Intercultural Relations In A Monolingual Setting

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

"To have another language is to possess a second soul".

Charlemagne (in Carder, 2007, p.79

Having explained the effects that globalization had on languages increasing the expansion and supremacy of English, in this chapter, I will now analyze in details how the use of this common language in a multicultural setting can impact the identity of the members composing that environment.

As it was previously mentioned, in order to be more efficient in communication and to avoid becoming true towers of Babel due to linguistic diversity, many Belgian companies or subsidiaries competitive at a worldwide level have recently decided to function in ‘English only’. This process was most favorably welcomed by various Belgian entities. It is now not only perceived as a progress for internal exchanges between collaborators of different mother tongues and backgrounds, but it also renders the situation more comfortable for those who need to communicate worldwide (Blampain, 1997; Munat, 2005).

In this thesis, I will however focus on the internal communication performed between the employees coming from different cultures and interacting in English on our Belgian soil. My objective, as I want to recall, will be to examine if this practice enables these collaborators to better identify with one another, and to some extent, with their company. To give a first approach to this research question, in this chapter, I will firstly demonstrate how a common language can act as a barrier in communication preventing colleagues from identifying with one another. Then, it will be explained that the use of an international language in intercultural collaboration can also represent a factor of union and identification for the individuals who make use of it in a common setting.

3.1 Language as a barrier

As progressive as this process may seem, Battilana stated that: "instituting a single language [in an organization] is not without its risks" (2012, p.1). This professor at the University of Harvard claims that in some cases, if individuals are compelled to another language use in their working environment, employees whose first language is not English may perceive a diminishing of their professional status. Indeed, non-native English speakers cannot be as clear and as specific in English as in their mother tongue, and it is also more difficult for them to stay concentrated in a language that is not theirs. These factors can often lead to feelings of incapacity, frustration or inefficiency that are very difficult to manage within an organization. Moreover, the stress that may be generated by these situations can have a deep impact –at least temporarily— on the employee’s performances at work (Battilana, 2012).

Consequently, as Van Parijs highlights, in these companies, the Anglophones are always at a considerable advantage compared to those for which English is the second or the third language (2004). Battilana added that this leads to the fact that some employees even end up avoiding collaborations with those who speak better the language than them or with natives because they resent the fear to express themselves in a wrong way or the dread to misinterpret important information. Thus, the imposition of this lingua franca in one environment may promote a cleavage between employees who have different mother tongues, giving the native English speakers a significant advantage (2012).

3.1.1 Language: a direct reflection of culture and identity

Hence, the use of one common language in a multicultural environment can have some negative effects. However, is the lack of knowledge in English the only reason promoting a bridge between native speakers of different languages? This is a question that could be worth considering for this research. And, Leonardi, a Doctor of Economy at the University of Ferrerra in Italy, replies to this interrogation in the negative.

This researcher deals with the fact that language is an efficient means allowing speakers to express orally their internal beliefs. Thanks to the external expression of their thoughts, individuals can differentiate themselves from others in terms of: gender, origin, race or even social class. Consequently, the language reflects the membership that one has with a specific cultural community; it reveals its norms, values, behaviors and beliefs. Moreover, language is one of the major factors allowing individuals to learn, to share or to teach their specific culture. She thus stipulates that the notions of culture and language are intimately interrelated affirming that "language is shaped by culture as culture is, in turn, shaped by language" (2010, p.93). Leonardi goes further on with her association between language and culture, admittedly adding that language is a means for expressing culture, and culture helps us define who we are. As a consequence, the language enables individuals to express their cultural identity: their ‘self’ (2010).

Hence, if individuals are compelled to use another language –in this case, English— than their mother tongue in their daily working life, they could experience a loss, or at least, a change in their identity perspectives (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). In his piece of work entitled ‘English as a global language’, Crystal also specifies the fact that language is to be perceived as a universal symbol of identity. Therefore, it is an innate reaction to desire to speak your mother tongue; to see it expand and survive because it partly reveals who you are and where you come from. Speaking about writers, the author stated: "if they write in English, their work will have a chance of reaching a worldwide audience; but to write in English may mean sacrificing their cultural identity" (2003, p.126). Obviously, this statement would also be relevant if applied to anybody working in English but having another mother tongue. Consequently, imposing a common language in an organization may dissatisfy some individuals since, as I could imagine, the employees who work in English lie their own language, culture, and thus identity to rest.

