CULTURAL PECULIARITIES OF BUSINESS DISCOURSE IN THE SPANISH AND RUSSIAN CULTURES

CULTURAL PECULIARITIES OF BUSINESS DISCOURSE IN THE SPANISH AND RUSSIAN CULTURES

Vadim Grutsin

Student, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”,

Russia, Moscow

МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНЫЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ ДЕЛОВОГО ДИСКУРСА В ИСПАНСКОЙ И РУССКОЙ КУЛЬТУРАХ

Груцин Вадим Алексеевич

студент, Национальный исследовательский университет “Высшая Школа Экономики”,

РФ, г. Москва

ABSTRACT

Studying business discourse emerges as a critical tool for individuals and organizations that aspire to succeed in the contemporary complex business environment, especially in the international arena. The study aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis of sociocultural and linguistic peculiarities of written business discourse in Russian and Spanish cultures and determine common features and differences between the two. The study implements critical discourse analysis as its principal method of research. The work may be of particular interest and use to international negotiators and scholars who investigate the domain of business discourse, intercultural communication, and international business management.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Изучение делового дискурса становится важнейшим инструментом для отдельных лиц и организаций, стремящихся добиться успеха в современном мире бизнеса, особенно в международной среде. Целью исследования является проведение всестороннего анализа социокультурных и лингвистических особенностей письменного делового дискурса в русской и испанской культурах, а также определение общих черт и различий между ними. Основным методом исследования является критический анализ дискурса. Данная работа может представлять особый интерес международным переговорщиками и ученым, которые изучают такие области, как деловой дискурс, межкультурная коммуникация и международный бизнес.

Keywords: business discourse, discourse analysis, business report, sociocultural peculiarities, linguistic peculiarities

Ключевые слова: деловой дискурс, анализ дискурса, бизнес-отчет, социокультурные особенности, лингвистические особенности.

The current research aimed at examining peculiarities of written business discourse in Spain and Russia. The study achieved its aim with the aid of the following objectives:

1. To outline the principal features of written business discourse in the Russian and Spanish cultures;
2. To identify and analyze socio-cultural peculiarities found in the business reports of the enterprises considered;
3. To identify and analyze linguistic distinctive features in the business reports of the companies in question;
4. To compare the business reports in terms of linguistic and sociocultural aspects;
5. To compile and provide a set of recommendations, based on the prior analysis, for effective written interactions with the cultures in the business domain.

In the Literature Review part, the work introduced the theoretical foundation for further practical research. In particular, the study provided the notion of discourse, several definitions of business discourse, its classifications, history of study, and relevant approaches to the study of this phenomenon. Furthermore, business discourse  was analyzed through the following cultural dimensions: Analytic vs. Holistic cognition; Dignity, Face, and Honour cultures; In-group Collectivism and Performance Orientation introduced by GLOBE study; communicative styles (Direct, Indirect, and Storytelling). Moreover, the reader was provided with essential data on cultural peculiarities of business communication in the cultures in question - Russia and Spain. Last but not least, the Literature review section introduced fundamental linguistic features of written business discourse considering several language layers.

The practical part of the research identified both sociocultural and linguistic peculiarities of RZD’s and Renfe’s business reports. In particular, it was discovered that the Russian work principally takes an analytic approach (Koo & Choi, 2018), whilst the Spanish one also revealed some aspects of holistic cognition. The study identified that RZD’s report exhibited particular aspects of Face culture, while Renfe’s one demonstrated its orientation towards Dignity culture. Regarding communication styles found, both works mainly utilized Direct communication style; nonetheless, the Russian one at times showcased Indirect communication style, especially when analyzing the commentaries of managers. Concerning the Performance Orientation dimension, the Spanish report demonstrated its tendency towards highlighting the importance of attainment of results individually. RZD company’s work revealed its In-Group Collectivism orientation since particular attention was paid to the importance of achieving results as one unit.

Furthermore, the study explored linguistic aspects of the works in question, taking into consideration such layers of language as vocabulary, grammar, organization and structure of the text, and stylistic means. As for lexical units, both reports exhibited frequent usage of specialized business, economic, and railway domain terms; specialized abbreviations and acronyms. The Russian work, however, used predominantly collective pronouns, whilst the Spanish one - personal pronouns. In terms of grammar, the works demonstrated a tendency towards frequent use of complex sentence structures and passive voice. Both texts were organized in similar way - introduction part, main body divided into sections, and concluding part. Regarding stylistic devices, the analysis discovered frequent use of syntactic devices, in the Spanish report, while the Russian tended to implement more rhetorical questions, parallelism, and repetition. The tables contrasting socio-cultural and linguistic aspects discovered  were presented in the last part of the analysis section.

As a concluding part, the research provided a set of recommendations based on the theoretical foundations examined and the prior analysis of business reports. The work introduced recommendations on effective written business interactions in the Spanish and Russian cultures.

Regarding limitations of the study, the scope of the materials analyzed appears as a principal one. Moreover, the research was conducted only on two business reports that represent two cultures.

As an implication for further studies, a more comprehensive amount of data may be taken for research. Furthermore, some other cultural dimensions may be considered for the socio-cultural analysis.

On the whole, sociocultural analyses have revealed that the Spanish business report is created in an analytic manner, however, exhibits some aspects of holistic cognition, e.g. a great number of pictures that may cover an entire page, whilst the Russian business report is principally crafted in analytic fashion with statics and tables provided almost in each subsection. Regarding the dimension of Face, Honor, and Dignity cultures, Renfe’s report has revealed mainly aspects of Dignity culture, whilst RZD’s report demonstrated aspects of Face culture. The Spanish report has exhibited features that tend to be attributed to Performance Oriented cultures, however the importance of cooperation is also outlined. The Russian report has demonstrated the peculiarities of In-group orientation through its attribution to teamwork in success of the company. The communication styles of both are mostly direct, however, RZD’s report at times reveals indirect communication style, especially in the subsections devoted to commentaries of executive managers of the enterprise. It may be inferred that the importance of relationships is demonstrated as vital in both works, although the Russian report tends to emphasize this aspect more frequently. Moreover, it may be noticed that RZD’s report possesses more social status attributes, especially when it refers to executive managers, while in the Spanish report the status importance may be perceived as medium due to the lack of forms exhibiting deference to employees standing higher in the organizational hierarchy.

Regarding linguistic aspects, the business reports possess both similarities and differences. Apropos of vocabulary, both texts tend to frequently use specialized business terms, abbreviations and acronyms. RZD’s business report is apt to use collective pronouns, whilst Renfe’s one has a tendency to utilize personal pronouns. Concerning grammar, both reports utilize complex sentences and passive voice. The Russian report tends to possess multiple subordinate clauses in sentences, whilst the Spanish one tends to have 2-3 as an utmost. RZD’s report tends to utilize more conjunctions to connect sentences and paragraphs, while Renfe’s work is apt to use more transitional phrases. In terms of organization and structure, both reports are rather similar; nonetheless, the Russian one commences with an executive summary about the company whilst the Spanish one with Renfe’s president’s speech as an introduction. The stylistic means implemented in the Russian report tend to encompass frequent usage of rhetorical questions, and such devices as parallelism and repetition. One may discover the frequent use of syntactic devices and rhetorical figures in the Spanish report. Both works utilize trite (fixed) metaphors and metonymies; however, the Russian report has revealed archaisms at some points, especially in the commentaries of executive managers. The Spanish report has revealed a tendency towards fixed expressions, phraseologisms, and hyperboles.

Table 1.

Comparison of socio-cultural peculiarities of Russian and Spanish business reports. BR - business report

Table 2.

Comparison of linguistic peculiarities of Russian and Spanish business reports. BR - business report

References:

1. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Nickerson, C. (2002). Business discourse: Old debates, new horizons. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 4, 273-286.
2. Bargiela-Chiappini,        F., Nickerson, С., & Planken, В. (2007). Business Discourse. Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Barker, R.T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic Application of Storytelling in Organizations: Toward Effective Communication in a Diverse World. The Journal of Business Communication, 47(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610369782
4. Bhatia,        V.K. (2014). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Bloomsbury Publishing.
5. Beletskaya, O.S., & Kucheryavenko, V.V. (2019).  Lexical and grammar singularities in translation of business correspondence from English into Russian. Scientific Journal Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches, (4), 95-103.
6. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective.
7. Braslauskas, J. (2020). Effective creative intercultural communication in the context of business interaction: theoretical and practical aspects. Creativity Studies, 13(1), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12094
8. Breeze, R. (2012). Identity construction in corporate discourse: A sociolinguistic study of two companies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9. Koo, M., Choi, J. A., & Choi, I. (2018). Analytic versus holistic cognition: Constructs and measurement. In J. Spencer-Rodgers & K. Peng (Eds.), The psychological and cultural foundations of East Asian cognition: Contradiction, change, and holism (pp. 105–134). Oxford University Press.
10. Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures.