Abstract
Seven groups with ten people in each participated in a simulated activity in which they played the part of employees asking their boss for two days of leave. Four groups were made up of native speakers of British English, Metropolitan French, Chilean Spanish, and Swedish, respectively; the remaining three groups being non-native speakers of British English, Metropolitan French, and Chilean Spanish, with Swedish as their L1, who were long-time residents of their respective host countries. The aim of the study was to investigate the patterns of impression management that emerged in the different participant groups. Two dimensions of comparison were in focus: one regarding intercultural differences between the native speaker groups, and the other concerning non-native speakers’ alignment with local patterns of behavior. The analysis shows little variation among the three groups with regard to profession-oriented strategies, whereas divergences related to affective variables were considerably greater. The non-native speakers exhibited a generally high degree of alignment to local patterns in all three national contexts, although lower degrees of alignment appeared with regard to variables specifically reflecting common Swedish national self-images.
1 Introduction
Impression management in self-presentation can be seen as a conscious, unconscious or even subconscious mechanism, through which individuals (or groups) intend to influence other people’s perceptions of them by regulating, filtering, or otherwise controlling the information emerging in and through social interaction (Piwinger and Ebert 2001). The “impression managers” can thus be regarded as projectors of a selection of aspects of their self-image, or “self-profiles”, which they understand to be in their interest to exhibit in a given context and with given interlocutors. In terms of traditional rhetoric, impression management can be seen as related to the ethos concept in its sense of a speaker’s projection of credibility (McCroskey and Young 1981).
So far, research on impression management (IM) has been made almost exclusively within social psychology and organizational studies. In the present study, the phenomenon will be considered mainly from a discourse science perspective, while also taking into consideration findings from cross-cultural research. Just like many of the social science oriented studies on the subject, this study deals with IM in a corporate setting. More precisely, it aims to compare different “national” behavior, and to contrast native and non-native behavior, [1] in a given situation: a simulated negotiation which takes place between an employee and a boss and is caused by the employee’s request to obtain two days leave. Here, the employees are seen to use various impression management strategies in order to strengthen their case, and also in order to regulate their relationship with their boss.
The main research question is what variation can be found among the impression managers depending on which national community they belong in. In addition, we endeavor to investigate what variation can be found depending on whether the subjects are native or non-native users of the community’s language. The specific research questions regarding the non-native participants are (1) to what extent these impression managers, who live and work outside their own native community, adapt to local patterns, (2) to what extent they transfer patterns of their community of origin, and (3) to what extent they exhibit patterns that neither resemble those characteristic of their home nor those prevailing in their host society.
All in all, seven groups with ten participants in each took part in a simulated negotiation, where they were given the role of employees asking their boss for two days leave. The negotiations took place over the telephone, the boss part being performed by persons unknown to the employees and hired specifically for the purpose. Four groups consisted of native speakers of British English, Metropolitan French, Chilean Spanish, and Swedish, respectively. The remaining three groups were non-native speakers of British English, Metropolitan French and Chilean Spanish, respectively, who had Swedish as their native language, and who were long-time residents (5–15 years) of their respective host country.
2 Theoretical background
First of all, it should be recognized that although several studies have addressed the topic of IM in a corporate setting, few, to date, have addressed this topic from a cross-cultural or intercultural perspective. Also, there are various approaches to neighboring concepts to be found, which are applied to different activity types and settings. Thus, in order to provide our study with a broad theoretical basis, we judged that a multi-faceted search into partly interrelated theory frameworks would be necessary.
For the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of the general concept of IM, different social-psychological approaches have been taken into account. For the same purpose, discourse-oriented approaches to this and related topics have also been considered.
Furthermore, our study is based on the assumptions that cultural differences are likely to be manifested in the current activity type (boss-employee negotiation), and that these differences are reflected in language use. Therefore, theories related to cross-cultural research will be referred to.
Finally, since the behavior of native speakers is to be contrasted with that of non-native speakers, pragmatic aspects of second language use will be addressed.
2.1 Impression management in social psychology
Studies on IM – just like politeness studies – usually take the seminal work of the American sociologist Erving Goffman as a starting point. In his work, the presentation of self is the prevailing focus, with the concept of face proposed as being central to human interaction (Goffman 1959). The face concept has subsequently been elaborated to a considerable extent in various disciplines, and notably in socio-pragmatics.
Work on IM as a general phenomenon has been carried out since the 1980s, in particular by Schlenker (1980), Leary (1995), and Piwinger and Ebert (2001). A recent contribution was made by Roulin et al. (2015), who studied IM within the area of employment interviews. The authors claim that since almost all job applicants engage in IM during employment interviews (Roulin et al. 2015: 395), IM is an essential field for research within human resources.
Another important contribution to the field is that of Leary and Allen (2011), who claim that in managing their self-presentation, individuals project diverse images or self-profiles referred to as their personae (Leary and Allen 2011:1033). When discussing the varying degree of awareness in IM, the authors suggest that, while IM moves naturally stand out as strategic, they do not always correspond to the individual’s personally experienced image of his/her self. It is thus concluded that not only is IM strategic but it also implies an overlap of several co-existing personae.
An important forerunner in the study of IM is Jones and Pittman (1982), who proposed a taxonomy of five tactics, which have been the focus of several later studies. These tactics are: ingratiation (e.g. conformity) used in order to be regarded as likeable; self-promotion as a means to be seen as competent; exemplification (e.g. staying late at work) as a means to appear as dedicated; intimidation as a means to be regarded as threatening; finally, supplication (e.g. playing dumb) used in order to appear needy.
In relation to this taxonomy, Bolino et al. (2016) claim that the most studied tactics of IM are ingratiation and self-promotion, both being assertive strategies that are often used in job interviews and performance evaluations. However, a relevant observation in this context is that “virtually any observable behavior can serve self-presentational goals” (Leary 1995: 37). This last statement will be important to keep in mind when discussing the self-profile categories used for the data of present study, which is data-driven and representative of the specific activity type investigated.
