Journal of International Business Studies (2014) 45, 623639
2014 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506
Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan
understanding: Toward a multilingual franca
approach in international business studies
Maddy Janssens1 and
Chris Steyaert2
1
Research Center for Organisation Studies,
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 2Research Institute
for Organizational Psychology, University of
St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland
Correspondence:
M Janssens, Research Center for Organisation
Studies, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69,
Leuven 3000, Belgium.
Tel: 32-16-326874;
Fax: 32-16-326732;
email: maddy.janssens@kuleuven.be
Received: 15 November 2012
Revised: 7 July 2013
2nd Revision: 7 November 2013
3rd Revision: 14 January 2014
Revised: 5 February 2014
Accepted: 5 February 2014
Online publication date: 13 March 2014
www.jibs.net
Abstract
This paper aims to uncover the normative assumptions that guide language
studies in international business. Relying on sociolinguistics and cosmopolitan
theory, we point to the possibility of conceiving language as a social practice
rather than a discrete entity, and understanding globalization as the entangle-
ment between universality and particularity rather than treating these two
notions separately. Combining these linguistic and global assumptions, we arrive
at three different research approaches to study linguistic performances in global
work settings: monological lingua franca, monological multilingualism and
multilingual franca. As the latter approach is unexplored, we develop the third
option which underlines a human-centered multilingualism that conceives
language as a social activity in which speakers mobilize multiple linguistic
resources to express voice. The advantages of such an approach are its ability to
capture the complexities of contemporary global life and its emphasis on a new
understanding of multilingualism and diversity that truly goes beyond any
kind of monolingualism. In terms of practice implications, a multilingual franca
approach provides space for emancipatory politics through allowing mixed
language use.
Journal of International Business Studies (2014) 45, 623639. doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.9
Keywords: language; globalization; sociolinguistics; cosmopolitanism; multilingualism;
lingua franca
INTRODUCTION
Much of the literature on language in international business (IB) has
sought either to lay out the advantages of a common language or
lingua franca that crosses the linguistic boundaries of a multinational
company (MNC) (Harzing, Kster, & Magner, 2011; Luo & Shenkar,
2006), or to identify the imperialistic and hegemonic effects of using
such lingua franca which mostly turns out to be English on actors
in local subsidiaries (Piekkari, Vaara, Tienari, & Sntti, 2005; Tietze,
2008). In our view, looking into the relationship between globaliza-
tion and language(s) is more complex than simply pointing at the
proliferation of English and the effects of its linguistic imperialism
within one global market place. Actually, there is within every pro-
cess of globalization simultaneously a genuine concern about issues
of localization and contextualization (Appadurai, 1996; Bauman,
1998). Also, increased mobility has provided people access to very
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
624
fragmented and incomplete language repertoires,
often consisting of spoken, vernacular and accented
varieties of different languages in which they have
differentially developed literacy skills (Blommaert &
Dong, 2010). Such complexities between globaliza-
tion processes and linguistic repertoires raise the
question of how, until now, studies on language in
IB tend to approach the notion of language itself and
how they (often implicitly) think about the relation-
ship between universality and particularity when
studying language within globalization processes.
The purpose of this paper is therefore to pose
questions about the way research on language in
contemporary forms of global organizing is con-
ducted. We aim to uncover the normative assump-
tions (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011) that guide cur-
rent language research in IB and, by doing so, to
open up possibilities for an alternative research
approach. Relying on recent thinking in sociolin-
guistics (Blommaert, 2010; Heller, 2007; Martin-
Jones, Blackledge, & Creese, 2012), we rst inquire
into the assumption on the conception of language(s)
itself. Sociolinguists argue that the complexities of
language in globalization require scholars to think of
languages not as clearly bounded, unied systems
but rather as translingual practices (Pennycook,
2007) in social and political contexts where speakers
mobilize multiple linguistic resources in complex
ways to express voice. Bringing in these conceptual
ideas challenges IB scholars to no longer think of
language as a given variable, inuencing other phe-
nomena under study, but rather to understand
language as a social practice.
Second, we draw attention to assumptions regard-
ing globalization. If we are to understand language
and multilingualism in contemporary forms of glo-
bal organizing, we argue it is critical to be explicit
about how universality and especially its relation to
particularity are understood in our era of globaliza-
tion (Ives, 2010). Relying on cosmopolitan theory, a
rich eld that has debated questions of how to live
and work together at times of global connectivity
(Beck, 2002; Delanty & Inglis, 2011; Vertovec &
Cohen, 2002), we present three different images
(Janssens & Steyaert, 2012) of the relationship
between universality and particularity, each having
its own approach toward language issues in a global
context. The images that we identify are: (1) prece-
dence given to universality, (2) particularity under-
scored in reaction to a perceived overemphasis
on universality in the global world discourse and
(3) universality and particularity are seen as inter-
twined. As, in our assessment, studies on language in
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
IB tend to privilege an understanding of the rst two
images, we are especially interested in considering
the possibilities of the third one that challenges the
taken-for-granted assumption that the global and
local could be viewed as separate entities. Rather,
the third image posits an inherent inseparability
between the global and local, claiming that we can
only understand the global through the local and,
simultaneously, that in our globalized world, there is
no local which is not global (Appadurai, 1996).
Explicating the linguistic and global assumptions
that derive from sociolinguistics and cosmopolitan
theory, we arrive at three different research approaches
to study language in IB. As the lingua franca and
multilingual approaches characterize most studies
(Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Tietze, 2008), we propose
and elaborate a multilingual franca approach (Makoni
& Pennycook, 2012), which is based on the idea that
the global and local in the current global context are
entwined, and underlines an understanding of lan-
guage that focuses on language use as the mobiliza-
tion of multiple linguistic resources rather than
language as a discrete entity. To illustrate its poten-
tial and uniqueness, this research approach is then
applied to the study of language in global teams. We
show how a multilingual franca approach seeks to
understand not so much how people talk about
language but how global team members use of
language is linked to the ongoing productivity of
their subjectivity and the establishment of a glocal
English or another hybrid, mixed language. Such an
approach also has important practice implications,
as setting up a corporate language policy along this
line of thinking allows for hybridity in language use,
thereby disrupting hegemonic language practices
and providing space for social and political change.
LANGUAGE: SOCIAL PRACTICE RATHER THAN
DISCRETE ENTITY
To inquire into the assumption of the notion of
language itself, we turn to sociolinguistics where
scholars are reecting and debating on how to
conceptualize language in the changing political
and economic landscape of different regions of the
world (Martin-Jones et al., 2012). Throughout this
literature, which remains under-explored in IB, there
is a strong tendency to move away from a concep-
tion of language as a discrete, unied pre-existing
entity to a more critical approach that privileges
language as social practice, speakers as social actors
and boundaries as products of social action (Heller,
2007: 1). Central in this shift is the realization that
language is a scholarly invention that has codied
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
local linguistic chaos into phonetic, grammatical
and lexical forms and systems, divorced from the
social context in which the speech is being uttered
(Nakata, 2007; Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). For
instance, studies of colonialism have shown how
many names for languages have been invented only
when colonialists entered territories and attempted
to sort out which language(s) was spoken by
whom (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). For example,
Mannheim (1991) documented that the Quechua
people in Peru did not have a concept for what they
were speaking prior to the Spanish invasion.
This process of invention is seen as transforming
dialogical and heteroglossic material into mono-
logical texts (Blommaert, 2008) and its focus on the
formal aspects of a language fundamentally sepa-
rates the language from the people; it falsely sepa-
rates the act of speaking from what is being spoken
(Nakata, 2007: 37). Therefore, the notion of lan-
guage as a monolithic system, as Bybee and Hopper
(2001: 3) argue, has to give way to that of a
language as a massive collection of heterogeneous
constructions, each with afnities to different con-
texts and in constant structural adaptation to
usage. The critical issue here is to understand the
process through which people use language, which
is no longer considered a discrete, preformed and
independent object. A simple, but very recognizable
example that illustrates this fundamental shift well
is the re-interpretation that the act of children
learning to speak is not about teaching language or
verbal behavior as such, but rather about teaching
appropriate social behavior during interactions
(Schiefien, 1990).
With this focus on language use, the emphasis
is no longer on the study of the code of language
but shifts to how speakers use a set of linguistic
resources. The notion of language as a xed basis of
analysis becomes one of dubious validity. Rather,
practices and context make the social grounding of
human interaction central. Or, as Makoni and
Pennycook (2012: 441) call it, the difference between
language as a code vs a social activity is that of a
language-centered multilingualism as opposed to a
human-centered multilingualism. Languages must
be dis-invented (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012), so
that one comes to understand how people mobilize
diverse linguistic resources to speak. Or, as Heller
(2007: 2) explains, language gures as a set of
resources which circulate in unequal ways in social
networks and discursive spaces, and whose meaning
and value are socially constructed within the con-
straints of social organizational processes, under
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
625
specic historical conditions. Focusing on multi-
lingual speakers note that most people in the world
are bi/multilingual (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012)
Garcia (2009) claims that there are no clear-cut
boundaries between the languages that these
people draw on when they communicate with one
another. To move away from the focus on the
language itself, he therefore proposes the term
translanguaging, referring to the multiple discur-
sive practices in which these speakers engage as they
draw on the resources within their communicative
repertoires.
DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN
THREE DIFFERENT COSMOPOLITAN
UNDERSTANDINGS
If we are to engage with new ways of studying
language(s) in contemporary forms of global orga-
nizing, we argue that it is equally important to
explicate the assumptions about globalization and
to link different assumptions about the universality
particularity relationship with the ways of thinking
about language as distinguished by sociolinguistics.
We turn here to cosmopolitan theory, which deals
explicitly with issues of globalization and offers a
framework that scholars from different disciplines
have interpreted as a new ethos, suitable for twenty-
rst century global life (Featherstone, 2002). We
distinguish three different ways of how universality
is understood especially how particularity is recog-
nized in relation to universality and discuss how
language is thought of within each cosmopolitan
image.
One Lingua Franca Within One Universal
Community
Cosmopolitanism as world citizenship over local
afliation
In cosmopolitan thinking, the most prominent way
of conceiving the relationship between universality
and particularity is that of giving precedence to
universality. For many scholars, the whole idea of
cosmopolitanism precisely resides in the idea to
overcome parochial, local views and interests and to
take a shared normative-philosophical commitment
to the primacy of world citizenship over all national,
religious, cultural, ethnic and other parochial aflia-
tions. This view is mostly seen as originating in
ancient Greece. Cosmopolitan is derived from the
Greek word kosmopolites and literally means citizen
of the world. It was expressed by Diogenes the
Cynic, the rst person to declare himself a citizen
Journal of International Business Studies
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
626
of the world, a rebel against the city-state system.
Opposing to people dening themselves by their
local belongingness, he dened himself as a kosmo-
polites, signifying a more universal denition of
the human being (Nussbaum, 2010). This idea was
later developed by the Stoics and Kant, for whom
locality is seen as constraining humans and their
abilities to understand the boundaries of certain
rules, convictions and predispositions (Held, 2002;
Nussbaum, 2010).
In our era of global connectivity, this orientation
toward world citizenship with its emphasis on uni-
versality came to the foreground through the much-
discussed essay on patriotism and cosmopolitanism
by Nussbaum (1994). Nussbaums cosmopolitan
idea urges us all to be citizens of the world, creating
a worldwide community of humanity that should be
the source of moral obligations and that eliminates
the accident of birth or the undoing of the original
local conditioning. It refers to a philosophy that
emphasizes inclusive humanitarian aspirations and
commitment to common values with an openness
toward others whose origin is non-local (Nussbaum,
2010; Vertovec and Cohen, 2002).
A similar emphasis on universality is found in
thinking about cosmopolitical democracy where
the discussion is focused on the creation of institu-
tions that permit a cosmopolitan right or the
possibility of people to have a voice in global affairs,
irrespective of their home community (Held, 2002).
Notions of world polity (Held, 1995) or cosmopoli-
tan democracy (Archibugi, 1995) have revived the
Kantian notion of a cosmopolitan world order of
republic states and taken globalization as the basis
for a new conception of a transnational democracy
beyond the nation-state. The argument here is that
the international nature of problems like environ-
mental crises, economic instability or crime and
terrorism are beyond the capacity of individual
states to control. As the state system is no longer
able to meet the increasing demands of growing
global interdependence, democratic activity can no
longer be restricted to nation-states, giving responsi-
bilities to many stakeholders, not least to multi-
national organizations.
One lingua franca as the communication vehicle in a
cosmopolitan world
Within this understanding of cosmopolitanism as
one universal community to which individuals can
connect and in which they engage in political
activities, the question of how to speak has remained
mostly implicit with scholars presupposing a single
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
shared linguistic medium of public communication
(Fraser, 2007; Ives, 2010). The theme in this under-
standing of cosmopolitanism is that the world needs
a common language, which could be lled by any
language, but pragmatically English is able to fulll
this need (Ives, 2006). This perspective implicitly
conceives of language as most fundamentally a
neutral vehicle for conveying ideas.
Some authors do reect on language issues, but
then do not provide any details of how communica-
tion would need to occur to permit cosmopolitan
democracy (Ives, 2010). For example, Held (1998)
notes how English has spread as the dominant
language of elite culture in business, computing,
law, science and politics but, in advocating the
institutional arrangements that advance democracy
at the global level, he does not address the problem
of elitism and the way to facilitate the ability of non-
elites to participate. Also Habermas (1999) rarely
addressed the issue of what specic language or lan-
guages should be used in a public sphere. Reecting
over an EU constitution, he writes: Given the political
will, there is no a priori reason it cannot create the
politically necessary communicative context once the
constitutional basis for such a context has been laid
down. Even the requirement of a common language
English as a second rst language ought not to be an
insurmountable obstacle given the existing level of
formal schooling (Habermas, 1999: 161).
The most explicit discussion on language and
cosmopolitanism is presented by Archibugi, who
places the language problem at the core of the
project of cosmopolitan democracy not only because
the variety of languages emerges as a major practi-
cal hurdle but also for the more profound political
reason that language is just the most evident side of
mutual understanding (Archibugi, 2005: 546). As
his cosmopolitanism hinges upon the understand-
ing that cosmopolitans are less inclined to con-
sider the advantages and disadvantages of various
(national) groups, establishing a common language
provides advantages to all communities and learning
a common language is part of global citizens demo-
cratic participation. Democratic politics, according
to Archibugi (2005: 537), relies on the willingness
of all players to make an effort to understand each
other and a willingness to overcome the barriers of
mutual understanding, including linguistic ones.
He further proposes Esperanto as a metaphor, an
articial new language to make communication
accessible to everyone. Such universal language
forms a positive Utopia and is the key to cosmo-
politan citizenship.
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
Overall, a common language is seen here as
facilitating the imagination and construction of a
worldwide community. It is a linguistic medium to
emphasize uniformity and cohesion. Or, as Pratt
(1987: 50) wrote: Our modern linguistics of lan-
guage, code and competence posits a unied and
homogenous social world in which language exists
as a shared patrimony as a device, precisely, for
imagining community. Language is constructed as
an emblem of people and social groups or as a
discrete, pre-existing system that acts as a commu-
nication vehicle. This focus on a common language,
though, is argued to be a position that can be none
other than an advocacy of global English which
implies the sidestepping of the political dynamics of
language, omitting consideration of those whose
identity is connected to non-English languages
and those with a history of political struggle with
English-speaking communities (Ives, 2010).
Multilingualism Reecting a Plurality of Cultures
Cosmopolitanism as openness to other cultures
For other scholars, the idea of cosmopolitanism
resides in the appreciation of the plurality of cultures
made inevitable by globalization (Featherstone, 2002;
Hannerz, 1990), thereby emphasizing the particular-
ity and value of each culture. Within this under-
standing, cosmopolitanism represents a cultural
orientation to the world, characterized by open-
mindedness to difference and the Other, and an
interest in engaging with people from other cultures.
A cosmopolitan person is in the rst place a cultural
gure who is uniquely adapted to recognize the
different cultures in a global world. This meaning is
represented by the anthropologist Hannerz (1990:
239), who regards genuine cosmopolitanism as
an orientation, a willingness to engage with the
Other which in his view entails an intellectual and
aesthetic openness towards divergent cultural
experiences, a search for contrasts rather than uni-
formity. A cosmopolitan openness does not negoti-
ate with the other culture but accepts it as a package
deal, an attitude which Hannerz (1996) completely
misses in the intercultural training industry, which
he labels a culture shock prevention industry where
culture is conceived as something to be managed.
Along with this orientation, cosmopolitanism can
be a matter of competence, marked by a persons
ability to make ones way into other cultures,
through listening, looking, intuiting and reecting
(Hannerz, 1990: 239) as well as by a built-up skill
of maneuvering through systems of meaning.
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
627
Friedman (1994: 204), too, sees cosmopolitanism as
characterized by a mode of behavior that in identity
terms is betwixt and between without being liminal.
It is shifting, participating in many worlds, without
becoming part of them. For Waldron (1992), it is
such partial cultural competencies that comprise
the cosmopolitan self. If we live the cosmopolitan
life, he says, we draw our allegiances from here,
there and everywhere. Bits of cultures come into our
lives from different sources, and there is no guaran-
tee that they will all t together (Waldron, 1992:
788789).
In relation to the central focus on particularity and
otherness, postcolonial scholarship has problema-
tized the representation of the Other and empha-
sized the inherent political dimension by pointing at
the hierarchies that are inscribed when relating with
different contexts. Cultural analysis often follows a
Eurocentric direction, giving little space to make
visible different historical experiences of former
colonized states, ethnic groups or global diasporic
communities. It has pointed out how many con-
structions of the Other are orientalist (Said, 1978),
marking the difference with the West as inferior, and
raising the question whether and how the Other can
be known and represented (Rhodes & Westwood,
2007). Whether drawing upon Saids analysis or on
other explorations of otherness, such as Bhabhas
(1994) notion of the completely Other and Spivaks
(1993) idea of absolute alterity, postcolonialism
deconstructs self-other relations as hierarchical.
Aiming to resist global domination and to favor
heterogeneity, cosmopolitanism is here equated
with the condition of hybridity and, more generally,
diversity (Delanty & Inglis, 2011).
Monological multilingualism: An inclusive approach
to coexisting linguistic systems
Within this understanding of cosmopolitanism as
an openness to the particularity of the many cultures
in a global world, the focus in terms of language
turns to multilingualism, or the parallel coexistence
of linguistic systems. Language is no longer neutral
but connected to an understanding of local worlds
and their particular linguistic systems (Ives, 2010). It
is seen as a tool for the construction of locality by
providing cultural meanings and positions of power
during interaction (Blommaert, 2010). This concep-
tion is present in writings on linguistic globalization,
in particular on linguistic imperialism and hege-
mony, and the preservation of minority languages.
Following the argument that the more globalization,
the more the issue of global English is politicized
Journal of International Business Studies
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
628
locally (Sonntag, 2003), scholars have analyzed the
global dominance of English and its corresponding
linguistic practices such as locational masking and
accent neutralization. They are guided by the theo-
retical framework of linguistic imperialism, which is
posited as a subtype of cultural imperialism and
dened as the establishment and continuous recon-
stitution of structural and cultural inequalities
between English and other languages (Phillipson,
1992). An example of such analyses, often con-
ducted in the call center industry, refers to the
effectiveness of using the American television show
Friends for learning American English conversa-
tional practice, in addition to accent and grammar
training, in attempts by American rms to erase
the national identity of Indian call center workers
(Poster, 2007).
The related conceptualization of linguistic hege-
mony (Sonntag, 2009) similarly points to the global
spread of English but with more emphasis on the
agency of the subalterns circumscribed by hege-
mony. Cowies (2007) study of Indian call centers,
for instance, shows how many of the accent trainers
promoted educated Indian English rather than
American English as the prestige variety and linguis-
tic goal for agents to achieve. The subtext here is that
Indian English can be equally authentic, and that it
is between the established Indian elite and the
emerging vernacular elites that competing claims to
ownership and originality are made (Sonntag,
2005: 17). Such examples show how language is not
a neutral vehicle of communication but rather
informs the dynamics and relations between differ-
ent cultural groups, not necessarily only between
the dominant and minority group but also among
minority groups.
Having a different focus, but also touching upon
the connection between language and local cultures
within centralizing nation-states, are studies on the
maintenance of minority languages and the lan-
guage revitalization movements of the 1960s in
Europe and North America. Studies on multilingual-
ism have examined, for example, language identities
or the vitality of the language of an ethnic group
within a majority society (Extra & Verhoeven, 1999;
Gibbons & Ramirez, 2004). Within this approach,
it is emphasized how language is taken up as an
empowering factor as well as a key symbol for group
mobilization and solidarity.
Overall, language is seen here as something that
anchors people in a local context. It is described as
belonging to a particular environment and locked
into local meanings and interactional dynamics
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
(Blommaert, 2010). To maintain the rich meanings
of multiple codes, the concept of a lingua franca is
abandoned in favor of a multilingualism that aims
to include a range of coexisting linguistic systems,
thereby realizing the crucial role of language for
culture. Ironically, though, in challenging the
monolingual order imposed by one dominant
language, languages are also represented as clearly
bounded systems, albeit on a smaller scale (Heller,
2011; Jaffe, 2007). Therefore, this conception of
multilingualism still reects a monological under-
standing of language as it is approached as highly
ideologized views of coexisting linguistic systems
where the multiplicity of language systems is central
to the analysis. Rather than replacing monolingual-
ism with multilingualism, Makoni and Pennycook
(2012: 439) point out that both concepts emerge
from the same intellectual context as both stick to
the idea of language as a discrete, hermetically sealed
unit. They therefore label this view to be mono-
logical multilingualism or plural monolingualism.
Multilingual Franca within Globalized Localities
Cosmopolitanism as the entanglement of universality
and particularity
A third image within cosmopolitanism conceives
the relationship between universality and particular-
ity as entwined or indistinguishably related. In con-
trast to the two previous understandings where
either universality or particularity is privileged, it
perceives both as constitutively entangled in every-
day, global life. This conception is to be found in
recent critical studies on cosmopolitanism that focus
on the everyday meaning experience of cosmopoli-
tan interdependence. These studies follow the call of
Beck (2004) for the empirical study of a lived cosmo-
politanism and its complex consequences and posi-
tionings, or the processes by which the cosmo-
politan perspective replaces the national in peoples
everyday lives (Beck, 2004: 139). Such an under-
standing moves away from a normative stance often
present in the two previous images of cosmopolitan-
ism and emphasizes instead cosmopolitanization
or the social process that results in the awareness
whether one likes it, fears it or hates it of being part
of the world and at the same time being part of a
particular, locally and historically grounded place or
situation (Beck & Sznaider, 2006). To illustrate this
understanding, we will now present two notions
that represent the universality and particularity
in the same register. What is particularly valuable
about these notions is their way of challenging and
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
transcending the conventional distinction and of
not slipping into a limiting dualism that treats
universality and particularity as distinct (even if
interacting) phenomena.
A rst notion is that of rooted cosmopolitanism
which underscores the enduring signicance of
connections to place and culture, even for the
cosmopolitan in mobility. Rather than typifying the
cosmopolitan as the detached, de-situated and dis-
embodied idealization of the global citizen, this
notion recognizes the inescapabilities and particu-
larities of places, characters, historical trajectories
and fate (Rabinow, 1996: 56), putting forward
accounts of cosmopolitanism that are geographi-
cally grounded, historically situated and embedded
in material everyday practices. Examples are Ongs
(1999) discussion of exible citizenship, which
describes a form of Chinese cosmopolitanism,
Appiahs (1998) description of his fathers distinc-
tively Ghanaian version of cosmopolitanism and
Molzs (2006) empirical study on round-the-world
travelers. In the latter study, Molz (2006) demon-
strates the cosmopolitan ability to simultaneously t
in anywhere and adapt to a series of cultural envir-
onments. This is achieved, in part, by what these
travelers consume and the way they dress, wear their
hair, or accessorize their bodies. The rooted cosmo-
politan appreciates the world as a whole, and yet
continues to be situated in one or more specic
cultural, political or social spheres.
A second notion is that of cosmopolitan imagina-
tion in which Delanty (2006) emphasizes the learn-
ing process or internal transformation that takes
place as a consequence of world openness. This
notion privileges neither the universal nor the parti-
cular; rather, it concerns processes of self-reection
and self-transformation through moments of open-
ness when the self or the local comes in contact with
the other or the global. It conceives a relational
understanding of a cosmopolitan moment which
happens in everyday practices as a creative combi-
nation of different forces the center and periphery,
the local and global. An example of such cosmopo-
litan understanding is presented in Regevs (2007)
discussion of esthetic cosmopolitanism where he
argues against the dichotomous distinction between
a culture of our own and cultures of others.
Conversely, he illustrates how contemporary cul-
tural uniqueness is produced through choosing,
selecting and extracting elements from the plethora
of expressive components available at a global level.
It is precisely the interplay between the self and the
global other through which cultural products are
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
629
constructed, a manifestation of what Robertson
(1995) has called glocalization: the (re)construc-
tion of locality in response to and the under inu-
ence of globalization.
Multilingual franca as a social practice
Such a conception of globalization changes the way
of thinking about language(s) in global organizations.
It moves beyond the notion of monolingualism, or a
common lingua franca, as well as multilingualism, or
the parallel existence of different linguistic systems
and their adherent ideologies (Jaworski & Thurlow,
2010). Instead it highlights a negotiated, situated
approach to English as lingua franca and other
languages where speakers use multiple linguistic
resources in complex ways to express voice (Heller,
2007; Higgins, 2009; Makoni & Pennycook, 2012).
In this regard, Makoni and Pennycook (2012) pro-
pose, in a manner that may at rst seem paradoxical,
to envisage a new sense of monolingualism that has
at its heart an understanding of diversity that goes
beyond a monological norm. In particular, these
authors view multilingualism in terms of a lingua
franca in which diverse features are blended
together, reecting each speakers personal experi-
ences. In such lingua franca multilingualism or, in
short, in a multilingual franca, languages are so
deeply intertwined and fused into each other that
the level of uidity renders it difcult to determine
any boundaries that may indicate that there are
different languages involved (Makoni & Pennycook,
2012: 447).
This conception of multilingual franca is present in
recent writings on bi- and multilingual studies
often conducted in postcolonial and urban con-
texts that aim to understand how language users
manipulate the multilingual resources they have
available to them. Studies on popular culture in
Africa, for example, show how sampling of sounds,
genres, languages and cultures is the norm (Pennycook,
2007). As another example, language use in parts
of South Africa may be interwoven with kwaito
(a version of South African hip-hop). Or, young
people, caught up in the transition of a colonial to a
postcolonial situation that included rapid urbaniza-
tion, want a way to express this new ethnicity
which give rise to new language varieties such as
Sheng, a Swahili/English hybrid which gives
young people a global urban ethnicity, namely the
urbanite: sophisticated, street smart, new genera-
tion, tough (Bosire, 2006: 192). As these hybrid
languages emerge in urban or metropolitan neigh-
borhoods and grassroots contexts, this form of
Journal of International Business Studies
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
630
multilingualism is also named urbi- or metrolingual-
ism, featured by a language use through which
people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play
with and negotiate identities through language,
challenging ethnic and language orthodoxies
through the possibilities of a new ethnic cool
(Maher, 2005).
This linguistic approach means a reconsideration
of the relationship between language and national
identity and even a disconnection. One language
does not straightforwardly index one subject posi-
tion; rather, speakers use linguistic resources in
complex ways to perform a range of subject posi-
tions, sometimes simultaneously. It is no longer (if it
ever was) sufcient to view linguistic diversity in
terms of ethnicity or country of origin; instead,
other factors come into play differential immigra-
tion statuses, gender, age, race, economic mobility,
social class/caste, locality and sexuality which
result in complex blending, mixing and reallocation
processes, in which the differences between lan-
guages are just one factor. Blommaert (2010: 196)
argues that we need to develop an awareness that it
is not necessarily the language you speak, but how
you speak it, when you can speak it, and to whom it
matters. It is a matter of voice, not of language. For
instance, Harissi, Otsuji, & Pennycook (2012) discuss
the language use of a young man, born in Australia
to a mother of Turkish descent and a father of Anglo-
Saxon background, disaffected with his Turkish-
Australian identity and nding more commonalities
with Japanese culture. In their analysis of a conver-
sation with his female Japanese supervisor, these
authors examine how this young mans uid lan-
guage use mixing English and Japanese, and using
in-group informal Japanese language attempts to
claim a new form of identication, a uid way of
being through which he is simultaneously the
same and different: claiming a Japanese identity,
but as an outsider, not showing deference to his
supervisor. The authors reject assumptions about
pregiven speakers identities and show how subjec-
tivities are being made in the repeated acts of
linguistic doings, with new possibilities for a Japa-
nese-speaking Turkish Australian.
Overall, language within globalized localities is
seen as a social practice in which speakers blend the
multilingual resources they have available to them.
We nd here an understanding of linguistic beha-
vior which is not about code-switching but has more
to do with momentary playing with possibilities,
with performing certain subject positions in the
doing. As such, this conception truly moves beyond
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
the monological norm as found in monolingualism
as well as multilingualism. Assumptions about the
national, regional, ethnic, cultural or linguistic
characteristics of particular groups of users are set
aside (Blommaert, 2010). Rather, language becomes
a heterogeneous process of translanguaging which
forms spatial and temporal trajectories across globa-
lized localities. On the basis of the use of vernaculars
that leak into one another, language use is trans-
modal as it evolves by interweaving and mixing
other resources, styles and intonations.
LANGUAGE STUDIES IN IB AND THEIR
ASSUMPTIONS
Combining the linguistic and global assumptions
as discussed in sociolinguistics and cosmopolitan
theory, we arrive at three different research
approaches to study linguistic performances within
global work settings: monological lingua franca, mono-
logical multilingualism and multilingual franca. The
rst approach gives precedence to universality and
adopts the idea of an ideal language situation with
one lingua franca. The second approach emphasizes
particularity together with its multiple local lan-
guages. Although different in their assumptions
regarding globalization, they are founded on similar
linguistic assumptions as they both conceive lan-
guage as a monological, discrete system. The third
approach, in contrast, underlines language as a
social practice within a socio-political context where
global and local are seen as inseparable. Table 1
presents an overview of the three research approaches
and their assumptions regarding the conceptions of
language and globalization processes. Reviewing
language studies in IB along these three research
approaches, we notice that the two rst approaches
characterize most studies, whereas the third one
remains unexplored. As, in our view, the potential
of a multilingual franca to understand language
within current globalization processes is high, we
envision in the nal section how this research
approach would look.
Monological Lingua Franca: Common Corporate
Language and Language Barriers in IB
Reviewing research on language in IB, many studies
hold a monological lingua franca approach, focusing
on a common language as a vehicle to address the
barriers of linguistic diversity in a MNC. Indeed, a
large share of the interest in languages in IB has
focused on the formation of often formal language
policies which seek to develop a universal or overall
community which individuals can connect to and
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
631

Table 1 Three research approaches to the study of language in international business

Research approaches

Monological lingua franca Monological multilingualism Multilingual franca

Main assumptions
Language Language as discrete, unified, Language as discrete, unified, Language as social practice
pre-existing system pre-existing system
Globalization Universality is given precedence Appreciation for the particularity Entanglement of universality and
over particularity of multiple cultures within the particularity
universal

Understanding linguistic performances in global work settings

Conception of global Global community in which
work setting individuals connect and engage
Conception of language Lingua franca as a unifying code
Conception of multiple Preference is given to a common
languages lingua franca as it is the evident side
of mutual understanding and the
way to overcome linguistic diversity
Conception of Language is a neutral vehicle to
communication communicate
Conception of corporate Strategic lingua franca policy
language policy
Space where individuals are Site where local practices reflect
adapted to recognize the different global embeddedness and where
cultures the global cannot be thought of
without the local
Multiple local languages as multiple Language use or speakers bricolage
codes of multiple linguistic resources
Preference to parallel, coexisting Translingual practices as the
linguistic systems and their adherent intentional use of multiple language
ideologies to overcome the danger varieties for purposeful, multivocal
of linguistic imperialism and effect
hegemony
Language is connected to cultural Language is negotiated, situated
meaning and power position practice to express voice within
socio-political context
Inclusive policy of recognizing Emancipatory politics through
multiple local languages allowing mixed language use

engage in (Tietze, 2008). The adoption of a common
corporate language and its parallel focus on English
as lingua franca (Frederiksson, Barner-Rasmussen, &
Piekkari, 2006) are many times seen as a manage-
ment tool with the aim to develop a mutual under-
standing so that MNCs global operations can run in
an efcient way. Other benets of language policies
that have been mentioned are learning, reporting
and collective identity (Tietze, 2008). To reach these
benets, MNCs can rely not only on the choice of a
common language but also on other practices, such
as adjusting mode of communication, hiring bilin-
gual employees and offering language training,
which have been identied as part of a comprehen-
sive language policy (Harzing et al., 2011).