However, the case of English is slightly different, and it is not because these workers temporarily abandon their mother tongue that they will opt for the culture of Englishness. Indeed, as we have seen, the English language has gained such an important popularity worldwide, that its use does not reflect the affiliation of a member to one given cultural community. Nowadays, one can affirm that English has become ‘de-nationalized’; it now belongs to the global population and does no longer represent the characteristic of its native speakers (Leonardi, 2010). Hence, it is incorrect to say that this lingua franca is related to a particular cultural identity such as it is for many other languages (Leonardi, 2010).

However, if communicative practices do not only convey messages but also communicate cultural identities, how does one identify other individuals or even himself, if everyone speaks the same global language that does not reflect specific cultural origins? Answering that question by saying that everyone identifies with one another and that there are no differences in terms of identity perceived between these employees would obviously be an inadequate account.

3.1.2 Culture: a barrier reflected through language

Indeed, even if the use of a unique language in a particular context could partly unite the speakers in a certain sense, it is obvious that those who do not have a full mastery of the language, as it was just discussed, may sometimes be misunderstood or misunderstand others, and this, leading to cleavages. In addition to that, those who speak English as their second language must, from time to time, naturally let appear their original background through the way they express themselves. These two features can consequently impact the way people identify with one another.

Unquestionably, mastering a language –even really well— does not prevent people from being misunderstood or misinterpreting certain situations, and a perfect communication is not promoted by language only. For each language, there are cultural and linguistic codes of conducts, and if these are not achieved by the language learner, mistakes are bound to happen. This can lead to extremely embarrassing situations and in these cases, the culture reflected through that language may take up the role of a barrier (Eloy & Salva, 2006).

Indeed, it is obvious that wherever he works, any employee carries with him his cultural values, norms and knowledge. And, in multicultural working environments, it is inevitable that culture should affect behaviors. To illustrate that with a mere example, one can affirm that two colleagues born and raised in different countries will have different cultural codes and different ways of approaching the language. And, if they do not develop competence in intercultural communication, there ought to be misinterpretations between them (Eloy & Salva, 2006).

3.1.2.1 Competences to be achieved in intercultural communication

To illustrate that problematic, Riley deals with the fact that in order to achieve a perfect intercultural communication, one has to master three competences (2007). The first one is the linguistic competence, which is the ability to recognize and produce correct grammatical sentences in a language. This is obviously essential for a basic effective communication. However, it is not because an individual has achieved this competence that (s)he has developed the communicative competence.

This term was originally coined by Hymes; the notion can be defined as the capacity to adapt one’s language to the situation in which one is engaged according to the socio-cultural norms of the environment. These norms obviously differ and cannot always be transferred from one language to another. Therefore, to have the communicative competence means being able to use the language in order to achieve a specific goal according to the context in which the speaker is involved. In other words, it means that depending on who I am talking to, on where I am or on what I am talking about, I will opt for a different kind of linguistic code determined by the cultural environment and by background of the speakers involved in the speech act (Fernández Amaya, 2008).

Hence, given there are different rules for each language, it is normal that, when interacting, speakers of different nationalities should experience cultural differences. Thus, in a working environment in which the collaborators have different nationalities, these cultural differences in language may sometimes be salient. To illustrate that with a mere example, I could say that, for instance, the concepts of superiority and inferiority inculcated in their original culture may be different for a Spaniard than for a German, and it may be reflected in the way they both speak in English (Riley, 2007).

Finally, the third competence that Riley highlights is the socio-cultural competence which is the ability to adapt one’s behavior to the group or society to which one belongs in order to become an accepted member of that entity. Indeed, in particular organizations, the language spoken between their members normally reflects their norms and values. Thus, in a specific company, employees will have to respect and follow a particular code if they are to be integrated into that firm. This will allow them to identify with their common organization (Eloy & Salva, 2006; Riley, 2007).

Consequently, Riley claims that these three competences are totally compatible since having the linguistic competence allows one to be a grammarian, having the communicative competence means being a speaker and if one achieves the socio-cultural competence, he becomes a member (2007). Hence, breakdowns and misunderstandings in communication can be enhanced by incompetence in these three domains.

3.1.2.2 Pragmatic failures

For that reason, in a multicultural environment, one has not only to be able to understand the language spoken, but also to cooperate with different cultural codes if these three competences are sought. However, misinterpretation is only a natural phenomenon that can occur relatively often in an environment composed of multicultural members. But, if a speaker of a second language does not understand a message in an appropriate context, communication may be blocked, and he may totally be discredited in his professional setting. These breakdowns in communication are what Riley calls "pragmatic failures" or "cross talks" (2007, p.190).

