"It’s not because it’s unpleasant to listen, it’s because they just go: ‘I cannot hear that, I cannot listen to it, I cannot understand it,’"

The nature of attitude change. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) describes the process of attitude change by persuasive dialogue. The main distinction of this model is the two alternate routes, the central and peripheral routes, which lead to either attitudinal change or retention. The central route is much stronger than the periphery, and depends on the combination of the listener’s motivation and ability to cognitively process the information provided. If the listener is motivated and able, then the cognitive processing will take place, adopting and storing the new cognition, and developing a positive or negative attitude change.

If the listener is not motivated or does not have the ability to cognitively process the information presented, she will defer to the peripheral route in search of a “peripheral cue,” or other source of validation, invalidation, or affective reaction, such as the number of arguments presented, whether or not the speaker is an expert source, or physical aspects of the speaker. If such a cue is present, a peripheral attitude shift takes place. If a cue is not present, the listener will maintain her prior attitude.

Current research in cognitive and social psychology provides strong support for the view that at times people engage in “controlled,” “deep,” “systematic,” and/or “effortful” analyses of stimuli, and at other times the analyses are better characterized as “automatic, ” “shallow, ” “heuristic, ” and/or “mindless”. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 128)

The former descriptions refer to the process that takes place in the central route, while the latter refers to the periphery.

While I recognize that the ELM is based on persuasive communication, and that not all NNS communication will be persuasive, the foundation of the model is applicable to the structure of how listeners process the L2 “noises”. I postulate that if a listener is cognitively aware and knowledgeable about the linguistic differences and potential biases between themselves and the NNS, is properly motivated and able to act on these mental capabilities (has high LQ), then his evaluation of the NNS will be more favorable.

On the other hand, the listener may evaluate the NNS based on the peripheral route. For example, with lower proficiency NNSs or those with heavier accents, more L2 noise will be present and the listener’s cognitive ability to scrutinize each “noise” will decrease, leading the listener to form an attitude based on any peripheral cues that may be present. Figure 3 demonstrates the central and peripheral routes with LQ facilitating the individual to remain within the central route towards attitude change.

Because of the nature of the multinational corporation, it is likely that peripheral cues will be related to cultural differences, such as appearances, stereotypes, likeability, etc... If the listener has a high cultural intelligence (CQ) (Ang, 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003), or ability to adjust to different cultures, then the peripheral attitude may be more favorable than for someone with a low CQ. Therefore, CQ facilitates evaluations from the periphery when LQ is low. If the listener has high LQ, he should not need to defer to his CQ and will remain in the central route to evaluate the speech of the NNS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cognitive strategy. The cognitive strategy should incorporate concrete linguistic differences between languages and the sociolinguistic implications of language expression (Jane Kassis Henderson, 2005) that can be learned and applied by TPTN members. According to the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, the structure of a language has a significant influence on perception and categorization, including different perceptions of time, status, hierarchy, and appropriate social relationships (Usunier, 1998). Usunier gives the example of the English word “deadline,” which conveys the typical Anglo-American sense of urgency (i.e., the possibility of death) that is not present in the French society or language.² This serves as an example of the possible misunderstandings that may ensue from communication between a NS and NNS.

Translational differences can be divided into a several categories: lexical, or dictionary definitions; idiomatic, which is non-equivalent in literal terms and is natural to NSs; grammatical, relating to word order and sentence structure; and experiential, which defines the meaning of words and sentences based on the listener’s everyday experience (Usunier, 1998). Any of these differences between languages are easily misused or misinterpreted by a NNS and can cause communication problems.

Besides translational differences, other areas where meaning can be misconstrued based on language differences are: Multiple meanings of a word; frequency of use of certain words; latent value judgments put on words, and in which context; meaning subtleties regarding the context of use of words and experiential aspect; idiomatic expressions; phonology; grammar; and etymology (Usunier, 1998, p. 143). In addition, Usunier adds that rhetoric, silence, conversational style, and body gestures provide important clues to communication in different languages and cultures. Chen et al (2006) also note the importance of phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and anthropological linguistics. All of these concepts represent the differences in speech sounds, the components of a language and how words are formed, sentence structure, and word choice and context. Any could easily be misunderstood or misused by the listener or the NNS, furthering the negative evaluation and lack of trust in one another. For example, an employee from a Spanish-speaking country once sent an email to all of his co-workers with the salutation, “Hi gays.” Some readers may have found this a humorous error while others may have been offended; however, the employee meant no harm. Upon closer linguistic examination, the Spanish spelling of the English long “I” /aj/ sound is with “ay,” such as in the Spanish word “Mayan” /mah-yuh n/. The employee meant to write, “Hi guys,” but used the Spanish spelling rather than English out of lack of familiarity with the language. In a similar way, NNSs from an Eastern-European background often pronounce the “w” sound as a “v”. Those with higher LQ would realize the error due to linguistics and move on; however, a low LQ reader may develop negative evaluations of this individual regarding their competence or social status.

