Advertisement

Research Methodologies and Business Discourse Teaching

  • Cornelia Ilie
  • Catherine Nickerson
  • Brigitte Planken
Chapter
Part of the Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics book series (RPAL)

Abstract

This chapter will:
  • Define English for specific purposes and indicate the specific ways in which it has been influential on business discourse teaching;

  • Discuss the most relevant approaches to genre analysis that have been used in business discourse teaching;

  • Explore the most relevant approaches to critical discourse analysis and organizational rhetoric for business discourse teaching;

  • Identify the most relevant aspects of multimodal discourse analysis for business discourse teaching;

  • Provide a case study that illustrates the use of one approach to business discourse teaching, showing how practitioners can incorporate it into their classroom- or consultancy-based ideas.

References

  1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aertsen, T., Jaspaert, K., & Van Gorp, B. (2013). From theory to practice: A crisis simulation exercise. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 322–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011). Decolonialising discourse: Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis. Human Relations, 64(9), 1121–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amernic, J. H., & Craig, R. J. (2004). 9/11 in the service of corporate rhetoric: Southwest Airlines’ 2001 letter to shareholders. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28(4), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Nickerson, C. (1999). Writing business: Genres, media and discourses. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennington, A. J., Shetler, J. C., & Shaw, T. (2003). Negotiating order in interorganizational communication: Discourse analysis of a meeting of three diverse organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 40(2), 118–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhatia, V. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research (Paper ID #6219). In 120th ASEE annual conference and exposition. Atlanta: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  16. Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, K. S. (2016). Flipping to teach the conceptual foundations of successful workplace writing. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charles, M. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cheney, G., & McMillan, J. J. (1990). Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18(2), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cook, G. (1992). The discourse of advertising. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Coupland, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as argument on the web. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coupland, C., & Brown, A. (2004). Constructing organizational identities on the web: A case study of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1325–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crable, R. E. (1990). “Organizational rhetoric” as the fourth great system: Theoretical, critical, and pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1983). Mobil’s epideictic advocacy: ‘Observations’ of Prometheus-bound. Communication Monographs, 50(4), 380–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2013). Rhetoric in financial discourse. A linguistic analysis of ICT-mediated disclosure genres. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
  28. Cushman, D. P., & Tompkins, P. K. (1980). A theory of rhetoric for contemporary society. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 13(1), 43–67.Google Scholar
  29. DiRienzo, C., & Lilly, G. (2014). Online versus face-to-face: Does delivery method matter for undergraduate business school learning? Business Education and Accreditation, 6(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  30. Dos Santos, V. B. M. (2002). Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Drury-Grogan, M. L., & Russ, T. L. (2013). A contemporary simulation infused in the business communication curriculum: A case study. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Du-Babcock, B. (2006). Teaching business communication: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Communication, 43(3), 253–264.Google Scholar
  33. Dudley-Evans, A. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach for text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219–228). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  36. Fairclough, N. (2005). Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organisation Studies, 26(6), 915–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Garzone, G. (2009). Multimodal analysis. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 154–165). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Garzone, G., & Ilie, C. (2014). Genres and genre theory in transition: An introduction. In G. Garzone & C. Ilie (Eds.), Genres and genre theory in transition: Specialized discourses across media and modes (pp. 7–15). Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gimenez, J. (2006). Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international business communication. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gimenez, J. (2009). Mediated communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 132–141). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gimenez, J. (2014). Multi-communication and the business English class: Research meets pedagogy. English for Specific Purposes, 35, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Halmari, H., & Virtanen, T. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Hamilton, P. (2005). The mission statement as epideictic rhetoric: Celebrating organizational identity. In A. Pullen & S. Linstead (Eds.), Organization and identity (pp. 149–165). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Handford, M. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harding, K. (2007). English for specific purposes: Resource books for teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Heracleous, L. (2006). A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1059–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755–778.Google Scholar
  48. Hoffman, M. F., & Cowan, R. L. (2008). The meaning of work/life: A corporate ideology of work/life balance. Communication Quarterly, 56(3), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hoffman, M. F., & Ford, D. J. (2010). Organizational rhetoric: Situations and strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Huh, S. (2006). A task-based needs analysis for a business course. Second Language Studies, 24(2), 1–64.Google Scholar
  51. Huhta, M., Vogt, K., Johnson, E., & Tulkki, H. (2013). Needs analysis for language course design: A holistic approach to ESP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Ismail, N., & Sabapathy, C. (2016). An integrated approach to training university students in professional communication. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Johns, A. (2013). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 5–30). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Johns, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kameda, N. (2008). Contrastive rhetoric in business email writing across cultures: A case of Singaporean and Japanese business students. Doshisha University Worldwide Business Review, 10(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
  61. Kennedy, C., & Bolitho, R. (1984). English for specific purposes. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  62. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. London/New York: Arnold/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nickerson, C. (2018). Mobile and multidimensional: Flipping the business English classroom. ESP Today, 6(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2016.4.2.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nilsson, T. (2015). Rhetorical business: A study of marketing work in the spirit of contradiction. PhD Dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  69. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Halloran, K. L. (2006). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  71. O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Companion to discourse. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  72. Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Otondo, R. F., Van Scotter, J. R., Allen, D., & Palvia, P. (2008). The complexity of richness: Media, message, and communication outcomes. Information Management, 45(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Palmer-Silveira, J. C. (2015). Multimodality in business communication: Body language as a visual aid in student presentation. In B. Crawford Camiciottoli & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), Multimodal analysis in academic settings: From research to teaching (pp. 171–192). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Poncini, G. (2003). Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Poncini, G. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  77. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd revised ed., pp. 87–121). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.Google Scholar
  79. Rogerson-Revell, P. (1999). Meeting talk: A stylistic approach to teaching meeting skills. In M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 55–71). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  80. Schieber, D. L. (2016). Learning transfer from the business communication classroom to the workplace. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 15095. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15095
  81. Search, M. Lee. (2010). The disembodied classroom: Adapting a multimodal business communication course for distance education. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11291.Google Scholar
  82. Segars, A. H., & Kohut, G. F. (2001). Strategic communication through the world wide web: An empirical model of effectiveness in the CEO’s letter to shareholders. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Skerlep, A. (2001). Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of corporate discourse. Journal of Communication Management, 6(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Skulstad, A. S. (2007). Rhetorical organization of chairmen’s statements. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sproule, J. M. (1988). The new managerial rhetoric and the old criticism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 74(4), 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stöckl, H. (2004). In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Torregrosa Benavent, G., & Sánchez-Reyes, S. (2015). Target situation as a key element for ESP (Law Enforcement) syllabus design. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vaish, V., & Towndrow, P. A. (2010). Multimodal literacy in language classrooms. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 317–349). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vandendaele, A., Bruyer, T., & Jacobs, G. (2016). “We never even wondered whether we trusted them or not”: From freedom to mutuality in a student research project. In G. M. Alessi & G. Jacobs (Eds.), The ins and outs of business and professional discourse research: Reflections on interacting with the workplace (pp. 102–116). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vergaro, C. (2002). “Dear sirs, what would you do if you were in our position?”. Discourse strategies in Italian and English money chasing letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(9), 1211–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. von Koskull, C., & Fougère, M. (2011). Service development as practice: A rhetorical analysis of customer-related arguments in a service development project. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  96. Wodak, R., Kwon, W., & Clarke, I. (2011). ‘Getting people on board’: Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 592–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yeung, L. (2007). In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical features of business reports. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelia Ilie
    • 1
  • Catherine Nickerson
    • 2
  • Brigitte Planken
    • 3
  1. 1.Strömstad AcademyStrömstadSweden
  2. 2.College of BusinessZayed UniversityDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations