourse (how do I say and to
whom), the second one is in terms of content (what do I say
or do not say), and the last one is about the medium of
communication. Actors in intra-organizational negotiation
are rarely aware of these causal elements.
Discourse content and form
Considerable communicative dissonance can be triggered
by different ways to encode message content, such as
agreement, disagreement, and marks of interest. In
intercultural situations we could have conflicts between two
cultural modes of power display and divergences about the
scripts for taking decisions in a meeting. There is a
considerable variation in the level of incisiveness
considered as culturally acceptable in different
organizations and countries. Dissonance can also be
triggered by the message form, as patterns of argumentation
- the way arguments and evidence are presented, interpreted
and accepted – differ across cultures. Differing intellectual
styles may also give different priorities to the presentation
of facts, theoretical arguments and categorical statements
(Usunier, 1998). As a result a style favoring words and
discourse may be of little convincing power with partners
89
favoring a more modest and provisional approach. Research
on discourse also shows that, even if all words and
sentences of the speaker are clear, there is often confusion
about what the speaker's main point is (Scollon, and
Scollon, 1995: 1-3).
Research in communication shows that managers’
compliance-gaining strategies differ across cultures
(Sullivan, and Taylor, 1991). Some groups can apply a
strategy of reasoning - influencing by relying on
explanations to support requests, stating the objective
merits of their point of views, and being ready to accept
rebuttal grounded in logic. Others could use a strategy of
appeal to higher authority - influencing by relying on the
chain of command, using the higher levels in the
organization to back up requests, expecting undisputed
submission. The multi-country qualitative studies led by
D’Iribarne and his team (1989, 1998, 2002) showed how
these deeply-ingrained compliance-gaining “logics” form
an essential part of the managerial and cultural landscape of
global firms, and how it is essential to understand them for
the development of sound management systems and
processes.
Medium of Communication
Miscommunications can also emerge from different
perceptions of message medium, the channel used to
transmit information and communicate. Different actors
may afford different importance to the presentation and use
of written information, like a brochure in a sales meeting or
an internal newsletter for dissemination of information
within a company (Mariott, 1995). The choice of medium is
also representative of certain social practices. In non face-
to-face interactions the different media of telephone, letter
(Barsoux, and Lawrence, 1990:100), telefax (Louhiala-
Salminen, 1997), or electronic mail can be favored by some
groups for certain purposes with different rhetorical moves
to send request, confirmations, orders, complaints and
acknowledge status of the receiver.
Divergences about the appropriate medium to use may lead
to misinterpretations of the message. Every organization
has also a set of explicit and implicit organizational rules on
communicating (Gilsdorf, 1998). Employees need to
identify these rules and decide whether it is in their interest
to follow the rules or not, in other words to learn the
"ropes" of efficient communication within the organization
where they work. Information may be gathered or
communicated via formal channels (hierarchical lines,
official written material) or informal channels (direct and
transversal contacts with colleagues, grapevine
communication). These rules may profoundly differ in two
different organizations, whether based in the same or in
different countries. Corporate culture differences are
generally identified because of differing rules of internal
communication.
BUSINESS PRAGMATIC FAILURES ORIGINATING IN
THE BUSINESS CONTEXT AND THE PERCEPTION OF
MANAGEMENT STYLES.
For business pragmatic failures, we distinguish two broad
categories. The first one stems from divergent visions of the
appropriate business strategy to adopt and the economic
role of the acquired unit. The second one is about the
interpretation of decision-making processes and the social
construction of management styles.
Cross-cultural management is a term often used to describe
the non-language related aspects of coordinating
interactions of co-workers, managers, customers and
suppliers across borders (Adler, 1997). But management is
very much conversational in essence, and
miscommunications can also occur because the professional
contexts in which the partners evolve are different, creating
ambiguities about the intention of the other party. In some
instances what could be identified as cultural traits and
communication problems (secretive and non cooperative
culture) is originating in more prosaic business and strategic
elements (divergent visions of marketing and role of the
subsidiary).
Business context and strategic role
Business strategies, goals, objectives and practices are an
integral part of the communication process when adopting
an intercultural business communication perspective.
Convergences or divergences of these strategies between
business people have a direct impact on the transactional
culture they will try to create. Varner (2000) argues that
communication is not an end in itself, it is embedded in a
work environment and all actions undertaken by individuals
are aimed at achieving professional and commercial goals.
Therefore the objectives of the business, the level of
internationalization and the structure of the organization
will help determine the intercultural business
communication strategy of a particular corporation.
Consensus about corporate strategy, both in term of its
content and rationale, is often rather limited among
executives within the same organization (Ambrosini, and
Bowman, 2003). In the case of recently acquired
companies, it is likely that considerable divergences will
persist regarding the perception of the acquired units
strategic role, whether because there is real and
substantiated disagreement or because of poor
communication across units.
The construction of perceived management Styles
A large number of studies and publications have studied the
impact of cultural differences on different aspects of
management, such as structure, hierarchical relationships,
management of expatriate and motivation. National
differences in management practice have been identified in
cross-cultural studies, but the real issue in collaborative
processes is the perception of these differences. As we
argued earlier, differences between partners – actors of an
90
interaction – do not exist as such, they are perceived,
created, or co-constructed only during interaction.
Beyond the classifications of management systems, that
may recoup or not stereotypes, the respective perceptions of
process and content of negotiations and decision-making
processes will strongly influence the final outcome.
D'Iribarne (1998) found such types of socially constructed
process and outcomes discrepancies in his study of French-
Swedish teamwork during the attempt to blend cross-
national activities after a merger (that ultimately failed).
French were seeing the Swedish consultative decision
process as extremely heavy and leading to considerable
inertia. Swedes were not criticizing the quality of decisions
taken by the French but rather the legitimacy of their
decision process. The real divergence was not so much
about "who decides" but about "what does it mean to
decide?"
The perception of management styles could be the result of
an attribution bias, a well documented process in
psychology which is one of the main sources of cultural
bias in social perception. The fundamental attribution error
is a tendency to over-emphasize personal explanation (the
cultural dispositions) and under-emphasize situational
causes (i.e. “we act naturally, they act culturally”). This is
often combined with a self-serving bias (Nurmi, 1992), as
people are more likely to attribute successful outcomes of
their own actions to themselves and failures to the situation
or others’ dispositions. Informants in different
organizations submitted to changes tend to consider their
own organization as very democratic, egalitarian and
informal and the other organization as very bureaucratic
and hierarchical.
DISCUSSION
Communication dissonances and pragmatic failures in
organizational processes
We motivated this paper by asking how communicative
events can be interpreted and result in the perception of
cultural differences. Communication dissonances play an
important role in the collaboration processes within firms
that experience intercultural interactions, as cultural
differences are created, interpreted and assessed through
communicative events in the multiple interactions between
employees involved in the interactive processes. There is
great uncertainty regarding the best ways to convince others
and gain credibility and influence in extended
organizational structure. Communication dissonance creates
divergences regarding the interpretation given to statements
and actions taken by the other party, leading to limited
exchange of knowledge, resistance to yield up power and
autonomy to different units, repeated non-cooperation and
confrontations. In the case of corporate acquisitions, the
process model of Jemison and Sitkin (1986) is referring to
cycles of subsidiary and parent defensiveness,
consequences of the inability of the acquired staff to
communicate their point of view to the parent, as well as
rising from the parent company's arrogance. The authors
assume tacitly that parent arrogance is a conscious feeling
of superiority, but perception of arrogant behavior in
intercultural situations is often only the result of divergent
interpretations of the right conduct to have in specific
situations. What is seen as a natural way to behave can be
read as arrogant attitude by the other side. We argue that the
drivers of managerial arrogance presented by Jemison and
Sitkin (1986) could be unconscious and derive from
communicative dissonance. The sources of dissonance
could be found in the two categories of pragmatic failures
we defined earlier. The consequences could be a lack of
cooperation between the entities involved in the merger,
though both sides were actually willing to cooperate but
were not able to achieve connectedness.
The important issue is that cultural manifestations that do
impact organizational processes are mediated through
language and communication, and specifically by the
perception and the interpretation of communication
patterns. One of the theoretical consequences is that
focusing on the causes of communication dissonances could
be more fruitful to process research than the notion of
cultural differences or cultural fit. Culture should not be
seen as purely consisting of a systems of values but rather
as a system of interaction rules.
Management research has often adopted an essentialist
vision of culture, something that people or organizations
have, and that plays a superordinate role in determining
behaviors and shared values. This kind of operationalization
of culture (e.g. Hofstede, 1980;House, et al., 2004) has been
important for the emergence and shaping of cross-national
comparative management research, and for studying
management interaction between relatively homogeneous
groups. However in studying more dynamic processes, such
as multicultural teamwork or post-acquisition integration in
mergers and acquisitions, what is important is what people
do with cultural categorization and how they form them.
We therefore need to focus on the construction of culture
and the interaction between people.
In his reflections on ethnic groups, the anthropologist
Fredrik Barth (1969) showed how groups could be best
understood in the context of group boundary formation and
maintenance. The group is not so much defined by a set of
distinctive features, but rather by the mechanism of forming
a frontier that depends on the ever renewed codification of
cultural differences by the group members. Social groups
should not be seen as isolated entities, but rather as
interacting entities. In an organization, communication is
one of the main tools for interaction. It is therefore
important to understand how language can shape the
perception of the other in situations of social interactions
between or among members of different groups. First of all,
patterns of similar communicative strategies can define sub-
groups and sub-cultures (Schall, 1983;Gumperz, John J.,
91
and Levinson, 1996). Second, the conversational inferences
we are doing are central in our assessment of the
trustfulness and the credibility of the others. The how of
communication is essential for our perception of the what
of communication.