Proposition 4: Increased cognitive awareness of linguistic differences will negatively affect

formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Hence, multicultural team members should understand where these differences lie and be able to attribute misunderstandings or miscommunications to these areas, rather than attribute them to the low intelligence of the NNS. As previously noted, this method was proven successful in Derwing et al’s (2002) study.

Mechanisms to reduce implicit biases are divided into categories based on the desired outcome, such as retraining the underlying assumptions, shifting the context of evaluation, and controlling the activation or application of associations (Gawronski & Sritharan, 2010 in Lai, Hoffman, & Nosek, 2013).

The first category involves techniques like evaluative conditioning, intergroup contact, and persuasion. Evaluative conditioning retrains one’s attitudes by linking concepts with different attributes. Someone who holds a negative bias may be presented with positive images or words paired with images of the negatively viewed concept, and the negative images or words paired with images of positively viewed concepts. Similarly, one could say “yes” when presented with counter-stereotypical information, associating the previously negatively-viewed concept with a positive evaluation. This could be applied to stereotypical accents or nationalities in the TPTN. Intergroup contact is important for reducing both implicit and explicit prejudice (Allport, 1979; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). This method shows that exposure to members of the out-group can effect implicit prejudice. Explicit prejudice; however, can be decreased by the quality of the intergroup interaction. This will be extremely important in the early days of TPTN formation, as well as subsequent meetings, when group members interact with others who are different from themselves. According to Briñol Turnes, Petty, and McCaslin (2009), persuasion in the form of high cognitive elaboration can lead to decreased implicit biases. In referencing this work, Lai writes,

Degree of cognitive elaboration may influence implicit attitudes through deliberative reasoning, whereby newly-gained knowledge leads to the activation of positive associations with attitude objects. Further, persuasion cues such as personal relevance, source expertise, and source trustworthiness can influence the impact of persuasive messages on implicit attitudes. (Lai et al., 2013, p. 317)

This directly relates to and provides evidence for the ELM and the need for cognitive effort in attitudinal change.

Also relevant for reducing implicit biases is activating counter-stereotypical associations and by considering positive events or people associated with the out-group while also considering negative people or events with the in-group can produce results in this area. For example, Gandhi, who is typically viewed positively, helps to associate the Indian accent with positivity, while Al Capone may negatively associate an American English (New York) accent.

Lastly, implicit biases can be affected by goals, motivations, and behavioral strategies. Interpersonal motives can cause implicit bias to reduce, at least temporarily, while a goal is achieved, such as teamwork or other necessary interaction. This will be particularly important in the functioning of members of the TPTN who must cooperate and collaborate regardless of their opinions of the others. Lastly, making plans for how to react in certain situations can link the motivation to a behavioral response, which can increase the automaticity of the behavior if done consistently.

Awareness of the potential for bias and the above cognitive strategies to overcome them, coupled with a familiarization of linguistic differences will improve the cognitive level of TPTN team members, allowing for greater chances of remaining in the central route of the ELM for attitude formation.

Proposition 5: Increased cognitive awareness of social biases and ways to reduce them will

negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Motivational strategy. As explained in the ELM, cognition alone will not affect attitude change, but rather the individual must also have the motivation to change her attitude. Motivation can come from several areas including being able to empathize with or take the perspective of the other person, the self-relevance of the information, and their concept of self-efficacy.

First empathy and perspective-taking relate to the communication between NSs and NNSs because when an individual can imagine herself “in the shoes of another,” she feels a greater sense of motivation to listen without judging the way the message is expressed. For this reason many monolingual NSs do not have the motivation to alter their evaluations or biases because they cannot imagine themselves in a situation in which they are communicating in a non-native language. Empathy comes from previous experience; however, demands from busy schedules and lifestyles do not afford most TPTN team members the luxury to learn a new language in order to develop empathy.