Originally, pragmatics studies the implied meanings –what is really meant in a message— and not "the mere lexical meanings expressed" (Pohl, 2004, p.1). Thus, the notion of pragmatic failure defines the fact that a non-native speaker is able to understand every lexical word that is being said, but does not manage to comprehend what is really intended by the speech act. Riley specifies that these failures are by definition, errors that non-native speakers make, not because of their poor grammar, but due to their cultural differences: they do not achieve the necessary communicative competence (2007). Hence, pragmatic mistakes do not define an incorrect use of the language but a sentence or speech act that "has not been able to reach the speaker’s communicative intention" (Fernández Amaya, 2008, p.12).

Indeed, as one’s language reflects one’s cultural norms and because different persons express themselves differently, it is normal that distinctions should be reflected while speaking another language, in this case; English. Moreover, as fluent as a speaker might be, if he is not familiar with the socio-cultural norms of the language he speaks, he may well unintentionally encounter himself in embarrassing situations and be perceived as impolite or strange (Fernández Amaya, 2008).

Nevertheless, Riley makes a distinction between two types of pragmatic failures: the pragmalinguistic and the sociopragmatic failure (2007).

Indeed, the former occurs when the structure of the speech act accomplished is different that it would normally be if the sentence were performed by a native speaker. That is to say, for example, that the speaker of the second language automatically transfers the grammatical structure that a sentence would have in his native tongue unto the second language that he currently speaks. A pragmalinguistic failure takes place, for example, when a speaker literally translates a sentence from his mother tongue into his second language. Fernández Amaya cites an example illustrating a pragmalinguistic failure; it is retrieved from Richards and Sukwiwat’s work in 1983:

"[English person]: Look what I’ve got for you! (maybe a gift)

[Japanese person]: Oh! I’m sorry. (In Japanese, ‘thank you’ may not sound sincere enough)

[English person]: Why, sorry?" (2008, p.17).

This illustration perfectly demonstrates what the notion of pragmalinguistic failure can provoke in communication: a complete incomprehension between speakers. Here, the Japanese speaker transfers his linguistic norms into English. In Japanese, saying ‘sorry’ when expressing gratitude is legitimate whereas in English, it is absolutely not intelligible. In this case, the Japanese speaker fails to have the communicative competence required by the exchange, and this leads to a situation of incomprehension (Fernández Amaya, 2008).

On the other hand, the sociopragmatic failure occurs when a speaker fails to perform an appropriate linguistic behavior due to intercultural differences. According to Fernández Amaya, this is much more difficult to rectify because those who speak the new language have to adopt new cultural assumptions and beliefs (2008). For instance, the notions of formality and informality are culturally determined. In culture A, one would not address a superior by his first name or would never communicate with him in an informal way, whereas in culture B, it would be considered as totally appropriate. Thus, if an individual from culture B starts interacting with a person from culture A, and talks to him in an informal manner in English, the one from culture A may be surprised, irritated or even shocked.

Hence, a pragmalinguistic failure reveals a misunderstanding of meanings whereas a sociopragmatic failure results from the misinterpretation of a situation. As a consequence, both failures might occur when a foreign speaker communicates in English but using the same norms –grammatical or social— that he would normally do if he were to speak his mother tongue. A pragmatic failure not only affects the production of a message, but also its interpretation therefore, these sorts of situation can obviously have negative effects on professional relationships (Fernández Amaya, 2008).

As a consequence, as Crystal stated, in intercultural communication, English speakers –natives and non-natives— coming from different countries tend to feel interrelated to each other thanks to a common bound in communication: English. Nevertheless, since they come from various countries or nations, the English they respectively speak is different. It reflects their individual and cultural identity, and consequently, prevents them from identifying with one another (2003). Hence, Riley reinforces Crystal’s ideas when he explains that a pragmatic failure "always has repercussions on the interactants’ perceptions and categorizations of one another" (Riley, 2007, p.91). Therefore, as it was shown, language reflects our identity and the identity of the group we belong to, but if within this same membership there are different communicative practices and several misinterpretations, the affiliation of one’s identity with a group becomes difficult to make (Riley, 2007).

