• Aucun résultat trouvé

Complexity Theory and Language Issues

The effects of the increased level of complexity are tangible and can be ob-served all around us. Diversity is one of its manifestations. Indeed, one can think of the increased level of cultural and/or linguistic diversity to which one is exposed on a daily basis nowadays and compare it to the rather homo-geneous societies of our recent past. In many cities today it is rather common to see entire neighbourhoods where a different language from the majori-ty/official one(s) is spoken, as well as highly diverse districts where several dozens of different languages are spoken.2 This seems to contradict the gen-erally acknowledged idea that the world is becoming more linguistically ho-mogeneous, as a consequence of the disappearance of numerous small lan-guages. As a matter of fact, many languages are less and less used. Several languages have already "died out", and many more eventually will by the end of this century. To explain this seemingly paradoxical situation, Grin (2003a) distinguishes between objective and subjective diversity. He speaks of objective diversity to refer to the effective amount of diversity (in several forms, including linguistic, cultural and religious diversity) that exists at a given moment in time throughout the world. Conversely, he speaks of sub-jective diversity to refer to the amount of diversity to which individuals, on average, are exposed. Once this distinction is made, it is easy to see how the former is decreasing, while the latter is increasing, solving the apparent paradox just mentioned.

Among other things, the global economy has also become a much more interconnected system. As a consequence of global political and trade agree-ments, contemporary corporations often operate in several countries and have become multilingual entities. This in turn has called for the devel-opment of language strategies by those corporations. Indeed, the share of sociolinguistic literature specifically dealing with multilingualism is impres-sive. Nevertheless, academic contributions by researchers in the manage-ment sciences up until the 1990s have often disregarded language-related issues (MacLean, 2006). Furthermore, research specifically focused on the role of communication has often failed to take language into consideration, despite the fact that it has often been cited as a major cause of misunderstand-ings and a barrier to smooth international information flows (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch,1999). Piekkari, Welch, and Welch (2014) add to this the

2This clearly does not mean that this is the case everywhere. Many areas, especially out-side large urban conglomerates, have remained to a great extent culturally and linguistically homogeneous or only have a small allophone population.

fact that language has often been subsumed under the larger umbrella of cul-ture without acknowledging its specificities. As noted by Iannàccaro, Gobbo, and Dell’Aquila (2018), an individual’s ease in speaking a given language is dependent not only on her linguistic skills, but also on several other fac-tors, such as the knowledge of the social norms that rule the use of different varieties and registers. They also note that languages do not serve only a communicative function, but also a symbolic one, related to aspects of self-identification. Both Spolsky (2009) and Cooper (1989) highlight the fact that dealing with language issues always involves several non-linguistic vari-ables, which have to do, to mention but a few, with the social, political, eco-nomic and even religious situation of the community of interest. Besides, as I will show later in this chapter, language problems have a cross-disciplinary nature that makes it hard to come up with a shared set of concepts and defi-nitions. Let us also point out that the undisputed predominance of English-speaking (particularly American) researchers, often insensitive to or unaware of language-diversity issues, could also be an underlying cause of the fact that language issues were often left aside. Nevertheless, MacLean (2006) notes how, from the late 1990s onwards, language issues have received in-creasing attention within the academic community, roughly at the same time as the transnational model of the global corporation explored by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1992) started to emerge.

Languages form an important aspect of the complexity of the global econ-omy and deserve being studied as a stand-alone variable in the field of com-plexity theory. As mentioned, multinational companies often find them-selves facing language-related issues in their daily management. This "lan-guage challenge" often forces companies to confront a trade-off between pri-oritizing the use of a single corporate language and constantly adapting to the local context and its linguistic landscape. This trade-off stretches over a spectrum that has unrestricted multilingualism on the one extreme and a common corporate language on the other. However, they both come at a sig-nificant cost. Unrestricted multilingualism can cause severe inefficiencies in terms of cross-border collaboration, while a common language can shadow talented workers who are not proficient in the selected common language and, quite paradoxically, generate miscomprehensions as a consequence of a non-proficient use (Neeley and Kaplan, 2014). In addition, micro-linguistic behaviours (such as a conversation between two employees) can differ sig-nificantly from those encountered at the macro level (such as drafting a fi-nancial report for stockholders). Even if we conceived language choices and

behaviours simply as the strategy that guarantees optimality of communica-tion overall, it is easy to see that accommodating one’s own individual needs is different from meeting the need of a large and possibly linguistically and culturally diverse community such as a multinational corporation. Manag-ing communication in a multilManag-ingual context is a highly complex issue, as it is rooted in a number of pre-existing conditions, it involves several agents co-existing in a heterogeneous environment and has non-negligible repercus-sions that are hard to trace back to their causes.3

The study of language policy and the evaluation of language policy mea-sures has a long-standing tradition. Grin (2003b, p. 30) defines language policy as "the systematic, rational, theory-based effort at the societal level to modify the linguistic environment with a view to increasing aggregate wel-fare". He goes on to say that "[i]t is typically conducted by official bodies or their surrogates and aimed at part or all of the population living under their jurisdiction". Language policy can also be seen as "the deliberate attempt to change an individual’s or community’s use of a language or languages or a variety or varieties" (Kennedy,2011, p. 24). The impact of language policies on people is undeniable and non-negligible and calls for specific research ef-forts completely focusing on them. Nevertheless, as discussed in Chapter 1, scholars in this domain have not yet agreed on a comprehensive theory of language policy. Language policies are omnipresent in everyday life and they are acknowledged and practiced in all social domains (Ricento, 2006).

There is no single academic science that can claim that language policy is an object of analysis falling within its exclusive domain. Language policy re-mains hitherto a rather fragmented field of research, deeply rooted in specific sciences such as, to mention but a few, linguistics, sociology, law, political sciences, geography, economics, and many of their sub-fields. Many stud-ies concern communication strategstud-ies within private business, and many of them acknowledge the complex nature of this issue. However, these studies seldom adopt a genuine complexity theory approach. A notable exception is represented by a position paper by Beckner et al. (2009), in which the authors examine in depth the reasons why languages and language-related issues are intrinsically complex. Among other things, they note that languages si-multaneously shape and are shaped by social behaviours and interactions.

Therefore, language is at once a manifestation of the complexity of human cognitive abilities (in that it results from communication among individuals,

3For an in-depth review of the characteristics of complex systems, readers can refer to Chapter1of this dissertation.

an articulate coordination process that involves, among other things, formu-lating a message in a way that maximizes simultaneously the clarity of its content and the potential for the listener to interpret it correctly) and a fac-tor that can shape human cognition. In light of the numerous considerations made by Beckner et al. (2009), a complexity theory approach that uses agent-based modelling to analyse language matters seems justified.