This ethnographic case study provides authentic insights into the intertextual negotiation processes for a particular merger-and-acquisition (M&A) transaction in the context of international legal practice, involving interdisciplinary legal and business professionals. Using genre and discourse analytical methodology, this study focuses on the interactional discourse practices and textual products used for negotiation of the primary sale and purchase agreement. By providing sociolinguistic insights into the M&A negotiation process, these research findings can promote a better understanding of the professional discourse activities and interactional role behaviors for this very important area of international business law practice.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. University of Texas Press.
2.
BazermanC. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). Taylor & Francis Ltd.
3.
BhatiaV. K. (2002). Professional discourse: Towards a multi-dimensional approach and shared practice. In CandlinC. N. (Ed.), Research & practice in professional discourse (pp. 39–60). City University of Hong Kong Press.
4.
BhatiaV. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum.
BreezeR. (2014). The discursive construction of professional relationships through the legal letter of advice. In BreezeR.GottiM.Sancho GuindaC. (Eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres (pp. 280–302). Peter Lang.
7.
BremnerS. (2008). Intertextuality and business communication textbooks: Why students need more textual support. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.01.001
8.
BruceI. (2014). Enacting criticality in corporate disclosure communication: The genre of the fund manager commentary. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(4), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525441
9.
CandlinC. N. (2002). Alterity, perspective & mutuality in LSP research and practice. In GottiM.HellerD.DossenaM. (Eds.), Conflict & negotiation in specialized texts (pp. 1–19). Peter Lang.
10.
CandlinC. N.BhatiaV. K. (1998). Strategies and competencies in legal communication. Project report submitted to the Law Society of Hong Kong.
11.
CandlinC. N.MaleyY. (1997). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution. In GunarssonB. L.LinnelP.NordbergB. (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 201–222). Longman.
12.
CrichtonJ. (2011). Discourses of commercialization: A multi-perspectived analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
DevittA. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic referential and functional. In BazermanC.ParadisJ. (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 336–357). University of Wisconsin Press.
14.
DevittA. (2004). Writing genres. Southern Illinois University Press.
15.
DoanS. (2021). Teaching workplace genre ecologies and pedagogical goals through résumés and cover letters. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906211031810
16.
EvansS. (2012). Designing email tasks for the business English classroom: Implications from a study of Hong Kong’s key industries. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.03.001
17.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
18.
FaircloughN. (2011). Discursive hybridity and social change in critical discourse analysis. Unpublished lecture, Naples.
19.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (Sheridan-SmithA. M., Trans.). Pantheon Books.
GimenezJ. (2006). Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international business communication. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.005
22.
HaspeslaghP. C.JemisonD. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal. Free Press.
23.
HoV. C. K. (2011). A discourse-based study of three communities of practice: How members maintain a harmonious relationship while threatening each other’s face via email. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611400673
24.
JensenA. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.10.002
25.
KleeK. N. (2003). Teaching transactional law. University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Research Paper Series (Research Paper No. 03-17). SSRN, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.445823
KumarR.PatriottaG. (2011). International alliance negotiations: A sense making perspective. International Negotiation, 16, 511–533.
29.
MaudeB. (2014). International business negotiation: Principles and practice. Palgrave Macmillian.
30.
NadlerJ. (2007). Build rapport and a better deal. Negotiation, 10, 9–11.
31.
OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. A. (1994a). Genre repertoire: Structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.
32.
OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. A. (1994b). Genre repertoire: Norms and forms for work and interaction (MIT Sloan School Working Paper 3671-94: Center for Coordination Science Technical Report, 166). Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
PabloA. L.SitkinS. B.JemisonD. B. (1996). Acquisition decision-making processes: The central role of risk. Journal of Management, 22(5), 723–746.
35.
RobertsC.SarangiS. (1999). Hybridity in gatekeeping discourse: Issues of practical relevance to the researcher. In SarangiS.RobertsC. (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation, and management settings (pp. 473–503). Mouton de Gruyter.
36.
Salmi-TolonenT. (2008). Negotiated meaning and international commercial law. In BhatiaV. K.CandlinC. N.AlloriP. E. (Eds.), Language, culture and the law: The formulation of legal concepts across systems and cultures (Linguistic insights. Studies in language and communication, pp. 117–139). Peter Lang.
37.
SarangiS. (2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text & Talk, 27(5–6), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.025
SpinuzziC.ZachryM. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. Journal of Computing Documentation, 24(3), 169–181.
40.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
41.
SwalesJ. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
42.
TiersmaP. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
43.
TownleyA. R. (2019). A pivotal interactional role to oversee contract negotiation activity: Insights into a key interdisciplinary legal-business practice. Discourse & Communication, 13(2), 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481318817622
44.
TownleyA. R. (2021). The use of discourse maps to teach contract negotiation communicative practices. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 84(1), 5-30. doi:10.1177/2329490621994217
45.
TownleyA .R.JonesA. (2016). The role of emails and covering letters in negotiating a legal contract: A case study from Turkey. English for Specific Purposes, 44(October), 68–81. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2016.07.001
46.
VuorelaT. (2005). Approaches to a business negotiation case study: Teamwork, humour and teaching. Helsinki School of Economics Print.
47.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
48.
YatesJ.OrlikowskiW. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 39(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360203900102
49.
ZucchermaglioC.TalamoA. (2003). The development of a virtual community of practices using electronic mail and communicative genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651903017003001