As the adoption of English is taken as unproble-
matic (Frederiksson et al., 2006), we nd a similar
utopian assumption and normative expectation that
language diversity is something which can and
should be managed or organized, and which is
mainly driven by top managements decisions and
strategic choices (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). Taking such
an instrumental view on language as a neutral
vehicle to communicate (Janssens, Lambert, &
Steyaert, 2004), these studies tend to approach mul-
tiple languages as a factor complicating communica-
tion processes within MNCs and thereby acting as a
barrier or, as we would add, preventing a universal,
imagined community from occurring. Consequently
we can identify a similar discourse to that in the
cosmopolitan literature that speaks of language
issues in terms of barriers. For instance, Luo and
Shenkar (2006: 321) approach MNCs as consisting of
diverse and geographically dispersed subunits,
which encounter language barriers when com-
municating with their local business community
and within their global network and Harzing et al.
(2011: 279) argue how language is an impor-
tant barrier, slowing down and increasing the
cost of decision-making. Furthermore, language
differences are seen as providing a distortion in the
ways knowledge can be passed on (usually called
transfer), suggesting that language policy aims to
surmount the language barrier and ensure that
knowledge is seamlessly transferred across multiple
language environments (Welch, Welch, & Piekkari,
2005: 23).
However, this belief in the power of formal lan-
guage policies is sometimes in conict with studies
empirical results, which scholars then tend to coun-
ter by emphasizing the need for a strategic language
approach. As an example, one of the earlier empiri-
cal studies (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch,
1999b) started from MNCs practice of language

Journal of International Business Studies

 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
632
standardization and found how in two Finnish
MNCs this language choice triggered a wide range
of continuing language problems such as commu-
nication, stafng and training-related challenges.
Despite the acknowledgment of the authors that
some of these challenges were a consequence of the
common language itself, which seems to cause more
problems than solve them, the belief in a com-
mon language to address communication problems
mainly guided the authors recommendation to
ensure language a more strategic position so that
language needs and policies could be coordinated
and overseen, emphasizing the assumption that a
lingua franca can be considered as a discrete and
unied pre-existing system. This emphasis on the
strategic nature of language to reach a universal
community is similarly found in Luo and Shenkars
(2006) theoretical model, in which they argue the
need to align language systems with organizational
strategy and dynamics as a way to improve MNC
communication, coordination and knowledge-sharing.
In conclusion, we notice how language research in
IB reects to a large extent the main idea of a
monological lingua franca approach. As researchers
subscribe to the belief in a lingua franca to form a
universal community of mutual understanding,
they take the concept of language for granted as a
pre-existing system and conceive linguistic perfor-
mances within global work settings in a universalis-
tic way.
Monological Multilingualism: Cultural and Political
Reactions against Linguistic Imperialism in IB
The second research approach, monological multi-
lingualism, which emphasizes particularity and
coexisting multiple languages, is very much reected
in studies on languages in IB that favor a language
contextualization approach. In contrast to language
standardization, contextualization suggests that
language use is very much context dependent and
therefore difcult if not impossible to dictate by
general policies (Piekkari & Tietze, 2011). This con-
ceptual change from language standardization to
contextualization is partially instigated by contex-
tual observations that many times MNCs do not
seem to have a formalized language policy or opt for
an intentionally emergent approach as documented
in the study by Frederiksson et al. (2006). Or, when a
formally adapted language choice is present, it is
often complemented by more complex language
practices and performances allowing for a parallel
use of local languages so that introducing a com-
mon corporate language will not render the rm
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
monolingual nor does it make it shared through-
out the organization (Frederiksson et al., 2006: 409,
407). Underlying these descriptions, we notice an
understanding of MNCs as spaces where individuals
and groups are able to adapt to and recognize the
differences among cultures by adopting and using
multiple codes.
What further has instigated a focus on contextua-
lization are interview-based case studies which have
clearly demonstrated that language standardization
sets several, sometimes very severe, reactions in
motion which are both cultural and political in
nature. The cultural considerations against a com-
mon lingua franca mainly rely on the argument that
language is key to understanding foreign cultures
(Janssens et al., 2004) and that through the process
of recontextualization, language practices take on
new meanings in distinct cultural contexts as lan-
guage is only the signier and not the signied
(Brannen, 2004). Efforts to manage or steer language
and communication ows through the prescription
of a designated company language can therefore be
seen as a simplistic step in dealing with language
diversity (Welch et al., 2005). It is simplistic since
it does not acknowledge that practicing English
(or another lingua franca) does not automatically
bring along a shared framework of understanding;
there always remains a variation of cultural frame-
works through which language is understood. For
instance, Henderson Kassis (2005) study on multi-
cultural teams shows how team members using
English as the working language experience miscom-
munication because they are under the false impres-
sion that they are sharing the same context, further
effecting socialization and trust building within the
team. Or, Peltokorpi and Vaara (2012) show how
language policies are something that people in sub-
sidiaries make sense of and enact through various
practices. Numerous rm-specic factors, social
interactions and individuals competences and
social position together shape the web of practices
that forms the language praxis in subsidiaries.
Power and politics are also important reasons why
the adoption of a common language is not the
integrative measure that companies hope to achieve.
A formal standardized language policy may bring
along disintegrative patterns of communication and
relations as it neglects that the import of English as a
common language brings along certain control
effects and power imbalances (Janssens et al., 2004;
Piekkari & Zander, 2005). Several interesting studies
on international mergers and acquisitions (Welch
et al., 2005; Piekkari et al., 2005; Vaara, Tienari,
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
Piekkari, & Sntti, 2005) have shown the political
play and the colonial aspects of power associated
with language issues. They have documented how
the common corporate language decision raises
questions and emotions about national dominance,
discussing the issue of power in terms of employees
lack of uency in the lingua franca, social exclusion
of local staff and the isolation of entire groups of
subsidiaries. Neeleys (2013) study on status loss of
nonnative English-speaking employees further con-
rms the crucial impact of language skills on intra-
personal and interpersonal dynamics in a global
organization with English as lingua franca. In a
related vein, other scholars have pointed to the
emergence of a hierarchy of languages. Marschan-
Piekkari et al. (1999a), for example, showed how
language distance between headquarters reveals a
hierarchy of languages, imposing its own structure
on communication ows and personal networks.
Such emphasis on (non)recognition of local lan-
guages then further implies that people should have
the possibility to speak and to invest in learning
multiple local languages, as this respects the premise
that language is connected to the ongoing negotia-
tion of meaning.
In summary, much IB research with its focus on
contextualization closely adopts the assumptions of
monological multilingualism by emphasizing its
appreciation for the particularity of multiple cultures
within the universal. Researchers favor a concept of
multilingualism that shows a preference for parallel,
coexisting linguistic systems and their adherent
ideologies. Rather than to invest in a common lingua
franca as ideal of equality, this second approach sees
one lingua franca as a danger of linguistic imperial-
ism and hegemony and poses that a democratic,
inclusive approach can only be adopted when every-
one invests in learning to speak other languages and
respects the rights of minority languages. However,
while scholars tend to view this as an alternative to
lingua franca, they still conceptualize multilingual-
ism in a monological way, approaching each lan-
guage as a pre-existing entity.
ENVISIONING A MULTILINGUAL FRANCA
APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE IN IB
To show the potential and uniqueness of a
multilingual franca approach, we now envision
how this approach toward studying language in
contemporary forms of global organizing would
look. We rst present the main characteristics
of a multilingual franca approach, together with its
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
633
methodological and practice implications. We
then apply the research approach to one particular
setting of globalized localities: multicultural global
teams.
Conceiving a Multilingual Franca Approach
The essence of a multilingual franca approach is that
researchers would focus on the doing of language
within globalized localities. The underlying premise
is that language is a social practice, taking place in
contexts where linguistic and cultural hybridity and
complexity are present. Multicultural global teams
are such an example; so are expatriate assignments,
IB negotiations or mergers of global companies.
These are all contexts where local realities reect
global embeddedness and where the global cannot
be thought of without the local. Within these set-
tings, scholars would consider the creative ways
in which language users are resourceful speakers,
crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries to
express their voice and form new linguistic and
cultural possibilities (Harissi et al., 2012; Otsuji &
Pennycook, 2011). Rather than investigating how
people talk about language, they want to under-
stand the accomplishment of translanguaging
and voicing through examining sets of conversa-
tions in which people use and mix elements of their
language repertoires.
In this performative view of language, research
focus and analytical attention would go to micro-
variation. This micro-variation is typical to the con-
text of globalization, as people have, through their
increased mobility, moved across languages, accents
and speech varieties as well as learned that what
works well in one place can backre elsewhere
(Blommaert & Dong, 2010). In contrast to the
strategic conception of the lingua franca approach
which tends to take a bird-eye view of HQ-subsidiary
relationships, and also to the multilingual approach
which examines actors (individuals, groups or sub-
sidiaries) cultural and political reactions against
linguistic hegemony, a multilingual franca approach
zooms in on the micro-processes through which
individuals enact the social situation of globalized
localities. In line with the idea of human-centered
multilingualism, central are speakers language use
or the way they bricolage or even manipulate the
linguistic resources they have available to them.