Consequently, as a response to the opening question of this section: ‘Is the lack of knowledge in English the only reason promoting a bridge between native speakers of different languages?’, it is now easy to concur with Leonardi and to state that due to cross-cultural variation in language, people may encounter difficulties to identify with one another, and that groups boundaries and classifications of cultures are bound to be made.

Thus, it would be appropriate to conclude this section about ‘language as a barrier’ with a sentence written by this professor emphasizing the effects of the global situation: "Globalisation is an unstoppable phenomenon that seems to homogenize [but], at the same time, fragment peoples, economies, cultures and languages all over the world" (Leonardi, 2010, p.92).

3.2 Language as a factor of union and identification

As it was just demonstrated, instituting a common language in the workplace could have some negative effects in intercultural communication preventing workers from identifying with one another. However, I will now demonstrate, thanks to psychosocial theories, that a common language can also represent a factor promoting a common identity in a multicultural context, and that there are individuals totally capable of adapting themselves to new environments without difficulty due to the fact that, on the contrary, their identification with others is possible to be made.

Indeed, I can now stipulate that communication does not only produce messages, but also communicates identities. However, communication is only feasible if there are interactions with others. Thus, without hearers of my message, I will be able to communicate neither a meaning nor an identity, and if the ‘other’ is absent, the identity will not receive the opportunity to be expressed (Verbunt, 2011). Hence, thanks to communication and interactions with others, we distance –as I have just been demonstrating— or affiliate ourselves with members of a specific group: friends, colleagues, team, etc. Yet, belonging to that membership provides us with an identity in the sense that being part of it helps us define who we are and what we are not (Haslam & Ellemers, 2011). This suggests that if two persons state that they belong to the same group, the way they behave, think and therefore, perceive themselves, will, in a sense, be similar. Consequently, these two individuals will interpret and respond similarly to various situations (Haslam & Ellemers, 2011).

3.2.1 The social identity theory

To illustrate this, in the 1979, Tajfel and Turner introduced the notions of social and personal identity. These theories suggest that individuals define themselves in terms of ‘socialness’ when they adhere to a certain social group’s shared values and beliefs (Haslam & Ellemers, 2011). The social identity theory focuses on the relationships between different social groups in which individuals are confined. On the contrary, the notion of personal identity defines the individuals who do not think that their ‘self’ belongs to a social group. In this case, it is their own personal needs and values that prevail, determine their behavior, and consequently, who they are by denying any properties of a group (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987).

Brewer stipulated that "a change from the personal to the social level of identity" (2003, p.22) often occurs when an individual enters a new group: this process is called the depersonalization; the individual becomes classified as a group member (Brewer, 2003). By first being included within the heterogeneity of a group, an individual expresses the feeling of an identity loss; he is depersonalized because he becomes a simple link in a chain (Blanchet & Trognon, 2008). Then, he soon becomes assigned with all the categories of the group, he agrees with its values and norms and gives himself all of its characteristics. One can affirm that when a member agrees to become part of a group, he realizes what he has to do or say according to the conventions and the rules of his organization. Hence, this process is bound to lead the group to collective thinking and actions, but the individual towards self-stereotyping (Brewer, 2003; Aebischer & Oberlé, 2007).

The social identity theory thus provides a common framework for an entire group that generally shares a history or has a mutual objective. The structural factors of a group influence the way people think and act since they normally seek to respect the habits of the group in which they are integrated. They then adopt the social –or group— identity and seek its welfare (Turner & Bourhis, 1996).

However, the social identification also highlights the fact that interestingly, both successes and failures of the group are personally experienced by its members. Obviously, the prestige of the group increases the identification that the members have towards it more than its bad reputation since it is a natural phenomenon to want to be associated with ‘the best’. But, individuals who perceive their identity to be part of a social group do it ‘in sickness and in health’. Furthermore, it is to be added that the social identification is reinforced by the presence of an out-group. Indeed, if I know that there are groups composed of very different persons than myself, I will enhance my connectedness with my own group because I will perceive its members to be more similar to me (Ashforth & Mael, 2004).

Hence, the social group has its own rules, ideologies and even its own communication strategies. And by the same token, its members have common activities, goals and consequently, a collective language (Postmes, 2003).

Indeed, as we have just seen, communication is really essential for identification. Communication allows the interaction between the group and the individual, which enables in its turn the creation of the social identity. Thanks to the language that one speaks or the way one talks, one can communicate his social identity: his affiliation with a group (Postmes, 2003). Consequently, if the social identity is salient inside an organization, the communication of its members should reflect the organizational norms, values as well as its "identification and commitment" (Postmes, 2003, p.90).