Future research on intercultural collaboration
In conclusion, although past research on the cultural
dimension of international business has provided us with
many useful insights it has also showed that many aspects
of the intercultural dynamics and the perception of
credibility and trustworthiness across borders still remain in
the shadow. This may not necessarily be an issue for
research looking only at discrete interactions within
homogeneous groups (such as in top-management
negotiations in joint-venture formation) but the perceptual
and cultural interaction dimension becomes particularly
important when the aim is to understand complex processes
at company-wide level, such as integration processes in
Mergers and Acquisitions or knowledge transfer between or
within organizations. The concepts of communicative
dissonance, cultural dissonance and pragmatic failures
could help us enrich our understanding of strategy
implementation and processes, by taking into account the
micro-level of individual intercultural interactions in our
analysis of the dynamics of cooperation or resistance
observed at the firm-level. We invite researchers to
integrate further what we know about intercultural
communication with the strategic, organizational and
human dimensions of organizational behavior and other
cooperative processes.
REFERENCES
1. Adler, N. J. (1997). International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinatti:
International Thomson Publishing - Southwestern.
2. Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2003). Managerial
Consensus and Corporate Strategy: Why Do Executives
Agree or Disagree about Corporate Strategy? European
Management Journal, 21(2), 213.
3. Barsoux, J.-L., & Lawrence, P. (1990). Management in
France. London: Cassel.
4. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social
organization of culture difference. Boston: Little, Brown
& Company.
5. D' Iribarne, P. (1989). La logique de l'honneur. Paris:
Seuil.
6. D' Iribarne, P. (1998). Comment s'accorder: une rencontre
franco-suédoise. In P. D'Iribarne, A. Henry, J.-P. Segal, S.
Chevrier & T. Globokar (Eds.), Cultures et
Mondialisation: gérer par delà les frontières. Paris: Seuil.
7. D' Iribarne, P. (2002). Motivating workers in emerging
countries: universal tools and local adaptations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 243-256.
 8. Fiol, C. M. (1995). Corporate communications:
Comparing executives' private and public statements.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 522.
9. Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of
Language in Transforming Organizational Identities.
Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of
Management Sciences, 13(6), 653-666.
10. Gilsdorf, J. W. (1998). Organizational rules on
Communicating: how employees are - and are not -
learning the ropes. The Journal of Business
Communication, 35(April 1998), . 173-201.
11. Gudykunst, W. B., Stewart, L. P., & Ting-toomey, S.
(Eds.). (1985). Communication, Culture and
Organizational processes (Vol. IX - International and
intercultural communication annual). London: Sage.
12. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13. Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Linguistic
relativity re-examined. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson
(Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
14. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences:
International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
15. Holmes, M. E. (1992). Phase structure in negotiation. In
L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and
Negotiation (pp. 83-105). Newsbury Park, CA.: Sage.
16. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman , P. W.,
& Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate
Acquisitions: A Process Perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 11(1), 145-163.
18. Kappos, A., & Rivard, S. (2008). A Three-Perspective
Model of Culture, Information Systems, and Their
Development and Use. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 601.
92
View publication stats
19. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1997). Investigating the genre of
a business fax: a finnish case study. The Journal of
Business Communication, 34(3 July ), 316-333.
20. Mariott, H. E. (1995). Deviations in an intercultural
business negotiation. In A. Firth (Ed.), The Discourse of
Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace (pp.
247-268). Oxford: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
21. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work.
New York: Harper & Row.
22. Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager's job: folklore and
fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49.
23. Nurmi, J.-E. (1992). Cross-cultural differences in self-
serving bias: Responses to the Attributional Style. Journal
of Social Psychology, 132(1), 69.
24. Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire:
The structuring of communicative practices in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4),
541.
25. Schall, M. S. (1983). A Communication-Rules Approach
to Organizational Culture. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28(4), 557.
26. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural
Communication. Oxford-Cambridge: Blackwell.
27. Sullivan, J., & Taylor, S. (1991). A cross-cultural test of
compliance-gaining theory. Management Communication
Quarterly 5 (2 ), 220-239.
28. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.
Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
29. Usunier, J.-C. (1998). International and cross-cultural
management research. London: Sage.
30. Varner, I. (2000). The Theoretical Foundation for
Intercultural Business Communication: A Conceptual
Model. The Journal of Business Communication, 37(1),
39-57.
31. Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Genre Systems:
Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms.
Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 13.