In his study on perspective-taking, Weyant (2007) shows with strong evidence that merely taking the perspective of a NNS by writing about them in the first person decreased negative evaluations and stereotyping related to ability and accomplishment. This shows that when one imagines herself in the position of the other, she is more likely to have positive evaluations of that person. This exercise in developing a different perspective may also aid in blurring the dividing lines between in-groups and out-groups. In the context of the present paper, while it may be difficult to imagine oneself speaking another language without having experience doing so, research demonstrates that people become more motivated when information is self-referent (Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977). Perspective-taking may prove a useful tool for quickly developing these qualities.

Proposition 6: Increased empathy towards NNSs will negatively affect formation of subgroups

and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Moreover, Ertac (2011) found that individuals process information significantly better when the information is self-relevant. That is to say that an English NS may have a better chance for success in LQ training if the information can be presented in a way in which the individual sees its relevance to his self or in some way contributes to his self-image. This also relates to the self-serving attribution bias (Miller & Ross, 1975). For example, by explaining how LQ will improve personal socio-cultural skills and team success, thereby opening more future opportunities for the individual, the NS may be more inclined to process the information presented in a deeper way and put forth more effort to listening unbiasedly to NNSs. Even the way the instructor offers feedback to the NS in the training can serve as self-relevant motivating information to facilitate the increase of the NS LQ.

Proposition 7: Increased self-relevance of LQ will negatively affect formation of subgroups and

the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Self-efficacy from social cognition is also an important aspect to the motivational dimension of LQ. Psychologist Albert Bandura (1995, p. 2) defines self-efficacy as, “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.” Self-efficacy significantly affects how individuals approach tasks. Those with high self-efficacy have more confidence to tackle more challenging problems; whereas, those with low self-efficacy avoid challenging situations. If TPTN members have high self-efficacy, they will be more likely to benefit from the LQ training and thereby increase their LQ. They will also be more likely to engage NNSs in conversation and focus on the message of the NNS. An important conclusion from Derwing et al’s (2002) study is that those who received the accent training had greater improvement in confidence in communicating with NNSs. This confidence is equal to their self-efficacy. By augmenting a person’s self-efficacy, their motivation for attitude change will improve. Extant research in cognitive learning has shown that self-efficacy can be improved through mastery experience, social modeling, improving physical and emotional states, and through verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1994). In these areas and others the TPTN project manager will play an integral role. Schweiger, Atamer, and Calori (2003) mention that, among other attributes, team leaders should have open-mindedness for learning. This can be especially valuable for other team members who observe the project manager as a social model in exhibiting high LQ and communicating effectively and unbiasedly with NNSs. The self-efficacy of the team members will improve, allowing for their own improved LQ as well.

Proposition 8: Increased self-efficacy of NSs will negatively affect formation of subgroups and

the negative attitudes towards NNSs.
Improved empathy, self-relevance, and self-efficacy all lead to an increased motivation for positive communication which will allow NSs to put forth the effort required to listen effectively to L2 speech. These strategies may also reduce the tendency to form subgroups, thereby augmenting the motivation for team unity.

More importantly, the combination of cognition and motivation should allow the listener to maintain position in the central route of the ELM to assess the speaker and form an attitude while also limiting the formation of subgroups. Formally,

Proposition 9: The combination of increased cognition and motivation will negatively affect

formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Implications

I have shown through my review of extant literature that a problem exists that has yet to be fixed. The problem of negative evaluations and biases of NNSs not only affects the speakers themselves, but also can have a significant impact on whether or not the TPTN fulfils the tasks that it set out to do. These multicultural, multinational, and multifunctional teams have the potential for creating competitive advantage through innovation that is influenced by the diversity within the team; however, language tensions including negative biases and evaluations of non-standard speech are detrimental to its success. The concept of LQ, in an effort to improve both cognitive and motivational dimensions of the ELM, has the potential to alleviate this troublesome situation. Because of a lack of empathy and knowledge about the linguistic differences in foreign languages some NSs make negative evaluations of NNSs. Likewise, stereotypes add to the propensity for subgroups and creates biases against NNSs. Together these negative issues do not allow for relationships and trust to develop within the team and a social community cannot form, thereby defeating the purpose of the team.

Following in the path of Derwing et al (2002), I believe that by not only training members in cross-cultural issues, but also in LQ, the TPTN can reduce implicit biases and negative evaluations. Such intelligence is necessary because the empirical evidence provided earlier in this paper shows that regardless of an individual’s intellect and skills, NNSs are consistently evaluated, and evaluate themselves, based on their English language skills and accent. Even those who are by all other means considered fluent in English, are evaluated as NNSs, and are potentially outcast in the “us vs. them” mentality.

This paper contributes to research in the areas of multinational teams, language and culture, and knowledge transfer. A practical implementation of LQ training should concentrate on the linguistic and stereotypical issues with the particular language groups involved, with a narrow and detailed focus in groups with a few languages represented and a broader approach for groups with many diverse languages. LQ has the potential to positively affect, not only teamwork within TPTNs, but also other collaborative environments within the MNE, such as negotiations with foreign partners, international human resources management, and overall improved communication by creating an environment of respect for diversity of expression.

CONCLUSION

Through the writing of this paper I have examined the extant research on multinational teams and potential areas of success, such as creativity and innovation, and failure based on conflict. I explored empirical research that provides evidence of negative evaluations and biases of non-standard speech and used sociolinguistic research and the concept of “noises” in communication theory, along with the tendency to develop in-groups and out-groups to explain the factors contributing to these negative evaluations. I developed a model that suggests that the combination of L2 noises and social group factors negatively affect the ability of the team members to develop trust and form social community. Based on this model and the empirical research relating to the success of accent training, I used the framework of the ELM to develop a concept of linguistic intelligence to train team members in the cognitive and motivational dimensions relating to linguistic differences, bias reducing strategies, and empathy, self-relevance, and self-efficacy. This approach accounts for not only the nature of attitude change, but also both factors that foster negative evaluations and biases.

While this paper has important implications, it is not without limitations. Above all, there is a possibility that literature exists that would either support or dispute the findings of this paper. Others may contend that LQ is just an add-on of sorts to CQ. Additionally, some may remain unconvinced of the magnitude of the language issue in multinational teams or the effectiveness of the methods laid out in this paper.

Evidence from previous research documents the need for more attention to language issues and the power imbalances caused by such evaluations; however, to the best of my knowledge, a concrete solution did not exist until now. By improving evaluations and respect of teammates and coworkers, better communication will ensue, nurturing an environment where creativity and innovative ideas based on diverse knowledge and experience will thrive. It is time for the multinational business community to take account of the issues faced by NNSs and improve productivity while doing so.

REFERENCES
Adenfelt, M., & Lagerström, K. (2006). Enabling knowledge creation and sharing in transnational projects. International journal of project management, 24(3), 191-198.

Akar, D. (2002). The macro contextual factors shaping business discourse: The Turkish case. IRAL, 40(4), 305-322.

Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th Anniversary ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, Linn; Koh, Christine; Ng, K. Yee; Templer, Klaus J.; Tay, Cheryl; Chandrasekar, N. Anand (2007). Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In. VS Ramachaudran. Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4, 71-81.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies: Cambridge University Press.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The multinational solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College.

Bassett‐Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 169-175.

Bayard, D., & Green, J. A. (2005). Evaluating English Accents Worldwide. Te Reo, 48, 21-28.

Bilbow, G. T. (2002). Commissive speech act use in intercultural business meetings. IRAL, 40(4), 287-304.

Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Nobel, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions: A retrospective. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1), 21-26.

Boets, H., & De Schutter, G. (1977). Verstaanbaarheid en appreciatie. Nederlandse dialekten uit België zoals inwoners van Duffel die ervaren. Taal en Tongval, 29, 156-177.

Boyd, S. (2003). Foreign-born teachers in the multilingual classroom in Sweden: The role of attitudes to foreign accent. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3-4), 283-295.

Brennan, E. M., & Brennan, J. S. (1981a). Accent Scaling and Language Attitudes: Reactions to Mexican American English Speech. Language and Speech, 24(3), 207-221.

Brennan, E. M., & Brennan, J. S. (1981b). Measurements of accent and attitude toward Mexican-American speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10(5), 487-501.

Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1), 5-20.

Briñol Turnes, P., Petty, R. E., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). 10. Changing attitudes on implicit versus explicit measures: what is the difference? Paper presented at the Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures.

Cargile, A. C. (1997). Attitudes toward Chinese-Accented Speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(4), 434-443.

Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., & Bradac, J. J. (1994). Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual model and new directions. Language & Communication, 14(3), 211-236.

Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal communication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9-29.

Chen, S., Geluykens, R., & Choi, C. J. (2006). The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic perspective. Management International Review, 46(6), 679-696.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564-570.