On the other hand, Postmes also stated that the organization itself could be transformed because of its members’ interactions. Indeed, by discussing and interacting, individuals exchange opinions and ideas, and consequently, re-define the norms and values of their social group; they create their corporate culture. Hence, one can admit that communication is essential in intergroup relations because it represents the mediator between the individual and its group (2003). However, communication is only feasible because it relies on a common linguistic code and a common comprehension embedded in a particular social identity (Postmes, 2003). In sum, "communication and identity are thereby joined at the hip: each is distinguishable in its own right, but parting them will disfigure both" (Postmes, 2003, p.96).

In this case, employees working in a multicultural environment who have the same objectives and a common language, English, could totally perceive themselves in terms of Tajfel and Turner’s social identity. Therefore, if this theory was to be applied to them, the fact that they all speak one language should promote a union between them, and reflect the social identity of the group; the company. However, to what extent can persons coming from different backgrounds and cultures associate with a common group? Due to the fact they come from different cultures, they may conceive of themselves as being very different from each other and speak very differently as I have discussed. In this case, their cultural background should affect their communication, and they could not manage to represent themselves at the social identity level; consequently, it could lead to the creation of sub-social groups composed of individuals sharing common characteristics within the firm itself (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Yet, being able to either identify with a group as a whole or with a sub-social group inside a firm is only possible if the self-categorization and the social comparison processes are taken into account.

3.2.1.1 The self-categorization theory

Indeed, first of all, categorizing objects and people has been part of social realities since the dawn of the time. According to physical, ideological, cultural or linguistic similarity, one assigns, often spontaneously, a group or a category to people. The self-categorization theory developed by John Turner in 1987, stipulates that by categorizing, we also include ourselves into a group, namely, the ‘in-group’. This process is thus completing the social identity theory (Turner et al.). However, by categorizing, we reduce and stereotype in the sense that, by assigning people with a group, the real differences that define the members of the same category tend to be significantly reduced: this is named the in-group homogenization. On the other hand, an individual will perceive accentuated and exaggerated differences between himself and a social group to which (s)he does not belong; this is the intergroup differentiation process (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Thus, individuals will have the tendency to prefer the members of their own group just because they acknowledge the fact that they share a common identity. In-group members thus become preferred over out-group individuals even if their personality is unknown. Because of this phenomenon, it becomes possible to discriminate someone due to the fact that (s)he does not belong to one’s group even if (s)he is a respectable person. In the same way, preference is shown towards the individual that belongs to one’s group even if (s)he is not pleasant. Hence, this theory explains why individuals who dislike each other or who completely differ in terms of their personality manage to work together in a collective entity (Brewer & Gardner, 2004).

Hence, categorizing in and out-groups allows individuals to evaluate others. Aebischer and Oberlé stated that this process has both a cognitive and an identity function in a sense that by categorizing, we attribute norms to others, but we also place ourselves into the in-group (2007). Thus, identifying oneself with a specific category enables to increase one’s self-esteem as belonging to a membership becomes an essential need for one’s personal benefits (Ashforth & Mael, 2004).

It is to be added that every individual in a group is confronted to the individuation process that is related to self-consciousness. As I have just mentioned, on the one hand, every individual needs group partnerships, but on the other hand, self-recognition is also essential for one’s identity definition. Thus, the individuation is the process by which every person achieves a "social singularity" (Blanchet & Trognon, 2008, p.26); there is equilibrium between the self-perception as being similar to the other members of one’s group and between the self-distinctiveness with these same members. Indeed, every human being needs to have the awareness of being a unique individual on earth (Blanchet & Trognon, 2008). According to Blanchet and Trognon, a lack of individuation conveys personal anxiety, but an excessive feeling of individuation also leads to negative feelings (2008). The two authors also explain one of Codol’s experiments carried out in 1984. It demonstrated that human beings had a tendency to think of themselves as being more different from others than the others were different from them. To put it differently, Codol proved that: ‘I, as an individual, do not think that I look like the other members of my group; it is they who appear similar to me’ (Blanchet & Trognon, 2008).

Although many authors affirmed that the in-group categorization was sufficient for identification, Ashforth and Mael stated that it was not the sole factor enabling one’s affiliation with a specific group (2004).

3.2.1.2 The social comparison theory

Indeed, the social comparison is also responsible for one’s identification with a membership. This theory was introduced by Festinger in 1954, and as Spears has demonstrated, it is this process that assigns a category with true values because it gives the group properties in comparison to others’ characteristics; we define "who we are, partly by comparison with others" (2011, p.203). In this case, differences between the group to which the self belongs –the in-group— and the out-group members will be most salient. It often provides the in-group with a positive sense of self-esteem whereas the out-groups are perceived in derogatory terms (Brewer, 2003). However, even if there are certain aspects allowing a comparison that are objective, such as real or social facts, others require an interpretation that is more flexible. Indeed, according to the characteristics that I want or I do not want to make salient, I will chose the dimensions that I will compare to different groups. To illustrate that, Postmes exemplified that one can define his department at work as ‘innovative’ in comparison to, for instance, the human resources staff. Whereas, when he compares his work group to the sales department, he will choose to define it as "scrupulous" or "thorough" (2003, p.89). Brewer explains this fact by saying that every human being needs a positive sense of ‘we-ness’, a preference for our own group that is even expressed through language. By saying ‘we’ and ‘them’, one respectively reflects positive and negative connotations that are both emotional and ideological. Brewer also speaks about a feeling of loyalty and preference towards the we-group that even youngest children start experiencing at an early stage of their life (2003).

Thus, by comparing and categorizing, the social identity theory is bound to provoke out-group bias in terms of culture, function, language, etc. Hence, the combination of both the self-categorization and the social comparison processes may lead the in-group to ethnocentrism: members will have a tendency to evaluate their own group at the best level and perceive negatively the out-groups (Geartner & Dovidio, 2000). Due to these factors, in a multicultural workplace, inter-group competition may emerge and diversity at work can be an important factor provoking a form of separatism in professional relations; leading the workers to see their colleagues as members of in or out-groups (Van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003).

3.2.2 The common in-group identity model

Yet, Brussels, as it is known, is a cosmopolitan city hosting a broad number of expatriates, residents or immigrants of various ethnic origins and cultures. These persons now work in Belgian infrastructures. They display variations on a great number of dimensions; as a consequence, cultural and linguistic divides between them would only be a natural phenomenon inside Belgian workplaces. There is no doubt that sub-groups could be created, and that, although not systematically, cultural biases towards one another could emerge.

However, Gaertner and Dovidio illustrate a model which provides various solutions against one’s fall into the stereotyping traps, and thus enables collaborators to work within diversity with less difficulty; it is the common in-group identity model (2000). Before detailing the three components of the model, it is essential to grasp that the common in-group identity model could not be feasible without a lingua franca; a common language for a common identity.

3.2.2.1 The mutual intergroup differentiation

The first component of the model is the mutual intergroup differentiation, a notion introduced by Hewstone and Brown in 1986. It stipulates that by accentuating groups’ distinctiveness, bias can be reduced in a sense that members are encouraged to collaborate with others and use their differences for everyone’s benefit. Indeed, some groups are considered to be more efficient in some matters and in the same way, less skillful in other domains. Hence, the mutual intergroup differentiation model provides the idea of cooperativeness based on differences: everyone brings his own knowledge and culture at the service and advantage of all (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Van Knippenberg and Haslam also deal with the positivity of diversity in one environment; they state that heterogeneous groups should efficiently perform professional tasks for two reasons. Firstly, together they have greater knowledge, experience and performance. Secondly, they differ in terms of opinions and manners of doing the same tasks that they must reconcile. Hence, if their divergent points of view are taken into account and analyzed, the work is likely to be more efficiently elaborated. However, in order to benefit from the diversity of others, employees need, again, a common ground; a common language (2003).

In this model, distinct groups are thus led up to work together on a mutual objective. Gaertner and Dovidio name that "win-win cooperative relationships" (2000, p.41) that lead to positive perceptions and opinions of the out-group members. Furthermore, the model also suggests that biases can be eliminated if the whole membership shares the same goal or has a mutual objective. In fact, it has been proven that members, who conceive of themselves as being part of different groups but altogether playing in the same team or working on the same project, will develop a positive sense of otherness. Thus, both a common fate and interactions between sub-groups are prone to reduce intergroup bias. As Gaertner and Dovidio stated, the exchange of information provides an interaction between groups which is sufficient for the decrease of prejudices, whereas the concept of ‘common fate’ without any exchange of information is unlikely to reduce the prejudgments a group may have. Indeed, if two groups have a common goal but do not endeavor to achieve this objective together, it will not lead to a change. On the other hand, with cooperative interactions, groups learn to know more about others, and therefore, are able to create their own individual opinions about them (2000). It is one of the most efficient methods for reducing bias in intergroup and intercultural interactions (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Other solutions for the reduction of intergroup bias are the decategorization and the recategorization models. Contrarily to the mutual intergroup differentiation, both frameworks tend to erase the original sub-groups’ characteristics.

