Playing the Corporate Language Game: An investigation ofthe genres and discourse strategies in English used by Dutch writers working in multinational corporations

Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication

Volumn 15, Issue , 2000, Pages 1-255

  Nickerson, Catherine ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85170283458     PISSN: 09277706     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (183)

1. Abelen, E., Redeker, G., & Thompson, S. A. (1993). The rhetorical structure ofUS-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text, 13(3), 323-350.
2. Adler, N. (1980). Cultural synergy: The management of cross-cultural organizations. In W. Burke & L. Goodstein (Eds.), Trends and issues in OD: Current theory and practice (pp. 163-184). San Diego: University Associates.
3. Akar, D. (1998). Patterns and variations in contemporary written business communication in Turkey: A genre study offour companies. Unpublished Ph.D, Michigan, Ann Arbor.
4. Akar, D., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999). Towards a new genre: A comparative study of business faxes. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C.Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 207-226). London and New York: Longman.
5. Baker Graham, M., & Thralls, C. (1998). Connections and fissures: Discipline formation in business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 7-13.
6. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University ofTexas Press.
7. Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In M. Bakhtin (Ed.), The problem of speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
8. Barabas, C. (1990). Technical writing in a corporate culture: A study ofthe nature ofinformation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9. Barbara, L., Celani, M. A. A., Collins, H., & Scott, M. (1996). A survey of communication patterns in the Brazilian business context. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 57-71.
10. Barbara, L., & Scott, M. (1999). Homing in on a genre: Invitations for bids. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 227-254). London and New York: Longman.
11. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (1999). Meaning creation and genre across cultures: Human resource management magazines in Britain and Italy. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 129-152). London and New York: Longman.
12. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Nickerson, C. (1999). Business writing as social action. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 1-32). London and New York: Longman.
13. Bazerman, C. (1980). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Social Studies ofScience Newsletter, 5, 14-19.
14. Bazerman, C. (1983). Reporting the experiment: The changing account of scientific doings. Philosohpical Transactions ofthe Royal Society, 1665-1800.
15. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity o f the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University o f Wisconsin Press.
16. Bazerman, C. (1994a). Constructing experience. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
17. Bazerman, C. (1994b). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London: Taylor and Francis.
18. Bazerman, C. (1997). Some informal comments on texts mediating fund-raising relationships: Cultural sites of affiliation. (Working Papers 98-13): Indiana Center of Philanthropy.
19. Beaufort, A. (1997). Operationalizing the concept of discourse community: A case study of one institutional site of composing. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 31(4486-529.
20. Beaugrande, R. D., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
21. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erblaum Associates.
22. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
23. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
25. Blyler, N. R., & Thralls, C. (Eds.). (1993). Professional communication: The social perspective. Newbury Park, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications.
26. Boden, D. (1994). The business oftalk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
27. Bots, A. (1997). Internal and external communication: A study of the communication structure within the Analytical Technology Group. Unpublished MA, Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
28. Brown, A. B. (1995). Organisationalculture. London: Pitman Publishing.
29. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographic essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
31. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London and New York: Routlegde.
32. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schimdt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London and New York: Longman.
33. Cassady, M., & Wasson, L. (1994). Written communication skills of international business persons. ACEA Bulletin, December, 36-40.
34. Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
35. Charles, M. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 19-36.
36. Charles, M., & Charles, D. (1999). Sales negotiations: Bargaining through tactical summaries. In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson {Eds.), Business English: Research into Practice (pp. 72-83). London and New York: Longman.
37. Charles, M., Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Schumacher, S. (1998). Managerial discourse: Report on an international study (work in progress). Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Convention of the Association of Business Communication, San Antonio, Texas.
38. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 69, 143-158.
39. Claessen, J. F. M., Van Galen, A. M., & Oud-de Glas, M. M. B. (1978). De behoeften aan moderne vreemde ta/en. Een onderzoek onder bedrijven en overheidsdiensten (tekst). (Vol. VI). Nijmegen: ITS.
40. Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, socialandcross-culturalperspectives (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
41. Connor, U. (1996). Constrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects ofsecond/anguage writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Connor, U. (1999). 'How like you our fish?' Accommodation in international business communication. In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 116-129). London and New York: Longman.
43. Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 143-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44. Couture, B. (1992). Categorizing professional discourse. Engineering, administrative and technical writing. The Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6(1), 5-37.
45. Crismore, A, Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
46. David, C. (1999). Words of women: A study of executives' rhetorical strategies. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 153-178). New York and London: Longman.
47. Davies, F., Forey, G., & Hyatt, D. (1999). Exploring aspects of context: Selected findings from the Effective Writing for Management Project. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media anddiscourses (pp. 293-312). London and New York: Longman.
48. de Bot, C. (1994). Waarom deze rede niet in het Engels is. Nijmegen: University ofNijmegen.
49. Devitt, A J. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential and functional. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics o f the professions: Historical and contemporary studies o f writing in professional communities (pp. 336-357). Madison, WI: University o f Wisconsin Press.
50. Devitt, A. J. (1993). Generalizing about genre: new conceptions of an old concept. College Composition andCommunication, 44(4), 573-586.
51. Dow, E. (1999). Negotiation comes of age: Research in non-native contexts and implications for today's business English materials. In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 84-100). London and New York: Longman.
52. Drennan, D. (1992). Transforming company culture: Getting your company from where you are now to where you want to be. London: McGraw-Hill.
53. Driskill, L. P. (1989). Understanding the writing context in organisations. In M. Kogen (Ed.), Writing in the business professions (pp. 125-145). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English/The Association for Business Communication.
54. Faigley, L. (1985). Nonacademic writing: The social perspective. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 231-248). New York: Guildford Press.
55. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language andpower. London: Longman.
56. Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
57. Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse andSociety, 3(2), 193-217.
58. Fairclough, N. (1992c). lntertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4, 269-293.
59. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London and New York: Edward Arnold.
60. Firth, A. (1991). Discourse at work: Negotiating by telex, fax and 'phone. Unpublished Ph.D, Aalborg, Aalborg.
61. Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999). Defining the genre of the "case write-up". Journal ofBusiness Communication, 36(2), 103-133.
62. Freadman, A. (1994). Anyone for tennis? In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 43-66). London: Taylor and Francis.
63. Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994). Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis.
64. Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail - a new style of communication or just a new medium?: An investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 81-101.
65. Gallion, L. M., & Kavan, C. B. (1994). A case study in business writing: An examination of documents written by executives and managers. The Bulletin ofthe Association ofBusiness Communication, December, 9-11.
66. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation ofcultures. New York: Basic Books.
67. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge, further essays in interpretive anthropology. (First ed.). New York: Basic Books, Inc.
68. Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modem psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.
69. Giddens, A. (1979). Centralproblems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in socialanalysis. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
70. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
71. Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
72. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory andpractice ofwriting. London and New York: Longman.
73. Grin, F. (1993). European economic integration and the fate of lesser-used languages. Language Problems andLanguage Planning, 17, 101-116.
74. Gunnarsson, B.-L. (1997). The writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Written Communication, 14(2), 139-188.
75. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
76. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University o f Pittsburgh Press.
77. Halmari, H. (1993). Intercultural business telephone conversations: A case of Finns vs. Anglo-Americans. AppliedLinguistics, 14(4), 408-430.
78. Haverkate, H. (1992). Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, 2(4), 505-522.
79. Heenan, D. A., & Perlmutter, H. V. (1979). Management in the industrial world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
80. Hendriks, B. (forthcoming). The use ofrequest strategies by Dutch learners ofEnglish, Unpublished Ph.D, Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
81. Hemmes, E. (1994). English Language Competence: Whose Business Is It? Paper presented at the 18th Annual Symposium of the International Association of Language and Business, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
82. Herring, S. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, socialandcross-culturalperspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
83. Herrlitz, W., & Loos, E. F. (1994). Taal en taalgebruik in de internationale bedrijfs-communicatie: Een taalwetenschappelijk perspectief. M&O, 48(2), 144-160.
84. Hirsch, P. M., & Andrews, J. A. Y. (1983). Ambushes, shootouts and knights of the roundtable: The language of corporate takeovers. In L. R Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 145-166). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.
85. Hoey, M. P. (1983). On the surface ofdiscourse. London: Allen and Unwin.
86. Huckin, T. (1995). Gatekeeping at an academic convention. In C. Berkenkotter & H. T. (Eds.), Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87. Huckin, T. (1997). Cultural aspects of genre knowledge. AILA Review, 12, 68-77.
88. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 35(2), 224-245.
89. Jaeger, A. M. (1983). The transfer of organizational cultures overseas: An approach to control in the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 91-114.
90. Jenkins, S., & Hinds, J. (1987). Business letter writing: English, French and Japanese. TESOL Quarterly, 121(2), 327-354.
91. Kaplan, R. B., Touchstone, E. E., & Hagstrom, C. L. (1995). Image and Reality: Banking in Los Angeles. Text, 15(4), 427-456.
92. Koeleman, H. (1995). Interne communicatie als managementinstrument: Strategieen, middelen en achtergronden. Houten: Bohn Statleu Van Loghum.
93. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 34-61). Oxford: Blackwell.
94. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Second ed.). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
95. Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill. The Academy ofManagement Review, 2(3), 225-232.
96. Loos, E. (1999). Intertextual networks in organisations: The use of written and oral business discourse in relation to context. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 315-332). London and New York: Longman.
97. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1996). The business communication classroom vs reality: What should we teach today? English for Specific Purposes, /5(1), 37-51.
98. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1997). Investigating the genre of a business fax: A Finnish case study. Journal o fBusiness Communication, 34(3), 316-333.
99. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999a). From business correspondence to message exchange: The notion ofgenre in business communication. Unpublished Ph.D, Jyviiskylii, Jyviiskylii.
100. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999b). From business correspondence to message exchange: What is there left? In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 100-114). London and New York: Longman.
101. Macleod, L., Scriven, J., & Stanford Wayne, F. (1992). Gender and management level differences in the oral communication patterns of bank managers. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 29(4), 343-365.
102. Maes, A., Ummelen, N., & Hoeken, H. (1996). Instructieve teksten. Analyse, ontwerp en evaluatie. Bussum: Coutinho.
103. Maier, P. (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and nonnative English speakers. Englishfor Specific Purposes, 11, 189-205.
104. Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5(4), 502-527.
105. Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (Vol. I, pp. 248-274). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
106. Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: &ploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
107. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. Englishfor Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
108. Miller, C.R. (1980). Rules, context, and technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing andCommunication, 10(2), 149-158.
109. Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 70, 151-167.
110. Miller, C.R. (1994). Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23-42). London: Taylor & Francis.
111. Minsky, B. D., & Marin, D. B. (1999). Why faculty members use e-mail: The role of individual differences in channel choice. Journal of Business Communication, 36(2), 194-217.
112. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring oforganizations: A synthesis ofthe research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
113. Mulholland, J. (1999). E-mail: Uses, issues and problems in an institutional setting. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 57-84). London and New York: Longman.
114. Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written Communication 2, 219-245.
115. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
116. Netherlands-British Chamber of Commerce (1994). Britain in the Netherlands. The Hague: Netherlands-British Chamber ofCommerce.
117. Nickerson, C. (1993). A comparative study o f business letters written by native and non-native English speakers. Unpublished MA, Birmingham, Birmingham.
118. Nickerson, C. (1994a). Business letter writing in English by non-native (Dutch) speakers. Paper presented at the 1994 SIETAR Conference, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
119. Nickerson, C. (1994b). The use ofpoliteness strategies in business letters written by native (UK) speakers ofEnglish. Paper presented at the Sixth International Systemics-Functional Workshop, Antwerp, Belgium.