With the focus on micro-variation and the
ongoing accomplishment of translanguaging and
voicing, methodological approaches would need
to be altered. Heretofore, language studies in IB are
mainly based on surveys and interviews, methods
Journal of International Business Studies
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
634
that provide material on how people talk about
language. They miss out on the living performance
of language use, the conversations and interactions
that involve the mixing and bricolage of linguistic
resources. So, what is needed are studies in an
ethnographic format that allows observing and
audiotaping speakers so that one can study how
voices are positioned by switching languages, paro-
dying accents, dialects, intonations, mixing (social)
media, silences and so on.
To fully understand the linguistic performance of
actors within globalized localities, however, audio-
recorded naturally occurring workplace conversa-
tions alone are not sufcient. In keeping with
Hellers (1988) original vision of multilevel critical
ethnographic sociolinguistics research, the focus is
not only on the lived dynamics of everyday commu-
nicative life but also on the ways in which everyday
practices and literacies are embedded in wider social,
cultural and historical processes. To capture the
socio-political and historical context, other data
sources are needed such as interviews relating to
speakers biographical backgrounds and follow-up
interviews with the participants regarding their posi-
tion within the global organization, as well as archi-
val material providing information on the broader
context. This variety of data sources will allow
researchers to fully interpret the various ways in
which people disrupt, claim and construct cultural
and language ideologies and identities to express
voice within the socio-political context under study.
Whereas the emphasis of a multilingual franca
approach is on the uid process of language use, it
is crucial to note that speakers, in relying on multi-
lingual resources, also will draw on relatively xed
understandings of language, culture and identity to
convey their voice. For instance, Harissi et al. (2012)
show how bilingual Greek/English adolescents
employ, in their bilingual conversation, a Greek
phrase and Greek accent to articulate a particular
Greek prejudicial view of gypsies. Scholars will
therefore need to account for the interplay of xed
and unxed language elements, cultural identica-
tions and social relationships within uid language
use. According to Harissi et al. (2012: 539), the core
angle of a multilingual franca approach is to under-
stand the relationship between uid language acts
participants engage in while at the same time also
deploying xed, stable and sometimes stereotypical
images of languages, people and cultures.
As a consequence, this multilingual franca app-
roach has the potential to conceive a corporate
language policy which is emancipatory in nature.
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
Whereas a monological lingua franca and mono-
logical multilingualism reect a language policy
whether strategically or inclusively that is pre-
mised on the notion of relatively xed and stable
borders between discrete languages (cf. Otsuji &
Pennycook, 2011), this approach puts forward a
language policy that acknowledges the uidity and
hybridity of language use. In particular, such a policy
would allow mixed language use where individuals
can draw from multiple linguistic resources without
having to accommodate to any singular norm
whether this would be the lingua franca or the local
language(s). It would explore a new way of under-
standing multilingualism, one that overcomes
monolingual blindness by supporting translingual
practices. Further, just as in monological multilingu-
alism, such a policy would support individuals
investment in their multiple linguistic resources.
The difference, though, would be that a multilingual
franca policy would aim to be non-normative, mov-
ing beyond any singular norm which inevitably
leads to a particular form of social exclusion. In
particular, it would emphasize the creativity and
dynamism of the mixed language use which effec-
tively undermines hegemonic linguistic practices
and produces new possibilities of speaking and com-
municating (cf. Otsuji & Pennycook, 2011), thereby
providing opportunity and latitude for social and
political change from below (Makoni & Pennycook,
2012).
A Multilingual Franca Approach to the Linguistic
Performance of Global Teams
We now apply the general idea of a multilingual
franca approach to the setting of global teams.
Global teams are not only an often studied topic in
IB (Brett et al., 2006; Stahl et al., 2010) but, in our
view, especially fruitful to study because they con-
stitute so-called intersections, the spaces where
bi- and multilingual individuals with different
(national, cultural, functional, organizational) back-
grounds encounter each other and are in a position
to negotiate the languages they use and interweave.
In our discussion of this globalized locality, we
elaborate on two possible research foci: rst, subject
positioning of team members and, second, the posi-
tion of lingua franca English (LFE) within a mixed
language context.
Language use and subject positioning
A multilingual franca approach might be very suitable
to examine how global team members linguistic
performance is linked to the ongoing productivity
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
of their subjectivity. This approach rejects the
assumption that team members can be a priori
labeled as, say, Danish or Australian, and instead
allows scholars to consider the processes by which
language and identity are constantly being remade.
As mentioned earlier, Harissi et al. (2012) show the
example of a young Turkish-Australian man who,
through language use in which he interweaves Eng-
lish and in-group informal Japanese, creates a new
space of identication. These scholars emphasize
that when studying bi- or multilingual speakers
who are comfortable moving in and out of two or
more languages, the main aim is not to identify a
reason for the move from one language to another
(such as no equivalent term in one language to
express a particular idea). This would be premised
on the assumption about languages as discrete codes
and the need to explain movement from one to the
other. Rather, the main focus is on understanding
how resourceful speakers, through their translangua-
ging practices, try out, resist and change identity
categorizations (Harissi et al., 2012).
Similarly, in the case of global teams, one can
assume that global team members create identities in
the performance of language. So, whereas the two
other research approaches tend to neglect identity-
related issues, or a priori link identity to the national
characteristics of particular groups, scholars following
this line of inquiry assume a different take on the
construction of identities. They would reject, in the
words of Harissi et al. (2012: 527), assumptions
about pregiven speaker identities behind the utter-
ances in favor of a view of subjectivities being made
in the repeated acts of linguistic doings. Such an
approach to language and subjectivity would entail a
study of global teams that explores the conversations
among team members and with outsiders, aiming to
understand how team members, through the inter-
weaving of multiple language resources, position
themselves in particular ways. For instance, having
observed and audiotaped global team meetings, scho-
lars may study how a team member from Australia
resists his position as a low-status member because
he comes from a small subsidiary and creates an
alternative categorization through talking not only
English but also bringing in Danish, the mother
tongue of a dominant coalition in the global com-
pany. Scholars may further examine the emancipa-
tory nature of such language use and subject
positioning in terms of the new possibilities it creates
for the team member as well as the team as a whole.
As emphasized in bilingual studies (Harissi et al.,
2012; Otsuji & Pennycook, 2011), parody and
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
635
stylization are important ways in which people try
out, resist and change identity categorizations. This
would suggest that scholars, when interpreting the
empirical material, should attend to the parodic use
of accents, caricatured English-sounding accents,
repetitive word plays or other forms of stylization
to understand the ongoing constructions of sub-
jectivity. One might notice, for example, how the
team member from Australia pronounces the Danish
word Smrrebrd with a caricatured Australian
accent which is aimed at Danish team members
perceptions of how Australian colleagues perceive
and articulate aspects of Danish. Doing so, this team
members linguistic behavior momentarily plays
with possibilities, trying out certain identity mean-
ings in the doing and thereby aiming to express
voice.
We further emphasize, as mentioned above, that
scholars should attend not only to the uid language
use in the data (mixing English and Danish vocabu-
lary, Australian and English accents) but also to the
use of relatively xed understandings of language,
culture and identity (Harissi et al., 2012; Otsuji &
Pennycook, 2011). The Danish word Smrrebrd
is used as a marker of stereotypical Danish but
paradoxically, the xity of this word and its meaning
is changed and opened up for critical examination
the moment that the team member from Australia
uses it. Overall, in applying the multilingual franca
approach to understand global team members
subjectivity, scholars would be interested in how
team members are resourceful multilingual speakers
who play with their different linguistic resources as
well as mobilizing xed understandings of national
(or regional, ethnic, cultural) identities to create a
uid way of being and construct their subjectivity in
the performance. In short, an analysis of language
use in global teams might thus reveal what Otsuji
and Pennycook (2011: 249) call the push and pull
between xity and uidity, the capacity to mobilise
and critique essentialised identity ascriptions.
Multilingual franca use and LFE
Another possible research focus within global teams
is to re-interpret the position of LFE. A multilingual
franca approach assumes that a lingua franca does not
necessarily need to consist of one language (e.g.,
English) but might consist of the mixing of two
languages while also possibly drawing upon other
languages, including professional and functional
ones. Otsuji and Pennycook (2011) mention the
example of a company in Sydney where a mixed
Japanese/English code has become the lingua franca
Journal of International Business Studies
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
636
of the workplace. They emphasize that the main
focus is on the enactment of this bilingual policy,
not by claiming some kind of plural coexistence of
two (or more) languages but by zooming in on the
everyday translanguaging and its mixing of var-
ious linguistic resources. Moreover, if global teams
choose to use English as their lingua franca,
one can assume that a more complex pattern of
language mixing will emerge, increasingly so when
one acknowledges that English is itself not homo-
geneous. So, whereas the two other research
approaches consider English to be a readily avail-
able (and a priori existing) lingua franca which
everyone can join to talk, or a symbol of linguistic
hegemony, scholars following this line of inquiry
assume a different take on the meaning and posi-
tion of English. They would argue, in the words of
Canagarajah (2007: 91), that LFE does not exist as
a system out there; rather, it is constantly
brought into being in each context of communica-
tion. Quite provocatively, English becomes a
glocal language, a hybrid language enacted in a
social process.
Such re-conceptualization of LFE would entail a
study of global teams that explores the micro-
variations of English as a multilingual franca. It
would aim to understand how communication in
the team is enacted through a multi-vocalized and
hybrid understanding of language, where the
boundary between English and other languages
and between different forms of English are less
and less clear as it is concocted from a variety of
resources. This idea is also reected in the work of
Higgins (2009), who studied English as a local and
multivocal language in East Africa, in the process
destabilizing some of the dominant conceptualiza-
tions of English. Instead of seeing English as a
distinct code or as a global language, she suggests
that we need to address the implications of the
hybridity and linguistic bricolage in which English
so often takes part. The focus is thus on the
language use of English as a transmodal trajectory,
which would imply that we need to incorporate
social activity, location, movement, interaction
and history, as well as, wherever possible, various
users perspectives. The inclusion of users means
that practicing English is a relational process that
shifts as team members enter into contact with
different groups or persons. For instance, language
users might be ironic about the bastard English
they use or make a parody of their own pronuncia-
tion of English or their inconsequential transla-
tions, depending on whom they are interacting
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
with (e.g., a colleague speaking Oxford English, or
a Russian or Brazilian client). Related to this,
scholars may attend to how team leaders allow or
even stimulate such mixed language use. They may
inquire into how the conditions are set by manage-
ment to provide space for the creation of a lingua
franca that incorporates a variety of linguistic
resources.
To illustrate such a multilingual franca approach
we can turn to the study by Steyaert, Ostendorp,
and Gaibrois (2011) on English as lingua franca in a
MNC. Rather than approaching the issue of lingua
franca in a monological, xed way, the authors see
it as a negotiating process, and identify a range
of discursive practices that people draw upon to
legitimize the language in which they conduct
their meetings or communicate with a particular
colleague or client. Here, English features as
globish, a hybrid and living language where the
idea of being native-English speaker is questioned
as, for instance, British and Australian colleagues
make sense of each others accents and where non-
native English speakers mock their own unsophis-
ticated use of British English. As this study is based
mostly on interviews, and thus misses out on the
living performance of hybrid English, one could
imagine further developing such a study in an
ethnographic format by following (and audiotaping)
the members of a multicultural team, and examining
the multilingual complexity of their communica-
tion with each other and outsiders. Data could be
generated during team and bilateral meetings,
emails and Skype conferences, occasional encoun-
ters and more formal setups such as performance
appraisals or planning meetings. The unit of ana-
lysis would be the transcripts of mixed language use
to interpret how team members use their multi-
lingual resources and with what implications. One
might consider studying, as Otsuji and Pennycook
(2011) do, how team members both draw upon
essentialized understandings of language (and iden-
tity) and also play with or critique the meaning of
words as they translate for each other.
In short, a multilingual franca approach argues
that the predominant consideration of English or
bilingual language use in IB research is too often
premised on a notion of relatively xed and stable
borders between discrete languages (which may or
may not have a commodity value). Instead, this
alternative approach urges researchers to zoom in
on the potentially overlooked creative, dynamic and
transgressive language practices of todays glocal
work teams to more accurately document the
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
entwined relationship between xed and uid
notions of language and identity and the emergence
of novel enactments of power relations that are
produced by such hybrid language use.
CONCLUSION
Heretofore, language studies in IB have steered
between the Scylla of a lingua franca and the
Charybdis of (monological) multilingualism. Rely-
ing on sociolinguistics and cosmopolitan theory, we
have shown how both options, while treated as
opposites, emerge from the same linguistic and
global assumptions as both approach the idea of
language as a discrete, pre-existing entity and both
consider universality and particularity to be separate
notions. We further have highlighted how changing
both assumptions can facilitate a research approach
that conceives language as a social practice in globa-
lized localities. In our view, this third option, the
multilingual franca approach, offers language scho-
lars in IB a fascinating route because of two main
advantages. First, by conceiving MNCs as sites where
the global and the local co-produce each other, it has
the advantage of capturing the current complex
global reality of MNCs (or, for that matter, global
organizations of any other type). Second, by con-
ceiving language as a social activity, it highlights
how users mobilize multiple linguistic resources to
express voice, thereby importing at its heart diversity
that truly goes beyond any kind of monolingualism.
In this line of inquiry, the question for language
scholars in IB is no longer whether MNCs are
supposed to be monolingual or multilingual; rather,
the question becomes how to understand linguistic
performance within global work settings as a
REFERENCES
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of
globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Appiah, K. A. 1998. Cosmopolitan patriots. In P. Cheah, & B. Robbins
(Eds), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the nation:
91115. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Archibugi, D. 1995. Cosmopolitan democracy: An agenda for the
new world order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Archibugi, D. 2005. The language of democracy: Vernacular or
Esperanto? A comparison between the multiculturalist and
cosmopolitan perspectives. Political Studies, 53(3): 537555.
Bauman, Z. 1998. Globalization: The human consequences.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. 2002. The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory,
Culture and Society, 19(1): 1744.
Beck, U. 2004. Cosmopolitical realism: On the distinction
between cosmopolitanism in philosophy and the social
sciences. Global Networks, 4(2): 131156.
Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. 2006. Unpacking cosmopolitanism for
the social sciences: A research agenda. The British Journal of
Sociology, 57(1): 123.
Bhabha, H. K. 1994. The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
637
heteroglossic and hybrid process where uid and
xed elements of language, identity and social rela-
tionships are interwoven. In our view (Steyaert &
Janssens, 2013), choosing this route will allow IB
scholarship to become more thoughtful of the var-
ious pre-given and statist conceptions they infuse in
their research projects, such as language, nationality
and culture. Also, scholars, especially those promot-
ing multilingualism, might become less idealistic
about claiming a happy hybridity (Otsuji &
Pennycook, 2011) as they pluralize and reify many
languages or simply reinstate English as many Eng-
lishes without showing how they are related and
practiced in an ongoing series of conversations.
Thus, we suggest to those interested in the study of
languages in IB that they might learn to dis-invent
languages and to study the living translanguaging,
a paradoxical practice co-constituted by globality
and locality, singularity and hybridity, xity and
uidity. We further believe that such a line of
thinking has the potential to offer space and latitude
for social and political change, as a corporate lan-
guage policy aligned with a multilingual franca
approach moves away from any singular norm.
Through allowing mixed language use, new possibi-
lities may be produced that undermine hegemonic
linguistic practices and are emancipatory in nature.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful for the constructive comments we
received from the anonymous reviewers and M.Y.
Brannen. We also received useful suggestions from the
convenors and members of the EGOS-subtheme on
The power of language(s): A linguistic perspective on
organizational realities in Montreal, 2013.
Blommaert, J. 2008. Artefactual ideologies and the textual
production of African languages. Language and Communication,
28(4): 291307.
Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J., & Dong, J. 2010. Language and movement in
space. In N. Coupland (Ed), The handbook of language and
globalization: 366385. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bosire, M. 2006. Hybrid languages: The case of Sheng. In O. F.
Arasanyin & M. A. Pemberton (Eds), Selected proceedings of the
36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Sommerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualiza-
tion, semantic fit and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of
Management Review, 29(4): 593616.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Kern, M. C. 2006. Managing multicultural
teams. Harvard Business Review, 84(11): 8491.
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of
linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Canagarajah, S. 2007. The ecology of global English. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2): 89100.
Journal of International Business Studies
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
638
Cowie, C. 2007. The accents of outsourcing: The meanings of
neutral in the Indian call centre industry. World Englishes,
26(3): 316330.
Delanty, G. 2006. The cosmopolitan imagination: Critical cosmo-
politanism and social theory. British Journal of Sociology, 57(1):
2547.
Delanty, G., & Inglis, D. 2011. Introduction: An overview of the
field of cosmopolitan studies. In G. Delanty, & D. Inglis (Eds),
Cosmopolitanism: Critical concepts in the social sciences: 127.
London: Routledge.
Extra, G., & Verhoeven, L. 1999. Immigrant minority groups and
immigrant minority languages in Europe. In G. Extra, &
L. Verhoeven (Eds), Bilingualism and migration: 328. Berling:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Featherstone, M. 2002. Cosmopolis: An introduction. Theory,
Culture and Society, 19(1): 116.
Fraser, N. 2007. Transnationalizing the public sphere. In
S. Benhabib, I. Shapiro, & D. Petranovic (Eds), Identities, affiliations,
and allegiances: 4566. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fredrikson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. 2006. The
multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: The
notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Commu-
nication: An International Journal, 11(4): 406423.
Friedman, J. 1994. Cultural identity and global process. London:
Sage.
Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global
perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibbons, J., & Ramirez, E. 2004. Maintaining a minority language:
A case study of hispanic teenagers. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Habermas, J. 1999. Does Europe need a constitution? Response
to Dieter Grimm. In C. Grimm, & P. De Greiff (Eds), The inclusion
of the other: 155164. Cambridge: Polity.
Hannerz, U. 1990. Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture.
Theory, Culture and Society, 7(2): 237251.
Hannerz, U. 1996. Transnational connections: Culture, people,
places. London: Routledge.
Harissi, M., Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. 2012. The performative
fixing and unfixing of subjectivities. Applied Linguistics, 33(5):
524543.
Harzing, A.-W., Kster, K., & Magner, U. 2011. Babel in business:
The language barrier and its solutions in the HQ-subsidiary
relationship. Journal of World Business, 46(3): 279287.
Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the global order: From the nation-
state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. 1998. Democracy and globalization. In D. Archibugi,
D. Held, & M. Kohler (Eds), Cosmopolitan democracy: 1127.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. 2002. Cosmopolitanism: Ideas, realities and deficits. In
D. Held, & A. McGrew (Eds), Governing globalization: 305320.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heller, M. 1988. Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic
perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heller, M. (Ed) 2007. Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In,
Bilingualism: A social approach: 124. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Heller, M. 2011. Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of
language and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henderson Kassis, J. 2005. Language diversity in international
management teams. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 35(1): 4354.
Higgins, C. 2009. English as local language: Post-colonial identities
and multilingual practices. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ives, P. 2006. Global English: Linguistic imperialism or practical
lingua franca. Studies in Language and Capitalism, 1(1): 121141.
Ives, P. 2010. Cosmopolitanism and global English: Language
politics in globalization debates. Political Studies, 58(3):
516535.
Jaffe, A. 2007. Minority language movements. In M. Heller (Ed),
Bilingualism: A social approach: 5070. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Journal of International Business Studies
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. 2012. Towards an ethical research
agenda for international HRM: The possibilities of a plural cosmo-
politan framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1): 6172.
Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. 2004. Developing lan-
guage strategies for international companies: The contribution
of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4): 414430.
Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. 2010. Semiotic landscapes: Language,
image, space. London: Continuum.
Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. 2006. The multinational corporation as a
multilingual community: Language and organization in a
global context. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3):
321339.
Maher, J. 2005. Metroethnicity, language and the principle
of cool. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,
2005(175/176): 83102.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism:
From monological multilingualism to multilingual franca.
In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds), The
Routledge handbook of multilingualism: 439453. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Mannheim, B. 1991. The language of the Inkha: Since the European
invasion. Austin: University of Texas.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. 1999a. In the
shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and
communication in the multinational. International Business
Review, 8(4): 421440.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. 1999b. Adopting a
common corporate language: IHRM implications. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3): 377390.
Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. 2012. Introduc-
tion: A sociolinguistics of multilingualism for our times. In
M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds), The Routle-
dge handbook of multilingualism: 126. Abingdon: Routledge.
Molz, J. G. 2006. Cosmopolitan bodies: Fit to travel and travelling
to fit. Body & Society, 12(3): 121.
Nakata, M. 2007. Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines.
Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Neeley, T. B. 2013. Language matters: Status loss and achieved
status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science,
24(2): 476497.
Nussbaum, M. 1994. Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. Boston
Review, 19(5): 334.
Nussbaum, M. 2010. Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In
G. Brown, & D. Held (Eds), The cosmopolitan reader: 155162,
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Ong, A. 1999. Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnation-
ality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. 2011. Social inclusion and metrolin-
gual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 14(4): 413426.
Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. 2012. Language policies and practices
in wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries: A recontextualization
perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9):
808833.
Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows.
London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. 2011. A world of languages: Implications
for international management research and practice. Journal of
World Business, 46(3): 267269.
Piekkari, R., & Zander, L. 2005. Language and communication in
international management. International Studies of Manage-
ment & Organization, 35(1): 39.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Sntti, R. 2005. Integration or
disintegration? Human resource implications of a common
corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3): 330344.
Poster, W. R. 2007. Whos on the line? Indian call center agents
pose as Americans for US-outsourced firms. Industrial Relations,
46(2): 271304.
 Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding
Pratt, M. L. 1987. Linguistic utopias. In N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A.
Durant, & C. MacCabe (Eds), The Linguistics of writing: Argu-
ments between language and literature: 4866. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Rabinow, P. 1996. The anthropology of reason. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Regev, M. 2007. Cultural uniqueness and aesthetic cosmo-
politanism. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(1): 123138.
Rhodes, C., & Westwood, R. 2007. Letting knowledge go: Ethics
and representation of the Other in international and cross-cultural
management. In C. Carter, S. Clegg, M. Kornberger, S. Laske, &
M. Messner (Eds), Business ethics as practice: Representation,
reflexivity and performance: 6883. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Robertson, R. 1995. Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-
heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone et al. (Eds), Global moder-
nities: 2344. London: Sage.
Said, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2011. Ways of constructing research
questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization,
18(1): 2344.
Schiefflien, B. 1990. The give and take of everyday life: Language
socialization of the Kaluli children. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Sonntag, S. K. 2003. The local politics of global English. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Sonntag, S. K. 2005. Appropriating identity or cultivating capital?
Global English in offshoring service industries. Anthropology of
Work Review, 26(6): 1320.
Sonntag, S. K. 2009. Linguistic globalization and the call
center industry: Imperialism, hegemony or cosmopolitanism?
Language Policy, 8(1): 525.
Spivak, G. C. 1993. Outside in the teaching machine. London:
Routledge.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. 2010.
Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-
analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41(4): 690709.
Steyaert, C., & Janssens, M. 2013. Multilingual scholarship and
the paradox of translation and language in management and
organization studies. Organization, 20(1): 131142.
Steyaert, C., Ostendorp, A., & Gaibrois, C. 2011. Multilingual
organizations as linguascapes: Negotiating the position of
English through discursive practices. Journal of World Business,
46(3): 270278.
Tietze, S. 2008. International management and language. London:
Routledge.
Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert
639
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, J., & Sntti, R. 2005. Language and
the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(3): 595623.
Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (Eds) 2002. Introduction: Conceiving
cosmopolitanism. In, Conceiving cosmopolitanism. Theory, con-
text and practice: 122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waldron, J. 1992. Minority cultures and the cosmopolitan
alternative. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 25(3):
751793.
Welch, D., Welch, L., & Piekkari, R. 2005. Speaking in tongues.
The importance of language in international management
processes. International Studies of Management & Organization,
35(1): 1027.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Maddy Janssens, Professor of Organisation Studies at
the Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven,
studies the relationship between difference and
emancipatory practices in organizations. Key areas of
inquiry have been intercultural management, diver-
sity, and interorganizational collaborations. Her
current research works with cosmopolitanism in
order to consider how global connectivity is trans-
lated into ethical and political issues in global
organizations.
Chris Steyaert, Professor for Organizational
Psychology at the University of Sankt Gallen, has
published in international journals and books in the
area of organizational theory and entrepreneurship.
With an interest in organizing change, intervention
and entrepreneurship, he has focused on such
themes as creativity, reexivity and multiplicity, the
latter applied to multilingualism and translation in
everyday and scholarly practice.
Journal of International Business Studies