Not much research has been made to date on IM in cross- or intercultural settings. A number of articles by Kurman constitute interesting exceptions. In Kurman (2001), it was found that while self-enhancement in relation to agentic traits (e.g. competitiveness) may occur more often in individualistic than in collectivistic cultures, there may be no significant differences between the two types of culture as regards self-enhancement related to communal (e.g. sympathetic) traits.
Another interesting finding made by Bilbow (1997) suggests that the extent to which an individual is perceived favorably by others is influenced by the cultural background of both parties, and also that differences between expected and observed behavior may reinforce negative perceptions and stereotypes. Other research indicates that people tend to self-enhance in domains that are congruent with the norms and values of the culture in which they are working (Kurman 2001; Sandal et al. 2014). As a consequence, some scholars have proposed IM training prior to sending employees on expatriate assignments (see e.g. Giacalone and Beard 1994).
2.2 Impression management in discourse studies
Self-presentation, including IM, is an issue that not only has attracted the interest of social psychologists. Important contributions have also been made in the fields of discourse analysis, dialogue analysis and conversation analysis. Good examples of the last field are the studies by Adelswärd (1988) and Svennevig (2014), both based on sequential analyses of employment interviews. Passuello and Ostermann (2007), who also study employment interviews, combine methods from conversation and discourse analysis in order to investigate how diverse phenomena of asymmetry emerge in discourse. These three papers indirectly address IM and share with the present study a focus on asymmetric interaction in a workplace setting.
Research within discursive psychology, such as Potter and Whetherell (1987), or Potter and Edwards (1992), are also relevant for the present study. Their studies suggest the importance of studying social practices in conversation in order to unravel other social phenomena than those which can be studied through questionnaires or ethnographic observation.
The notion of face (originally Goffman’s, Goffman 1959) is also central in various branches of socio-pragmatic research. [2] The present approach draws partly on work by Spencer-Oatey (Spencer-Oatey 2000; Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 2009), which establishes a fundamental distinction between face (social image) and sociality rights (expectations of being treated fairly and in accordance with a given role-relationship). We take both phenomena to be essential in predicting what self-images (personae) will be projected by individuals in a given social situation and/or for a given social act. Thus, the need for maintaining social face generates impression-managing behavior, which is modified according to rules of sociality rights. In the present context, the asymmetrical role-relationship between boss and employee strongly determines what kind of interaction is expected to take place and triggers a specific kind of face-work in both parties involved.
2.3 Research on cross-cultural differences
The present study is based on the assumption that different socio-cultural patterns depend to a great extent on differences between national-cultural norms and values, which are, among other things, capable of generating different preferences regarding self-projections in IM. [3] In order to establish hypotheses regarding such preferences we have drawn on different, albeit partly overlapping, models for socio-cultural variation.
The perhaps most widely known framework for the study of national-cultural differences was elaborated by the Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede in the 1980s (for a more recent version of his research, see Hofstede et al. 2010). Three of Hofstede’s dimensions can be regarded as particularly relevant for the present study, viz. Individualism, Power distance, and Uncertainty avoidance. Power distance reflects the degree of hierarchy-acceptance vs. egalitarianism and Uncertainty avoidance is related to the collective anxiety level and ensuing need for rules and regulation. As an example, both Chile and France rank high on Power distance and Uncertainty avoidance, and Sweden ranks low or very low on all three dimensions.
Another Dutch sociologist, Fons Trompenaars, proposed in the 1990s an alternative system of cultural dimensions (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1997). One of Trompenaars’ dimensions could be seen as particularly relevant for the present purposes, viz. Universalism vs. particularism, which is to do with the weight attributed to general rules as opposed to personal relationships. Here, the UK society represents the most universalistic tendency with Sweden not lagging far behind, whereas France and all Latin American nations (Chile is not specifically mentioned in Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1997) are clearly more particularistic.
Individualism vs. collectivism is a dimension addressed by both Dutch scholars. Here we have a scale where the UK stand out as representing the most individualistic socio-cultures, with Sweden and France not lagging far behind, and with Chile situated at a far more communitarian and collectivist position. The combination of a low level of Individualism together with high levels of Power distance and Uncertainty avoidance can be seen to have brought about the clientelist attitudes (“clientelism” being a social order that establishes and depends on relations of patronage) reported for Chilean society (Larraín 2001:215–216).
A more recent approach to the establishing of cultural dimensions is that of the World Values Survey program (www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp; see also Welzel 2013). The researchers’ method is to measure, by means of large-scale surveys, an extensive list of parameters related to cultural values and norms, and to repeat the measurement at regular intervals in order to capture dynamic effects. On the basis of these surveys, prevailing national value patterns have been plotted along two dimensions in the Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map (www.worldvaluessurvey. org/WVSContents.jsp), viz. Traditional vs. secular-rational values (south-north axis) and Survival vs. self-expression values (west-east axis). On this map Chile and Sweden occupy distinctly different positions, with Chile situated practically in the center of the map and Sweden placed in an extreme north-easterly position (highly secular- and highly self-expression-oriented). On this map, both France and the UK occupy intermediate positions between Chile and Sweden, although France scores somewhat higher on secular (north) and the UK a bit higher on self-expression (east).
By summarizing predictions derivable from Hofstede et al. (2010), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1997, and the World Values Survey program, whose latest measurement dates from 2014, we can tentatively set up the following list (cf. Fant and Denke 2016):
The UK and Sweden exhibit more universalistic preferences than Chile and France.
Power structures are made more visible in Chile and France than in Sweden, whereas the UK occupies an intermediate position in this regard.
Individualism is somewhat stronger in the UK than in France and Sweden, while Chile scores lowest on this dimension.
There is much higher level of Uncertainty avoidance (i.e. stronger expression of need for rules and structure) in Chile and France than in Sweden and the UK.
2.4 Second language research perspectives
Three out of seven groups in the present study consisted of non-native speakers with Swedish as their native language. It should be underscored that all non-native participants had a high overall command of their second language, notably with regard to grammar and lexis. Nevertheless, their linguistic mastery did not always entail a corresponding target-like pragmatic competence (Forsberg Lundell and Erman 2012; Fant and Denke 2016; Fant et al. 2011, Fant et al. 2013).
