Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email. How written English evolved and where it’s heading. London: Routledge.
2.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
3.
Björkman, I., Tienari, J., & Vaara, E. (2003). Trapped in the past or making use of experience? On learning in post-merger integration. In A. M. Søderberg & E. Vaara (Eds.), Merging across borders. People, cultures and politics (pp. 203-228). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
4.
Bovée, C. L., Thill, J. V., & Schatzman, B. E. (2003). Business communication today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Campbell, C. P. (1998). Rhetorical ethos: A bridge between high-context and low-context cultures? In S. Niemeier, C. P. Campbell, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The cultural context in business communication (pp. 31-47). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
6.
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S. S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
9.
Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail—A new style of communication or just a new medium: An investigation into the text features of email. English for Specific Purposes19, 81-101.
10.
House, J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 245-268). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
11.
Kankaanranta, A. (2000). What makes the reader tick? Business professionals’ reactions to first-year business students’ writing. In M. Charles & H. Kangasharju (Eds.), New orientations and developments: Business communication research and teaching working papers (pp. 153-179) (Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration Working Papers W-269). Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki School of Economics.
12.
Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a corporate language: Company-internal email messages written by Finns and Swedes. In B.-L. Gunnarsson (Ed.), Communication in the workplace (TeFa Nr 42, pp. 42-59). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University Press.
13.
Locker, K. (1998). Business and administrative communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999a). From business correspondence to message exchange: The notion of genre in business communication. Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
15.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999b). From business correspondence to message exchange: What is there left? In C. Nickerson & M. Hewings (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 100-114). London: Longman.
16.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). Communication and language use in merged corporations: Cases Stora Enso and Nordea (Helsinki School of Economics Working Papers W-330). Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki School of Economics.
17.
Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 401-421.
18.
Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca conversation. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua Franca communication (pp. 109-133). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
19.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
20.
Munter, M. (2003). Guide to managerial communication. Effective business writing and speaking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
Munter, M., Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (2003). Business e-mail: Guidelines for users. Business Communication Quarterly66(1), 26-40.
22.
Nickerson, C. (2000). Playing the corporate language game. An investigation of the genres and discourse strategies in English used by Dutch writers in multinational corporations (Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
23.
Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.
24.
Rogers, P. (1999). Management communication—Everything, nothing or something? Text/context as a disciplinary unit of analysis. In T. Nikko & P. Nuolijärvi (Eds.), Talous ja kieli III: seminaari 9.-10.5.1996 (pp. 11-26). Helsinki, Finland: Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulu.
25.
Rogers, P. (2003). Organizational voice: Explicit factors enabling assimilation and participation (University of Michigan Working Paper 03-001). Retrieved June 27, 2003, from http://www.hti.umich.edu/b/busadwp/images/b/2/0/b2081088.0001.001.pdf
26.
Rogers, P. S., & Hildebrandt, H. W. (1993). Competing values instruments for analyzing written and spoken management messages. Human Resource Management, 32, 121-142.
27.
Rogers, P. S., & Lee-Wong, S. M. (2003). Reconceptualizing politeness to accommodate dynamic tensions in subordinate-to-superior reporting. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17, 379-412.
28.
Shelby, A. (1998). Communication quality revisited: Exploring the link with persuasive effects. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 387-404.
29.
Stora Enso. (2005). Annual report. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from www.storaenso.com
30.
Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1998). From text to context: An open systems approach to research in written business communication. Journal of Business Communication35, 87-110.
31.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Vollstedt, M. (2002). English as a language for internal company communications. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua Franca communication (pp. 87-108). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
33.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17, 299-326.