120. Nickerson, C. (1998). Corporate culture and the use of written English within British subsidiaries in the Netherlands. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 281-294.
121. Nickerson, C. (1999a). The use of English in electronic mail in a multinational corporation. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 35-56). London and New York: Longman.
122. Nickerson, C. (1999b). The usefulness of genre theory in the investigation of organisational communication across cultures. In M. Gerritsen & D. Springorum (Eds.), Bedrijfscommunicatie. Een bumiel voor Ger Peerbooms bi) gelegenheid van zijn 65e vetjaardag (pp. 155-172). Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press.
123. Nickerson, C., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (1996). At the intersection between grammar and pragmatics: A contrastive study of personal pronouns and other forms of address in Dutch and Italian. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 743-764.
124. Nickerson, C., & Van Nus, M. (1999). Teaching intercultural business communication research. In C. Nickerson & M. Hewings (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 25-34). London-New York: Longman.
125. Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (Eds.). (1985). Writing in nonacademic settings. New York and London: The Guildford Press.
126. Orlikowski, W. (1995). Structuration theory in practice: Exploring organizations with a structural lens. Seminar presented at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
127. Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.
128. Oud-de Glas, M. (1994). Research on language, communication and business: Language needs and communication analysis. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Symposium of the International Association of Language and Business, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
129. Paradis, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R & D organization. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 281-307). New York: The Guildford Press.
130. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics ofEnglish as an international language. Harlow: Longman.
131. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Warner.
132. Pickett, D. (1989). The sleeping giant: Investigations in business English. Language International, 1(1), 5-11.
133. Pogner, K.-H. (1999). Discourse community, culture, and interaction: On writing by consulting engineers. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 101-128). New York and London: Longman.
134. Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations andcommunication technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
135. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
136. Reesink, R. (1997). lnterne communicatie in multinationals. Handboek lnterne Communicatie, November 1997, 2-30.
137. Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner's guide. London: Prentice Hall.
138. Rogers, P. S. (1989). Choice-based writing in managerial contexts; The case of the dealer contact report. The Journal of Business Communication, 26(3), 197-216.
139. Rogers, P. S., & Hildebrandt, H. W. (1993). Competing values instruments for analyzing written and spoken management messages. Human Resource Management, 32(1), 121-142.
140. Rogers, P. S., & Swales, J. M. (1990). We the people? An analysis of the Dana Corporation Policies Document. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 293-313.
141. Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronouns use in an educational setting. Englishfor Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13-29.
142. Rubin, D. L. (1988). Four dimensions of social construction in written communication. In B. A. Rafoth & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), The social construction ofwritten communication (pp. 1-37). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.
143. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
144. Scott, M. (1996). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
145. Sherblom, J. (1988). Direction, function and signature in electronic mail. The Journal ofBusiness Communication, 25(4), 39-54.
146. Sifianou, M. (1989). On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece. Lang. Soc., 18, 527-544.
147. Sims, B. R., & Guice, S. (1992). Differences between business letters from native and non-native speakers of English. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 23-39.
148. Sless, D. (1999). The mass production of unique letters. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 85-98). London and New York: Longman.
149. Smart, G. (1997). An ethnographic study ofknowledge-making in a central bank: The interplay of writing and economic modelling. Unpublished Ph.D, McGill, Montreal.
150. Smart, G. (1998). Mapping conceptual worlds: using interpretive ethnography to explore knowledge-making in a professional community. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 35(1), 111-127.
151. Spilka, R. (Ed.). (1993). Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois Univerisity Press.
152. Spinks, N., & Wells, B. (1987). Letters of application and resumes: A comparison of corporate views. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 50(3), 9-17.
153. Springorum, D. (1999). Communicatieve kwaliteit van werkoverleg. In M. Gerritsen & D. Springorum (Eds.), Bedrijfscommunicatie. Een bundel voor Ger Peerbooms bij ge/egenheid van zijn 65e verjaardag (pp. 221-242). Nijmegen: University ofNijmegen.
154. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management &ience, 32, 1492-1512.
155. Sproull, L., & Kiester, S. (1991). Connections: New ways ofworking in the networkedorganization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
156. Stewart, E. C. (1985). Culture and decision-making. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture and organizationalprocesses (pp. 177-211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
157. StJohn, M. J. (1996). Business is booming: Business English in the 1990s. Englishfor Specific Purposes, 15(1), 3-18.
158. Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1998). From text to context: An open systems approach to research in written business communication. The Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 87-110.
159. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
160. Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis, 71, 687-698.
161. Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices. A textography o f a small university building. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erblaum Associates.
162. Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: the mission statement. Discourse and Society, 6, 223-242.
163. Teh, G. S. (1986). An applied discourse analysis o f sales promotion letters. Unpublished MA, National University o f Singapore, Singapore.
164. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 91-112.
165. Van Dalen Talen. (1987). Behoeftenonderzoek onder de 800 grootste bedrijven in Nederland. Utrecht: Van Dalen.
166. Van der Walt, C. (1999). Business English and international comprehensibility. In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 44-52). London and New York: Longman.
167. Van Hest, E., & Oud-de Glas, M. (1991). Een onderzoek naar de technieken die warden gebruikt bij diagnose en analyse van vreemde-ta/enbehoeften in het bedrijfsleven. Luxembourg: Bureau voor Officiele Publikaties der Europese Gemeenschappen.
168. Van Hest, E., Peels, F., Oud-de Glas, M., Diephuis, R., & van Els, T. (1990). Vreemde ta/en in de markt. Onderzoek naar vraag en aanbod in het kader van Horizon Taal, Nationaa/ Actieprogramme Moderne Vreemde Ta/en. Nijmegen/Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen.
169. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cumings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287-365). Greenwich, CT: Jal Press.
170. Van Nus, M. (1996). Placing business texts within a corporate context: Direct mail in the service industry. Paper presented at the 8th ENCoDe Conference, Nice, France.
171. Van Nus, M. (1999). Can we count on your bookings of potatoes to Madeira? Corporate context and discourse practices in direct sales letters. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media anddiscourses (pp. 181-206). London and New York: Longman.
172. Van Riel, C. B. M. (1992). lndentiteit en imago: Een in/eiding in de corporate communication. Schoonhoven: Academic Service, Ecomonie en Bedrijfskunde.
173. Vandermeeren, S. (1997). Der Fremdsprachengebrauch europaischer Unternehmen - unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Deutschen. Eine empirische Untersuchung in Deutsch/and, Frankreich, den Nieder/anden, Portugal und Ungarn. Unpublished Habilitation, Duisburg, Duisburg.
174. Vandermeeren, S. (1999). English as a lingua franca in corporate writing. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media anddiscourses (pp. 273-291). London and New York: Longman.
175. Varner, I. (1987). Internationalizing business communication courses. Bulletin o fthe Association o fBusiness Communication, 50, 7-11.
176. Winsor, D. A. (1993). Owning corporate texts. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(2), 179-195.
177. Yamada, H. (1990). Topic management and tum distribution in business meetings: American versus Japanese strategies. Text, 10(3), 271-295.
178. Yamada, H. (1997). Different games, different rules: Why Americans and Japanese misunderstand each other. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
179. Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy ofManagement Review, 17(2), 299-326.
180. Yli-Jokipii, H. (1994). Requests in professional discourse: A cross-cultural study of British, American and Finnish business writing. (Vol. 71). Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia.
181. Yunick, S. (1997). Genres, registers and sociolinguistics. World Englishes, 16(3), 321-336.
182. Zachry, M. R. (1998). Workplace genres: A sociohistorical study of communicative practices in a production company. Unpublished Ph.D, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
183. Ziv, 0. (1996). Writing to work: How using e-mail can reflect technological and organizational change. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 243-264). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.