Clark, D. (2012). English - The Language of Global Business? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/10/26/english-the-language-of-global-business/#4b7491e72164

Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and Organizations Foundations for Organizational Science,

Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2004). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in organizational behavior, 26, 231-263.

de la Zerda, N., & Hopper, R. (1979). Employment Interviewers' Reactions to Mexican American Speech. Communication Monographs, 46, 126-134.

Delsing, L.-O., & Åkesson, K. L. (2005). Håller språket ihop Norden?: en forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Deprez, K., & De Schutter, G. (1980). Honderd Antwerpenaars en honderd Rotterdammers over dertien Nederlandse taalvariëteiten. Een attitude-onderzoek. Leuvense Bijdragen Louvain, 69(2-3), 167-256.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2008). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476-490.

Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., & Munro, M. J. (2002). Teaching native speakers to listen to foreign-accented speech. Journal Of Multilingual And Multicultural Development, 23(4), 245-259.

Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). The perception of French by native speakers and advanced L2, L3 and L4 learners. Language practices and identity construction in French, 133-156.

DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63.

Earley, C. P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Education, U. S. D. o. (2010). Education and the Language Gap: Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the Foreign Language Summit. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/education-and-language-gap-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-foreign-language-summit

Edwards, J. (1999). Refining our understanding of language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 101-110.

Edwards, J. R. (1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. Attitudes toward language variation, 20-33.

Ertac, S. (2011). Does self-relevance affect information processing? Experimental evidence on the response to performance and non-performance feedback. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3), 532-545.

Esling, J. H., & Wong, R. F. (1983). Voice quality settings and the teaching of pronunciation. Tesol Quarterly, 17(1), 89-95.

Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2003). Language Management in Multinational Companies. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 37-52.

Ferguson, B. (2016). James McAvoy: Scots poorly represented because accent ‘foreign’. Retrieved from http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/culture/film/james-mcavoy-scots-poorly-represented-because-accent-foreign-1-4280773

Flege, J. E. (1984). The detection of French accent by American listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(3), 692-707.

Frumkin, L. (2007). Influences of Accent and Ethnic Background on Perceptions of Eyewitness. University of Maryland Baltimore County. (07747 610 657)

Fuertes, J. N., Gottdiener, W. H., Martin, H., Gilbert, T. C., & Giles, H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 120-133.

Geok, L. C. (1997). Successful Intercultural Negotiations: A Matter of Attitude. Journal of Language for International Business, 8(1), 19-31.

Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative Reactions To Accents. Educational Review, 22(3), 211-227.

Giles, H., & Billings, A. C. (2004). Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. The handbook of applied linguistics, 187.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R., & Davies, A. (1975). Prestige Styles: The Imposed Norm and Inherent Value Hypothesis'. McCormack and Wurm (eds).

Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. Intergroup Behaviour, ed. by JC Turner, and H. Giles, 199–243: Oxford: Blackwell.

Giles, H., & Niedzielski, N. (1998). Italian is beautiful, German is ugly: na.

Gill, M. M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(4), 348-361.

Glaister, K. W., Husan, R., & Buckley, P. J. (2003). Learning to manage international joint ventures. International Business Review, 12(1), 83-108.

Gudykunst, W. (1995). Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harzing, A.-W., & Feely, A. J. (2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQ-subsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 49-61.

Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of trust through technology‐mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107-119.

Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 536-561.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of management, 33(6), 987-1015.

Hosoda, M., Stone-Romeko, E. F., & Walter, J. N. (2007). Listeners' Cognitive And Affective Reactions To English Speakers With Standard American English And Asian Accents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 307-326.

Iles, P., & Kaur Hayers, P. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model and case study. Journal of managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95-117.

Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive discourse. In S. Ting-Toomy & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, Communication, and Culture: Current Directions. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Kassis Henderson, J. (2005). Language Diversity in International Management Teams. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66-82.

Kassis Henderson, J. (2010). 14 The implications of language boundaries on the development of trust in international management teams. Organizational trust, 358-382.

Kassis Henderson, J., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2011). Does language affect trust in global professional contexts? Perceptions of international business professionals. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 2(1), 15-33.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625-645.

Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. (2016). Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 176-184.

Kovács, Á. M. M., Jacques (2009). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. PNAS, 106(16).

Lagerström, K., & Andersson, M. (2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team—the development of a global business system. Journal of World Business, 38(2), 84-95.