An important amount of research has been carried out within the field of Second Language Pragmatics to investigate how non-native speakers develop their pragmatic competencies, which is related to our topic of impression management. Although many studies have used Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), role-play data similar to that which has been analyzed in the present study has also been used for the study of speech acts. Trosborg (1995), studying Danish learners of L2 English of different proficiencies, found that the most advanced learners came close to native speaker norms in their choice of request strategies. Their use of internal modification (downplaying through e.g. modality markers) showed a slight increase, whereas lexical and phrasal mitigating devices were clearly underused compared to native speakers across the groups. In a similar vein, Hassal (2001) found that native speakers used more internal modification (in particular, mitigating devices) than did non-native speakers. In Forsberg Lundell and Erman (2012), in which partly the same data as in this study was used to investigate requests in L2 English and French as compared to native speakers, similar results were found as regards the capacity to mitigate, and, furthermore, it was found that L2 users used significantly fewer situation-bound utterances. While studies within Second Language Pragmatics tend to concentrate on speech acts, the current study aims at investigating another important feature in cross-cultural communication, viz. impression management, which has so far hardly been touched upon within the field. This endeavour would add to our understanding of L2 pragmatics.
It has been suggested that pragmatic failures in high-proficient speakers such as non-native participants of the present study may be interpreted more seriously than if the speaker had a lower level of L2 command; it may, for instance, be interpreted as a lack of politeness (Thomas 1983). Pragmatic failure is thus an insidious and even elusive phenomenon to be studied in L2 users (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Gumperz 1982; Fraser 2010). On the other hand, it is a phenomenon closely linked to socio-cultural values, since these values can easily be transferred from the L1 (Fant et al. 2011, Fant et al. 2013). It has also been shown that when a given value does not coincide with the preferences of the L2 community, non-native speakers run the risk of producing a negative impression of themselves (Bilbow 1997).
It has been claimed that in workplace interaction, it is of particular importance for the non-native speaker to be able to combine technical language with colloquial small talk, the latter type being sometimes problematic for migrants (Duff et al. 2000; Llurda 2000; Schnurr 2013). It has also been shown that migrants – even those who have lived for extended periods of time in the host community – can exhibit insecurity in relation to their communicative competence (Yates and Major 2015). Effects of this kind have also been noticed within the Multi-task project (see below, section “Data and participants”), in which long-term residents in Chile, France and the UK were investigated. Here, Fant, Forsberg and Olave (2011, 2013) found that a number of misunderstandings emerged due to transfer from the participants’ Swedish L1 of attitudes that stood out as inappropriate in a Chilean corporate context.
3 Data and participants
The data used for the present study were provided by the Multi-Task CL/FR/SE/UK[4] Corpus which is part of the Stockholm University research program “High-level proficiency in Second Language Use”. [5] The corpus consists of data from a series of tests for measuring targetlikeness in the oral performance of very advanced Swedish users of L2 English, French and Spanish. Along with the non-native data sets, a corresponding amount of control data were included from native speakers of the three languages involved, plus Swedish. All non-native speakers who performed the tests were highly integrated longtime residents (5–15 years) of their respective host country (Chile, France and the UK) and they were using the target language, not only at their workplace, but prevailingly also in their private life. The native controls – including the Swedish L1 speakers – were matched with the non-native participants with regard to educational level (all had, as a minimum, initiated higher education studies), age and socio-economic status (all were economically independent urban middle class people). [6]
The set of data used for the present purpose are transcribed recordings from an experimental task performed under practically identical conditions in London (native+non-native speakers of English), Paris (native+non-native speakers of French), Santiago de Chile (native+non-native speakers of Spanish), and Stockholm (native speakers of Swedish). The task named “The boss” is an open-ended role-play consisting of a simulated telephone negotiation between an employee (= the subject) and a boss (= a person especially hired to play this part). The employee is to ask the boss for two days leave – Thursday and Friday – in order to attend his/her sister’s wedding, which is to take place in a city situated a couple of hours journey away from the main office. The crucial point which triggers a negotiation is a meeting scheduled to take place with an important customer on precisely that Friday.
Since the instructions given to the participants contain no other information than this, the outcome of the negotiation varies widely between the dialogues (at times the employees get away with their requests, at times the bosses turn out to be winners, the agreement conditions vary, etc.). The employees, however, are always facing a situation in which they have to mobilize their argumentative and rhetorical resources in order to attain their goal. It could be added that all the employees were highly motivated to do so, which can be seen from their quite spontaneous and often affect-laden performance.
In sum, the present study includes seven sets of data: English L1 and L2, French L1 and L2, Spanish L1 and L2, and Swedish L1. Each data set consists of the productions of 10 participants (= employees). The non-native participants’ command of L2 English/French/Spanish was judged to be very good, representing a proficiency level ranging between C1 and C2 on the CEFR scale (Council of Europe 2001). The average age, range of age, mean length of stay and gender division of the participant groups are shown in Table 1.
Background variables in seven participant groups.
| Groups | EN L1 | EN L2 | FR L1 | FR L2 | SP L1 | SP L2 | SW L1 | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average age | 32.1 | 33.3 | 27.3 | 29.0 | 38.8 | 39.8 | 38.6 | 34.1 |
| Range of age | 25–40 | 28–38 | 23–34 | 25–33 | 23–65 | 27–59 | 24–59 | 23–65 |
| Mean length of stay | – | 7.3 years | 10.3 years | – | 9.9 years | – | for the L2 users: 9.2 years | |
| Gender | 3F/7M | 8F/2M | 6F/4M | 10F/0M | 4F/6M | 6F/4M | 5F/M | 42F/28M |
4 Methodology
4.1 Procedure
The transcribed dialogues of the seven data sets were analyzed by several steps. The turns taken by the employees were divided into turns and utterances, and IM moves were detected in each data set and categorized according to the taxonomy described in Section 4.2 below. The moves were then classified, introspectively and intersubjectively, by both authors and two independent evaluators, all of them familiar with the four languages involved.
Since it was seen that one and the same turn might include instances of different types of IM moves, and as there were sometimes more than one instance of the same type in one and the same turn, it was decided that in the latter case, only one instance of the type would be registered as a token. A consequence of this is that more than one token could be registered in the same turn, although only one token for each type represented (cf. Leary and Allen 2011).
The seven data sets were systematically compared, and the list of types was revised and adjusted in order to obtain categories that would fit all seven sets. Thereafter, in order to establish the final distribution of IM moves across the seven sets (see Tables 2 and 3), the same procedure was repeated. The quantitative analysis was followed by a qualitative- interpretative analysis, in which the quantified outcome was considered from the perspective of models and theories provided by cross-cultural studies as regarded national preferences, and by second language acquisition (SLA) research in relation to the alignment of non-native speaker behavior to native-like patterns.
Number of IM moves per 1,000 words for each category and group.a
| Participant group→IM category↓ | SP NS | SP NNS | EN NS | EN NNS | FR NS | FR NNS | SW NS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1: Proactivity | 3.18 | 3.66 | 4.23 | 4.13 | 3.08 | 3.50 | 3.45 | 3.52 |
| P2: Flexibility | 1.71 | 3.44 | 2.81 | 4.13 | 2.61 | 2.00 | 3.21 | 2.76 |
| P3: Dependability | 8.08 | 5.72 | 2.25 | 2.86 | 1.23 | 1.83 | 4.60 | 3.57 |
| P4: Well-informedness | 0.73 | 0.46 | 0 | 0 | 1.54 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
| A1: Friendliness | 1.47 | 1.15 | 1.97 | 0.63 | 1.23 | 0.50 | 2.30 | 1.29 |
| A2: Eagerness | 1.47 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.95 | 1.69 | 0.83 | 2 | 1.24 |
| A3: Submissiveness | 0.73 | 1.83 | 3.09 | 1.90 | 1.08 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 1.38 |
| A4: Honesty | 0.49 | 1.15 | 0.84 | 1.27 | 1.08 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.88 |
| A5: Autonomy | 1.96 | 2.52 | 0.56 | 0.95 | 3.85 | 4.34 | 3.91 | 2.86 |
| A6: Equity-orientedness | 0.24 | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.83 | 2.53 | 0.72 |
| Nr. of words produced in each group | 4,086 | 4,366 | 3,552 | 3,150 | 6,492 | 5,996 | 4,348 | 4,570 |
| IM moves per 1,000 words | 20.1 | 21.5 | 17.2 | 16.8 | 17.6 | 16.0 | 22.8 | 18.7 |
a For clarification purposes, in order to highlight salient features, figures exceeding the category average by 33% or more are marked in boldface. NS stands for native speakers and NNS for non-native speakers.
Number of participants per group producing categories of IM moves.a
| Participant group→IM category↓ | SP NS | SP NNS | EN NS | EN NNS | FR NS | FR NNS | SW NS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1: Proactivity | 8 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8.7 |
| P2: Flexibility | 5 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7.3 |
| P3: Dependability | 10 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6.9 |
| P4: Well-informedness | (2) | (2) | (0) | (0) | 9 | 3 | (1) | 2.4 |
| A1: Friendliness | 5 | 4 | 3 | (1) | 6 | (2) | 6 | 3.9 |
| A2:Eagerness | 5 | 3 | (2) | (2) | 5 | 5 | (2) | 3.4 |
| A3: Submissiveness | (2) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 4.4 |
| A4: Honesty | (2) | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 4.0 |
| A5: Autonomy | 3 | 5 | (2) | (1) | (3) | 7 | 8 | 4.1 |
| A6: Equity-orientedness | (1) | 3 | (2) | (0) | (1) | 4 | 6 | 2.4 |
a For clarification purposes, figures that correspond to 80% or more of the participants are in boldface and figures representing 20% or less of the participants within parentheses.
4.2 Categories of IM moves
In the data, an IM move was identified whenever the employees’ utterance could be interpreted as a self-profile projection with the (conscious or unconscious) intention of being categorized by the boss accordingly. The definition and selection of types of IM moves and corresponding self-profile categories were partly based on the earlier-mentioned taxonomy by Jones and Pittman (1982), insofar as two of their IM strategies, ingratiation and self-promotion, were foregrounded, elaborated on and subdivided into several types (see below). The three remaining strategies, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation, are only partly incorporated in some of our types.
An important elaboration on the Jones and Pittman (1982) classification was the division of the self-profile types into two sets: (1) those that were judged to be closely associated with an idea of professionality, and (2) those that were seen as more affect-oriented and only to a lesser degree associated with a professional role. The professionality/affect division is in line with the stance taken by several scholars addressing the topic of non-native behavior at the workplace (such as Duff et al. 2000; Llurda 2000; Schnurr 2013; Yates 2010; Yates and Major 2015), insofar as not only technical, but also relations-oriented (affective) aspects of workplace interaction are emphasized as essential means for accomplishing a well-functioning communication.
Accordingly, four professionality-oriented profile categories were defined (P 1–4), viz. Proactivity, Flexibility, Dependability and Well-informedness. The affect-oriented group included six categories (A 1–6): Friendliness, Eagerness, Submissiveness, Honesty, Autonomy and Equity-Orientedness. Brief descriptions and illustrative examples of the ten profile categories will be provided in the following:
-Proactivity (P1) corresponds to moves that are intended to show the employees’ ability of taking own initiatives and being proactive employees, who can figure out new solutions and do not hesitate to present them to their boss. This type is a central aspect of self-promotion in Jones and Pittman’s (1982) terms. The following sequence, where an employee brings up a new solution (albeit one he is sure will satisfy the boss), is an example:
Lito (SP L1): Mira y… porque una posibilidad obviamente es adelantarlo pa… jueves temprano, o tratar de postergarlo pa el lunes siguiente, y así yo voy a estar contigo.
