1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

International business negotiations are prone to several difficulties, one of the most fundamental of which being differences in cultural conceptualizations ( Sharifian 2011 ). In order to explore how Brazilians and Germans conceptualize , interviews in English with business negotiators were conducted and cultural conceptualizations analyzed. Following an ‘organic’ ( Quinn 2005 ) and (mainly) qualitative approach to data, this paper presents: (a) the main conceptualizations found for both groups; (b) a cognitive-linguistic analysis of collocations of ‘respect’ found in the interviews; and (c) a preliminary sketch of group-level conceptualizations of for both groups. For Brazilians, the source domains and were salient, which points to the relevance of hierarchy. For Germans, the source domain and the cultural schema were recurrent, which signals appreciation for the public-private sphere separation. These conceptual differences might have practical consequences in international negotiation scenarios.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.4.2.07oli
2017-12-14
2019-08-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Nickerson, C., & Planken, B.
    (2007) Business discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230627710
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627710 [Google Scholar]
  2. Dörnyei, Z.
    (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2008) Rethinking metaphor. InR. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Hofstede, G.
    (1991) Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Holanda, S. B.
    (1936/1995) Raízes do Brasil. 26. ed.São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kachru, B. B.
    (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. InR. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world (pp.11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kimmel, M.
    (2004) Metaphor variation in cultural context: Perspectives from anthropology. European Journal of English Studies, 8(3), 275–294. doi: 10.1080/1382557042000277395
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1382557042000277395 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005) Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. InB. Hampe & J. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.285–312). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532.4.285
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.4.285 [Google Scholar]
  11. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lakoff, G.
    (1997) The internal structure of the Self. InU. Neisser & D. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual Self in context: culture, experience, self-understanding (pp.92–113). Cambridge/New York/ Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K.
    (1986) The manager as negotiator. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Marra, M.
    (2008) Recording and analyzing talk across cultures. InH. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.304–321). 2nd ed.London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mandler, J. M., & Cánovas, C. P.
    (2014) On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(04), 510–532. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.14
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mendes de Oliveira, M.
    (manuscript). Business negotiations between Brazilians and Germans: conceptualization and practice.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. OED online = Oxford English Dictionary
    OED online = Oxford English Dictionary (2013 online). Oxford University Press. www.oed.com.
  20. Pearson, V. M., & Stephan, W. G.
    (1998) Preferences for styles of negotiation: A comparison of Brazil and the US. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 67–83. doi: 10.1016/S0147‑1767(97)00036‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00036-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H.-G.
    (2007) Culture-specific conceptualisations of corruption in African English. InF. Sharifian, & G. B. Palmer (Eds.), Applied cultural linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication (pp.125–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.7.09pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.09pol [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) Investigating culture from a linguistic perspective: An exemplification with Hong Kong English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 58(3), 281–303. doi: 10.1515/zaa.2010.58.3.281
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2010.58.3.281 [Google Scholar]
  23. Quinn, N.
    (1991) The cultural basis of metaphor. InJ. Fernandez (Ed.), Beyond metaphor. The theory of tropes in anthropology (pp.56–93). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2005) How to reconstruct schemas people share. InN. Quinn (Ed.), Finding culture in talk: A collection of methods (pp.33–81). New York: Palgrave Miller. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑05871‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-05871-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Schröder, U.
    (2009) A Construção Metafórica do Conceito ‘Sociedade’ em Perspectiva Comparativa [The metaphorical construal of the concept ‘society’ in a comparative perspective]. Pandaemonium Germanicum, 14, 105–141. doi: 10.1590/S1982‑88372009000100007
    https://doi.org/10.1590/S1982-88372009000100007 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) Mesclagens metafóricas e suas funções no discurso sobre a sociedade: um estudo comparativo [Conceptual blending and its functions in discourse about society]. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 10(3), 575–602. doi: 10.1590/S1984‑63982010000300005
    https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982010000300005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schroll-Machl, S.
    (2013) Doing business with Germans: Their perception, our perception. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. doi: 10.13109/9783666461675
    https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666461675 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sharifian, F.
    (2011) Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. doi: 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2015) Cultural linguistics and world Englishes. World Englishes, 34(4), 515–532. doi: 10.1111/weng.12156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12156 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017) Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sørensen, H. E.
    (2012) Business development. InD. Teece & M. Augier (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp.1–2). Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stubbe, M.
    (2001) From office to production line: Collecting data for the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project. Language in the Workplace Project, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphoric and culture aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  34. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Force dynamics in language and cognition. InL. Talmy (2000), Toward a cognitive semantics. VolI: Concept structuring systems (pp.409–470). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2000a) Fictive motion in language and ception. InL. Talmy (2000), Toward a cognitive semantics. VolI: Concept structuring systems (pp.99–174). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Triandis, H. C.
    (1995) Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wagner, J.
    (1995) What makes a discourse a negotiation?InK. Ehlich & J. Wagner (Eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (pp.9–36). New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110881516.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110881516.9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wolf, H. -G.
    (1994) A folk model of the ‘internal self’ in light of the contemporary view of metaphor: The self as subject and object. European University Studies, Series XIV Anglo-Saxon Language and Literature, vol.284. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2015) Language and culture in intercultural communication. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.445–459). Oxford/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.4.2.07oli
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.4.2.07oli
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error