Lai, C. K., Hoffman, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Reducing implicit prejudice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(5), 315-330.

Lindemann, S. (2005). Who speaks “broken English”? US undergraduates’ perceptions of non-native English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 187-212.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States: Psychology Press.

Maclean, D. (2006). Beyond English: Transnational corporations and the strategic management of language in a complex multilingual business environment. Management Decision, 44(10), 1377-1390.

Major, R. C. (2007). Identifying a foreign accent in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(04), 539-556.

Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-598.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

McLeod, S. (2008). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

Méndez García, M. d. C., & Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2005). Language and power: raising awareness of the role of language in multicultural teams. Language and intercultural communication, 5(1), 86-104.

Metiu, A. (2006). Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17(4), 418-435.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological bulletin, 82(2), 213.

Mulac, A. H., Theodore D.; Prigge, Diane Y. . (1974). Effects of Phonological Speech Foreignness upon Three Dimensions of Attitude of Selected American Listeners. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 411-420.

Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 367-380.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.

Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679-692.

Poncini, G. (2007). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings (Vol. 13): Peter Lang.

Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677.

Rubin, D. L. (1992). Nonlanguage Factors Affecting Undergraduates' Judgments of Nonnative English-Speaking Teaching Assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511-531.

Rubin, D. L., & Smith, K. A. (1990). Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on undergraduates' perceptions of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 337-353.

Ryan, E. B., & Bulik, C. M. (1982). Evaluations of Middle Class and Lower Class Speakers of Standard American and German-Accented English. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1(1), 51-61.

Ryan, E. B., Carranza, M. A., & Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions toward varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 20(3), 267-273.

Ryan, E. B., & Sebastian, R. J. (1980). The effects of speech style and social class background on social judgements of speakers. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(3), 229-233.

Sampath, K. K. (2005). Effect of Bilingualism on Intelligence. In J. e. a. i. M. Cohen, Kara T. (ed. and introd.); Rolstad, Kellie (ed. and introd.); MacSwan, Jeff (ed., introd., and afterword) (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (Vol. xxiv, pp. 2048-2056). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Schüppert, A., Hilton, N. H., & Gooskens, C. (2015). Swedish is beautiful, Danish is ugly? Investigating the link between language attitudes and spoken word recognition. Linguistics, 53(2), 375-403.

Schweiger, D. M., Atamer, T., & Calori, R. (2003). Transnational project teams and networks: making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World Business, 38, 127-140.

Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech: Newbury House Publishers.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). 10. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1964). The Mathematical Model of Communication Urbana. Urbana: The University Of Illinois Press.

Śliwa, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). How non-native English-speaking staff are evaluated in linguistically diverse organizations: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 1133-1151.

Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. (2001). Determinants of transnational new product development capability: Testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 359-378.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Inter-group Behavior. In S. A. Worchel, L.W. (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. S. Jost, J. (Ed.), Political Psychology: Key Readings (pp. 276-293). New York: Psychology Press.

Tokumoto, M., & Shibata, M. (2011). Asian varieties of English: Attitudes towards pronunciation. World Englishes, 30(3), 392-408.

Triandis, H. C., Loh, W. D., & Levin, L. A. (1966). Race, status, quality of spoken English, and opinions about civil rights as determinants of interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(4), 468-472.

Trudgill, P., & Giles, H. (1976). Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Value Judgements: Correctness, Adequacy and Aesthetics:(to Appear in F. Coppieters & D. Goyvaerts (eds.). The Functions of Language and Literature Studies, Gent: Story-Scientia): Linguistic Agency, University of Trier.

Usunier, J.-C. (1998). International & Cross-Cultural Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Van Bezooijen, R. (2002). Aesthetic evaluation of Dutch. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 2, 13-30.

Weyant, J. M. (2007). Perspective Taking as a Means of Reducing Negative Stereotyping of Individuals Who Speak English as a Second Language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 703-716.

Wolff, H. (1959). Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. Anthropological linguistics, 34-41.

Figure .

Relationship of contributing factors to social community formation.



Figure .

The effect of linguistic intelligence on evaluations and biases.



Figure .

Attitude change regarding non-native speech in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

Adapted from the Elaboration Likelihood Model, (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

1^ Also important to note is that other noises, such as the physiological rapid heartbeat, may heighten or contribute to the creation of L2 noises.

2^ “Échéance” or “délai de rigueur” do not convey the same intensity in their translations in (Usunier, 1998, p. 55).