‘Look and…because a possibility obviously is to put it forward to Thursday morning or put it off until next Monday, and then I’ll be with you.’
-Flexibility (P2) is a self-profile category projected by employees who want to highlight their adaptability, willingness to cooperate, and/or alignment with ideas suggested by their boss. This type, which is akin with Jones and Pittmans’ ingratiation, is illustrated by the following sequence:
Boss: Uh…we shall be threshing out some points and this is where you are so essential […]. See if you can …see if you can do that?
Alec (EN L1): I’ll look at what they’re trying to do etcetera and we’ll take it from there. How does that sound?
-Dependability (P3) is about signaling that you are a person that the boss can trust. This type, derivable from Jones and Pittman’s “ingratiation”, is often implemented by means of explicit promises, as in the following example:
Fia (EN L2) Uh…ok. I hope…I hope you won’t mind that I’m gonna be quite tired but I will… I will definitely be there.
-Finally, well-informedness (P4) is projected by employees who want to manifest their knowledge of, and preparation for the situation at hand. By doing this they will also signal their awareness of the risks and consequences of planned actions. It can be seen as a combination of the self-promotion and exemplification strategies. The following sequence, where an employee declares being already in the know of a relevant fact, can serve to illustrate this category:
Thibaut (FR L1): Non mais j’entends bien, mais c’est vrai qu’on se connaît on se connaît déjà, bon on est des interlocuteurs, j’ai déjà eu pas mal de contacts avec eux, donc on on se connaît bien et…
‘Sure but I understand, and it’s true we know one another we know one another already we are on speaking terms, I’ve already been quite often in touch with them, so we know each other well.’
These four self-profile categories are well in line with what can generally be expected in Western societies of professionals at the workplace and, at the same time, they do not involve a high degree of emotional commitment. In contradistinction, the following six self-profile categories are related to affective dimensions and directly involve the interpersonal relationship between boss and employee. They also share the property of being more universal and not mainly applicable to a corporate context. The following categories have emerged as being particularly relevant to our study:
-Friendliness (A1): With this projection the speaker signals positive politeness in terms of solidarity and proximity (Brown and Levinson 1987). The category is clearly derivable from Jones and Pittman (1982) “ingratiation” strategy. A low-key, albeit quite typical, example of this type is the following, where an employee uses Friendliness in a preparatory move before expressing a request:
Tina (SP L2): Yo te agradezco mucho que hayas sido comprensivo, porque para mí eso es súper importante, y poder conversarlo así. Si entonces con tu permiso […]
‘I thank you a lot for being understanding, because for me this is terribly important, and being able to talk about it like this. So if with your permission…’
-Eagerness (A2) corresponds to the wish to appear strongly committed to or even enthusiastic about an idea or a plan. The category can be seen as an aspect of Jones’ and Pittman’s (1982) “self-promotion”. The following example, where an employee uses an Eagerness move in support of an act of agreement, is illustrative of the category:
Coco (FR L2): On se comprend tout à fait. C’est par- parce que je sais que c’est un travail que j’aime beaucoup.
‘We understand each other completely. It’s be- because I know it’s a job I’m very fond of.’
-Submissiveness (A3) is a category aimed at displaying inferiority of status and can be seen as related to although not directly derivable from Jones and Pittman (1982) “supplication” category. It is often expressed through expressions that imply a minimization of oneself, e.g. through an act of displaying obedience, and it could also manifest itself through an act of apologizing, as in the following utterance:
Amie (EN L1): Ok. No, I do understand that. Uhm, you know I’m really sorry about this. Now you know I normally wouldn’t, you know, ask to do anything like this.
-Honesty (A4): The typical way of projecting this self-profile category is by means of moves that acknowledge arguments likely to run counter to the speaker’s (apparent) own interests, thereby displaying openness and transparency. It is not directly derivable from any of Jones and Pittman’s categories although it can be seen as a mixture of ingratiation and self-promotion. In the present context, this happens above all when the employee admits to being aware of the problematic Friday meeting before the boss has even mentioned it, as is seen in the following example:
Clas (SP L2): Ahora lo difícil, lo complicado es, la reunión no es… la reunión está agendada para el viernes.
‘Now the difficult, the problematic thing is, the meeting isn’t… the meeting is scheduled on Friday.’
-Autonomy (A5): By projecting this type of self-profile, the speaker intends to show that bosses and employees are not governed by their formal hierarchical relationship and that, as an employee, one can take one’s own stances and make one’s own decisions. This category can be associated with Jones and Pittman (1982) “self-promotion” strategy and also partly with “intimidation”. As can be seen in the following example, the employee may even want to show a form of superiority by giving the boss a compliment in the shape of a “pat on the shoulder”, thus reverting symbolically the hierarchical relationship:
Calle (SW L1): Det är…. du är ju en.. eeh… god chef, Lars, jag vet ju det, och- och- vi ska göra det allra bästa av den här situationen naturligtvis.
‘It’s… well you are of course a… uh… good boss, Lars, I am well aware, and… and we sure are going to make the very best of this situation.’
-Equity-orientedness (A6), finally, is a type of self-profile which aims to establish reciprocity and compromises in a sense of “you give me that and I give you this.” Albeit related to the preceding type by being hierarchy-denying, this type is action- rather than person-oriented. It is also somewhat similar to Proactivity, since it often implies proposing an action, but it is different since it includes an anti-hierarchical component, which is not present in Proactivity. It is not directly derivable from any of Jones and Pittman (1982) categories. The following example, in which an employee packages her request as an invitation to cooperate, illustrates this category:
Saga (FR L2): Je vous appelle parce que j’ai un petit problème qui se pose pour la semaine prochaine et je voulais voir avec vous si on pouvait essayer d’arranger ça ensemble.
‘I am calling you because I have a little problem that came up for next week and I wanted to check with you if we couldn’t try solving it together.’
5 Results
The data shows variation in the sense that certain self-profile categories are over- or under-represented in specific groups, whereas other types are more or less equally present across the board.
Table 2 shows the distribution of types of IM moves across the seven groups, the professionality-related categories being marked with a P and the affect-related categories with an A. Although there are considerable differences between the groups with regard to word production (both French-speaking groups producing about twice as many words as the two English-speaking groups), they are far more alike when it comes to impression management density, counted as number of IM moves per 1,000 words. All in all, the Swedish and both Spanish-speaking groups stand out as slightly more eager impression managers than the remaining four groups.
In what follows, the results will be considered along three dimensions:
comparing speakers from Chile, England, France and Sweden by considering how often a given self-profile occurs in each group;
measuring non-native alignment to the corresponding native group;
comparing all groups by considering the proportion of speakers in each (i.e. how many participants out of 10) that project a given type of self-profile. This last account represents an alternative way of examining the results accounted for in (A) and (B), which takes individual variation into account.
The presentation of quantitative data will be followed by corresponding qualitative interpretations. [7]
5.1 Overall frequencies
Proactivity stands out as the most evenly distributed and, along with Dependability, the most frequently represented of all self-projection types. Also Flexibility is widely represented and fairly evenly distributed among the groups.
As regards Dependability, on the other hand, the distribution is fairly uneven, with the Chilean native group reaching the highest figure in the whole data (8.08 tokens per 1,000 words) followed by the Chilean non-natives (5.72 tokens/1,000 words). It is also fairly well represented in the Swedish native group (4.6 tokens/1,000 words), whereas it is notably more scarce in the English- and French-speaking data, both native and non-native.
The fourth “P” type, Well-informedness, stands out as typical of the French-speaking groups only (both natives and non-natives) and is scarcely represented in the other groups.
With regard to the Affect-oriented categories, it is clear that Friendliness occurs more often in the Swedish and English groups than in the others, whereas Eagerness is infrequent in all native groups. As regards Submissiveness, only the English group reaches a fairly high score, whereas Honesty is infrequent in all groups, native or non-native.
It is noteworthy that Autonomy is strongly represented in the Swedish group as well as in both French-speaking groups, but much less in the Chilean native group, and practically not at all among the English natives. Meanwhile, Equity-orientedness is a type of self-projection that characterizes the Swedish group only and is scarcely represented in all other native and non-native groups.
While comparing the four native groups only, the following cross-cultural divergences stand out as particularly interesting:
Well-informedness and Eagerness are frequently represented in the French NS group but scarce in the other groups. We can tentatively take this as the combined effect of high uncertainty avoidance and high individualism among the French. Coming across as knowledgeable, and displaying reliability and eagerness to perform, seems compatible with uncertainty avoidance ideals.
Equity-orientedness is the only category where the Swedish NS group stands out as different from all the other groups, which exhibit low figures on this parameter. This is well in line with characterization of Swedish culture as low in power distance.
On Submissiveness, only the English natives reach a relatively high score (in order to relativize this finding, see comments made to Table 3, Section 5.3 below).
5.2 Non-native alignment vs. non-alignment to native patterns
Clearly, several types of IM moves are found to be characteristic of specific native groups and less of others. The question, then, is to what extent non-native speakers adapt to the native patterns of their respective host country. In general terms, the answer is a “to a fairly high extent”. In 14 of the 24 NS/NNS variable pairings which exhibited a considerable gap (considerable estimated at +/- 33%) between the Swedish native group and the English/French/Chilean native groups. The non-native groups exhibited a similar behavior compared to the corresponding native group, and only in 7 out of the 24 pairings did they resemble their Swedish countrymen more than they resembled the local native speakers. This means that aligning with host country patterns comes out more than twice as often as sticking to L1 preferences. This is an interesting result which, incidentally, provides a good forecast for adult L2 learners’ capacity to adapt their socio-cultural norms of behavior.
There were altogether nine NS/NNS variable pairings which showed no considerable gap between the Swedish and the non-Swedish native groups. Interestingly, in three of those pairings, the NNS tendency deviated from both the host country’s pattern and the Swedish native pattern. [8] This shows a presence of “interlanguage specific traits” affording novel – i.e. neither L1- nor L2-grounded – patterns (cf. Blum-Kulka and Sheffer 1993).
With regard to the transfer of L1 patterns, the following divergences can be seen as particularly interesting:
In relation to Flexibility, the non-native speakers consistently resemble their Swedish countrymen more than they align to native patterns. This indicates that a Swedish L1 pattern is transferred.
The categories Well-informedness and Eagerness are frequently represented in the French NS group, though not in the French NNS group nor in the Swedish NS group. This indicates that a no accommodation to French patterns is taking place for these features.
The English-speaking non-natives exhibit much lower Submissiveness than the English natives, whereas – curiously – the Spanish-speaking non-natives stand out as considerably more submissive than their native counterparts. In contrast, the French NS and NNS group exhibit almost identical figures. We can see no clear explanation for these differences. It should be kept in mind, however, that all three NNS groups score higher on Submissiveness than the Swedish NS group, which means the corresponding Swedish L1 pattern is not being transferred.
Also, although the Swedish NS group exhibits high Equity-orientedness, none of the NNS groups do, which shows this tendency is not being transferred into the L2.
5.3 Distribution within the groups
An alternative, and maybe more elucidating way of looking at the data, is to see how many speakers of each group actually produce the IM move in question, considering that some types of moves may become the favorites of a small number of speakers and thus cannot count as characteristic of an entire group of practice.
Table 3 shows that three of the four professionality-related categories, namely Proactivity (P1), Flexibility (P2) and Dependability (P3) were widely represented in all seven groups, with half of the speakers or more producing the move in question. This leads us to the interesting observation that professionality-oriented self-projections are fairly similar among all four groups of practice. The one and only exception is Well-informedness (P4), which characterizes the French native speakers only.
The view of Dependability as being particularly characteristic of the Chilean groups (native and non-native) is here confirmed, since all 10 natives (and 9 out of 10 non-natives) produced this move, which is far above the levels in the other five groups.
The affect-related types exhibit greater variability than the professionality-related types and are seldom present in a majority of participants. The following cases deserve particular attention:
Eagerness (A2) was manifested by as many as half of the speakers in both French groups as well as in the Spanish NS group, but is much scarcer in the other four groups.
Friendliness (A1), in spite of being well represented among the Swedish natives, scored somewhat lower in the non-native groups than in the corresponding native groups. This shows that neither L2 adaptation nor L1 transfer takes place in relation to this category.
Submissiveness moves (A3), as seen in Table 3, are no longer characteristic of the English NS group only, but are produced by even more speakers of the French NS group and the French and Spanish NNS groups.
Table 3 corroborates the picture of both Autonomy (A5) and Equity-orientedness (A6) as typical of Swedish participants. These types are not only notably present among the Swedish native speakers, but also among the non-native speakers of Spanish and French, a fact which can arguably be regarded as the result of socio-cultural transfer. This effect, however, is absent in the English NNS group. [9]
Interestingly, the high French NS figure in Table 2 on Autonomy is not paralleled in Table 3, which shows that a limited number of French NS participants have produced a large number of instances of this type of move. When comparing Tables 2 and 3, this is, in fact, the only clear-cut case we could find of a high degree of individual specialization on a given category.
6 Discussion and conclusions
An important finding of the present study is that native speakers of the different socio-cultures tend to converge more as regards professional-oriented strategies than on affect-oriented strategies. One implication of this would be that integration on a professional level is more easily obtained than integration on an interpersonal level. An alternative interpretation would read that even professional integration can be complicated by the fact that different socio-cultures have different approaches to affect-related strategies, which may lead to misunderstandings and communicative obstacles in cross-cultural work situations.
Another salient finding is that some IM moves (regardless of whether the total production or the proportion of move-producing participants are counted) seem to be typical of specific native groups, notably:
Dependability for the Chilean NSs,
Well-informedness for the French NSs,
Autonomy and Equity-orientedness for the Swedes
both Proactivity and Friendliness for the British and the Swedish NSs.
How, then, do these results relate to earlier proposals on cultural differences and values? In fact, it can be argued that Chilean dependability, by displaying loyalty to the boss, could reflect a more collectivistic and less universalistic orientation than in the other NS groups (cf. Larraín 2001). French preferences for displaying well-informedness could be seen as a result of combined high Individualism, high Uncertainty avoidance and high Power distance. Among the Swedes, autonomy and equity-orientedness appear to be clearly related to low power distance. Proactivity in British and Swedes could be explained in terms of a combination of high Individualism and low Uncertainty avoidance. Finally, friendliness’ in British and Swedes could be seen as the outcome of combined low uncertainty avoidance and low power distance. The fact that British and Swedes score high both on proactivity and friendliness is in fact congruent with Kurman’s (2001) finding that both high agentic and high communal self-enhancement is frequent in highly individualistic societies.
In relation to non-native to native alignment, the results clearly show that alignment, i.e. adaptation to local patterns, prevails over its contrary. The aligning tendency is particularly clear in relation to the professionality-related IM strategies (with the exception of Well-informedness). This finding also leads us to conclude that there are fairly high chances that adult linguistically high-proficient (and, socially speaking, not underprivileged) L2 learners will adapt their socio-cultural strategies to a foreign local norm.
The most striking result is perhaps the strong Swedish preferences for Autonomy and Equity-orientedness. These are strategies that run counter to pragmatic alignment in the current situation of employee-to-boss talk. Except for the UK group of Swedes, the Swedish non-native speakers of our study seem to transfer these two strategies that are characteristic of their Swedish L1. Far from interpreting the corresponding Swedish attitudes as being of an excessively unruly kind, we would attribute them as a token of strong egalitarian tendencies that characterize Swedish national socio-culture, as reported, among others, by Hofstede et al. (2010). This shows that internally motivated conscious or unconscious expectations, if important or entrenched enough, may well have a stronger impact on behavior than the socially motivated tendency toward adaptation.
In general terms, our findings suggest that there are differences in the degree of transferability of values. In that perspective, certain values would be more subject to negotiation than others, and some values, which would stand out as more fundamental or unconditional to the individuals of a given socio-culture, would be abandoned only with difficulty. This is indeed an interesting topic for future research.
About the authors
Lars Fant is Professor Emeritus of Romance Languages at Stockholm University. His research encompasses interaction and discourse linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, intercultural communication and high-level second language use. He has conducted externally funded projects, such as “Negotiation interaction: Cross-cultural studies of Scandinavian and Hispanic patterns”, “Activity types and conversation structure in native and non-native speakers of Spanish” and “Interaction, identity and language structure”. He is co-conductor of the research program “High-level proficiency in second language use” at Stockholm University.
Fanny Forsberg Lundell is Associate professor of French Linguistics at Stockholm University. She was appointed Research Fellow in French at The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities in 2010. Besides publishing extensively on formulaic language in French and Spanish as L2s with a particular focus on high-level proficiency, she also works on pragmatics, conversation analysis and spoken language in general. Recently, her work includes social and psychological perspectives on high-level L2 attainment.
References
Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. 2009. Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception vs. linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59/2, 249–306.Search in Google Scholar
Adelswärd, Viveka. 1988. Styles of success: On impression management as collaborative action in job interviews. Linköping: Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 23.Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005Search in Google Scholar
Bilbow, Grahame T. 1997. Cross-cultural impression management in the multicultural workplace: The special case of Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics 28(4). 461–487.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00036-2Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Hadass Sheffer. 1993. The metapragmatic discourse in American-Israeli Families at Dinner. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 196–223. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bolino, Mark, David Long & William Turnley. 2016. Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Pscyhology and Organizational Behavior 3. 377–406.10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062337Search in Google Scholar
Brewer, Paul & Sunil Venaik. 2014. The ecological fallacy in national culture research. Organization Studies 35(7). 1063–1086.10.1177/0170840613517602Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessing. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar
Duff, Patricia, Ping Wong & Margaret Early. 2000. Learning language for work and life: The linguistic socialization of immigrant Canadians seeking careers in healthcare. The Canadian Modern Language Review 57(1). 9–57.10.3138/cmlr.57.1.9Search in Google Scholar
Erman, Britt, Annika Denke, Lars Fant & Fanny Forsberg Lundell. 2015. Nativelike expression in long-residency L2 users: Multiword structures in L2 English, French, and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 25(2). 160–182.10.1111/ijal.12061Search in Google Scholar
Fant, Lars & Annika Denke. 2016. Negotiating with the boss – An inter- and cross-cultural perspective on problematic talk In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Rosina Márquez (eds.), Perspectives on problematic talk. Pragmatics and Society 7:4, 540–569.Search in Google Scholar
Fant, Lars, Fanny Forsberg & Carlos Olave Roco. 2011. Cómo pedirle dos días de permiso al jefe: El alineamiento pragmático de usuarios avanzados de EL2 en diálogos asimétricos. In Lars Fant & Ana María Harvey (eds.), El diálogo oral en el mundo hispanohablante, 219–249. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.10.31819/9783865279101-011Search in Google Scholar
Fant, Lars, Fanny Forsberg & Carlos Olave Roco. 2013. Los límites de la adaptación socioprágmatica en el uso muy avanzado de la L2. Análisis de conversaciones en español entre empleado sueco y jefe chileno. In María Elena Placencia & Carmen García (eds.), Pragmática y comunicación intercultural en el mundo hispanohablante, 283–314. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar
Forsberg, Fanny & Fant, Lars. 2010. Idiomatically speaking – effects of task variation on formulaic language in high proficient users of L2 French and Spanish. In Wood, David (ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language in acquisition and communication. New York: Continuum, 47–70.Search in Google Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, Fanny & Britt Erman. 2012. High-level requests: A study of long residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 44(6–7). 756–775.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.010Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Brendan. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 15–34. London: Emerald Group Publishing.10.1163/9789004253247_003Search in Google Scholar
Giacalone, Robert A. & Jon W. Beard. 1994. Impression management, diversity and international management. American Behavioral Scientist 37(5). 621–636.10.1177/0002764294037005004Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Ervin. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611834Search in Google Scholar
Hassal, Timothy. 2001. Modifying requests in a second language. IRAL 39. 259–283.10.1515/iral.2001.005Search in Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert, Gert-Jan Hofstede & Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Edward E. & Thane S. Pittman. 1982. Towards a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In Jerry M. Suls (ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 231–262.Search in Google Scholar
Kurman, Jenny. 2001. Self-Enhancement: Is it restricted to individualistic cultures? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(2). 1704–1716.10.1177/01461672012712013Search in Google Scholar
Larraín, Jorge. 2001. Identidad chilena. Santiago de Chile/Buenos Aires: LOM/EDIN.Search in Google Scholar
Leary, Mark R. 1995. Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Boulder: Westview.Search in Google Scholar
Leary, Mark R. & Ashley B. Allen. 2011. Self-presentational persona: Simultaneous management of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(5). 1033–1049.10.1037/a0023884Search in Google Scholar
Llurda, Enric. 2000. On competence, proficiency and communicative ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1). 85–95.10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00141.xSearch in Google Scholar
McCroskey, James C. & Thomas J. Young. 1981. Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Communication Studies 32(1). 24–34.10.1080/10510978109368075Search in Google Scholar
McSweeney, Brendan. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – A failure of analysis. Human Relations 55(1). 89–118.10.1177/0018726702551004Search in Google Scholar
Nathan, Ganesh. 2015. A non-essentialist model of culture. Implications of identity, agency and structure within multinational/multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 15(1). 305–328.Search in Google Scholar
Passuello, Caroline Benevenuti & Ana Cristina Ostermann. 2007. Aplicação da análise da conversa etnometodológica em entrevista de seleção: Considerações sobre o gerenciamento de impressões. Estudos de Psicologia 12(3). 243–251.10.1590/S1413-294X2007000300006Search in Google Scholar
Piwinger, Manfred & Helmut Ebert. 2001. Impression Management: Wie aus Niemand Jemand wird. In Günter Bentele, Manfred Piwinger & Gregor Schönborn (eds.), Kommunikationsmanagement: Strategien, wissen, lösungen, Ch. 1.06. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Derek Edwards. 1992. Discursive psychology. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Whetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Roulin, Nicolas, Adrian Bangerter & Julia Levashina. 2015. Honest and deceptive impression management in the employment interview: Can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations? Personnel Psychology 68(2). 395–444.10.1111/peps.12079Search in Google Scholar
Sandal, Gro M., Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Hege H. Bye, David L. Sam, Benjamin Amponsah, Nigar Cakar, Gabriele H. Franke, Rosnah Ismail, Kristine Kjellsen, Ankica Kosic, Anna Leontieva, Sharnaz Mortazavi & Catherine Tien-Lun Sun. 2014. Intended self-presentation tactics in job interviews: A 10-country study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45(6). 939–958.10.1177/0022022114532353Search in Google Scholar
Schlenker, Barry R. 1980. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey Cal: Brooks/Cole.Search in Google Scholar
Schnurr, Stephanie. 2013. Exploring professional communication: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203095324Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11–46. London/New York: Continuum.10.5040/9781350934085Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Peter Franklin. 2009. Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.10.1057/9780230244511Search in Google Scholar
Survey, World Values, www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp (accessed 15 January 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2014. Direct and indirect self-presentation in first conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33(3). 302–327.10.1177/0261927X13512307Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91–112.10.1093/applin/4.2.91Search in Google Scholar
Trompenaars, Fons & Charles Hampden-Turner. 1997. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests complaints and apologies. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110885286Search in Google Scholar
Welzel, Christian. 2013. Freedom rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139540919Search in Google Scholar
Yates, Lynda. 2010. Speech act performance in workplace settings. In Ana Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, 109–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.26.07yatSearch in Google Scholar
Yates, Lynda & George Major. 2015. ‘Quick-chatting’, ‘smart dogs’, and how to ‘say without saying’: Pragmatic learning in the community. System 48. 141–152.10.1016/j.system.2014.09.011Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Fant and Lundell, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