3.2.2.2 The recategorization

As far as the recategorization is concerned, different groups are encouraged to conceive of themselves as being part of a hierarchical superordinate common group rather than being different groups in competition. In this case, since what was the out-group before has become part of the in-group, prejudices towards the members of the former out-group will be reduced. Moreover, the ‘new’ individuals will get positive evaluations from others, will be understood more easily and will be regarded as cooperative and complementary members of the new recategorized group. Just by categorizing them within the in-group, a feeling of resemblance will be developed and they should no longer be victims of unfair judgments. The information that the in-group will have about these new recategorized members will be different than it previously was when they were perceived as out-group members. Thus, a pro-ingroup sense of positivism will be developed (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

As we have just seen, groups composed of heterogeneous individuals can bring a greater contribution within a company. However, with the recategorization process, the focus is on the sameness of its employees which completely erases the positivity that diversity could bring to the group (Van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003).

3.2.2.3 The decategorization

As it was already developed, a group positive self-esteem is salient in the social identity process, but it assigns the whole group’s boundaries to any individual being part of it. However, with the decategorization theory, this problem is resolved. It suggests that, if members perceive themselves as being individuals and not so much group members, they will be assigned individualistic characteristics and not the group’s boundaries. In the same way, members will no longer think with the ethnocentric view of their in-group when judging out-group members. According to Brewer and Miller (1984), this process increases the interactions between individuals and the out-group members, and this allows them to reduce their bias towards others (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

To illustrate that, the two authors give examples of various experiences that have been carried out to prove that repeated interactions between members of different cultures decrease the prejudices they may have; this is called ‘the contact hypothesis’. It not only allows them to adopt a more tolerant point of view but it also decreases their feeling of "nationalistic pride" (p.44). This phenomenon also minimizes the attractiveness that individuals usually tend to have towards members of their own group. Thus, thanks to decategorization, persons are attracted by others according to their own individual perspectives and not because of a group’s boundaries (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

It is nevertheless important to mention that these models are, by no means, mutually exclusive. Intergroup relations are very complex and it is not impossible that these frameworks should prevail within the same group, but in different situations. Also, the capacity that one has to associate himself with a group or with other individuals obviously depends on his personality. Some persons are indeed more flexible and tend to adapt themselves more easily to unknown environments and new cultures: they display different sorts of identity perspectives (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

3.2.3 Cross-cultural codes switching

These specific individuals may be found in companies that are considered to be ‘multicultural settings’. The collaborators working within these firms have indeed to deal with an important number of cross-national and cultural boundaries in order to work efficiently and cooperatively. It means that some of them must be able to switch and change –at least temporarily— their own cultural norms and values to adopt the appropriate behavior required by the surrounding [1] . And, in order to act effectively, these persons may need to confront their innate and natural habits to gain the respect, amiability and comprehension on behalf of their colleagues in their inter-professional relations (Molinsky, 2007).

To denominate this particular ability, Molinsky introduced the concept of cross-cultural code switching which is: "the act of purposefully modifying one’s behavior, in a specific interaction in a foreign setting, to accommodate different cultural norms for appropriate behavior" (2007, p.624).

This notion assembles two different terms. First of all, initially, it refers to the linguistic code switching which is the ability that bilingual individuals have to switch from one language to another in one particular situation speaking with other bilinguals of the same languages. Secondly, the code switching itself is the ability an individual has to change from one cultural code to another. Therefore, the cross-cultural code switching highlights the capacity to change one’s behavior and norms in order to adopt the required social image of a particular cultural environment: the social identity of the group (Molinsky, 2007). Being able to do that thus demonstrates what Riley had called the socio-cultural competence, the ability to adapt one’s behavior to the group or society to which one belongs (2007).

Switching from one code –linguistic or cross-cultural— to another in an environment, then, allows a bicultural speaker to choose which identity he wants to make salient in one specific context. But, according to Molinsky, there are also two psychological difficulties that code switchers face: firstly, the new set of behaviors that they have to adopt in the ‘new’ code may be complex, and secondly, it might totally conflict with their own beliefs and values, being incompatible with the ‘new’ culture (2007).

However, according to Molinsky, some individuals may also switch their code very easily without experiencing conflicts between the two ‘cultures’. Indeed, if the new norms to be adopted are compatible with their natural behavior or because the situation is not too complex, an individual may experience a code switch as within his or her level of knowledge. In this case, the individual has enough "cultural intelligence" (2007, p.628) to be efficient in professional relations and can successfully adapt to the new setting (2007).

Indeed, it has been proven that some individuals are able to adopt a multicultural or a bicultural identity, which means that they are able to switch from one cultural identity to another with little difficulty or conflict (Vaughn, 2010). Individuals are considered to be bicultural or multicultural if they define themselves in terms of two or more cultural identities due to the fact that they are or have been exposed to different cultures. As they need to fit into different backgrounds, they are able to change their behavior and language accordingly. Thus, these persons are known to have different ‘selves’. The ability that they have to switch from one culture to another according to the situation is what LaFromboise had called, in 1993, the cultural frame switching (Vaughn, 2010). This process is basically identical to the cross-cultural code switching, but it emphasizes the notions of bicultural or multicultural identity that the switchers must have.

In 2005, Benet-Martínez and Haritatos demonstrated that there were two sorts of multicultural individuals who could conceive of themselves in terms of different components (Huynh, Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2011).

Firstly, the authors focused on the opposition between the cultural compartmentalization –the alternation of identities— and the cultural blendedness –the fusion of identities. The former concerns individuals having one specific culture in a certain context but being confronted to another one in a different situation while the latter refers to individuals stating that they are able to represent themselves in terms of their two cultures in one sole environment. Huynh, Nguyen and Benet-Martínez exemplified these two components by stating that if a person perceives himself to be a Chinese person living in the United States, he will undergo compartmentalization. On the other hand, if he defines himself in terms of being both Chinese and American, he will experience blendedness (2011). Even if both sorts have positive feelings regarding their two –or more– cultures, fused bicultural individuals appear to better manage the multicultural situation since they are not torn up between two cultural frameworks (Huynh et al., 2011).

Secondly, they deal with the opposition between individuals experiencing cultural harmony –their cultures are totally compatible— and individuals undergoing conflicts regarding the merge of their two cultures. Thus, the authors illustrate that by saying that an individual will resent conflict if he feels torn between his two cultures. And, on the contrary, will experience harmony if his ways of behaving in both cultures are compatible (2011).

Bicultural individuals can experience a mixture of high and low harmony and high or low conflict since there are no specific rules of combination. But, identity compartmentalization tends to be associated with cultural conflicts, while blendedness with harmony. However, it is important to take into account the factors of personality and context which will obviously also change the way an individual tends to experience harmony vs. conflict, and blendedness vs. compartmentalization (Huynh et al., 2011). The harmony between the two cultural identities will be experienced by an individual if (s)he is well accustomed to these cultures, and if these ones are, of course, not too poles apart (Huyhn et al., 2011).

As Vaughn stipulated, human beings with multicultural backgrounds and experiments are more competent to adapt themselves to intercultural interactions because they do not rely on one cultural point of view. She then points out that "having a multicultural mind means that individuals have loose network of categories" (2010, p. 31). This sentence undeniably highlights the fact that bicultural individuals may adapt easily to unfamiliar environments, and thus are bound to less categorize others into groups. Hence, Vaughn demonstrates that individuals able to perform a code-switch develop a more empathical mind in terms of multiculturalism (2010). Taking this into account, multicultural individuals able to perform the cultural frame switching will supposedly easily define themselves at the social group level in a multicultural setting.

3.3 Research questions related to chapter 3

In cosmopolitan working environments where diversity reaches its paroxysm, pragmatic failures are bound to happen. However, does it create a certain stress provoking a cleavage between members of different mother tongues? Or, on the contrary, are they able to identify themselves and their colleagues at the social group level thanks to a common language and collaboration?

For the firm to be successful, the employees must obviously be able to collaborate, but what are the models in position within these multicultural institutions: the mutual intergroup differentiation, the recategorization and/or the decategorization processes? Are some of them able to juggle with their cultural identity and adapt their linguistic behavior by performing the code switch while experiencing neither compartmentalization nor conflict?

In sum, is the use of English a positive or a negative contribution for Belgian companies and does it create a common identification on behalf of its collaborators by positively increasing intercultural interactions and reducing cultural bias?

These are questions to which I will endeavor to respond.