How Does Language Matter for Services? Challenges and Propositions for Service Research

Abstract

The service encounter depends on the interaction between consumer and company, with an active role for the consumer as a participant. Building on existing literature, this article argues that language influences how consumers perceive the service encounter in several important ways. In turn, service providers and service researchers must understand the impact of the language used before, during, and after the service encounter. Across these three phases, 11 propositions pertaining to language use help clarify the service encounter, the role of the consumer in services, and how consumers are influenced by language. These propositions also offer ways forward for service research to study the influence of language use on the service encounter. From a managerial perspective, this article highlights language as an increasingly important challenge and suggests ways for companies to meet this challenge.

Keywords

service marketing service encounters language in service native language use

Introduction

How does language and language use fit into services? Service research acknowledges the importance of consumer participation in the service; consumer participation has been emphasized since the early days of service research (Eiglier and Langeard 1976; Grönroos 1978; Shostack 1977) and continues to this day with an emphasis on the role of the consumer as a value creator in services (Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Grönroos 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2004). At the heart of consumer participation in the service encounter is the communicative interaction between the consumer and the service personnel (Bitner et al. 1997; Grönroos 1978, 1984; Lovelock 1983; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1996). Both these premises, the active role of the consumer and the importance of the communicative interaction, build on the assumption that the consumer and the service personnel are able to interact and communicate effortlessly. Inspired by Gummesson’s (2002) question about which crucial marketing phenomena researchers are currently ignoring, we propose that in service marketing, this assumption implies that we have forgotten to consider language use.

We argue that language plays a crucial role in service contexts, especially when consumers interact with company representatives. Two main factors demand a greater understanding of the role of language in services. First, communication has a massive impact in service settings that encompass direct interactions. The way the consumer and the service personnel communicate largely determines the outcome of the service encounter (Bitner et al. 1997; Grönroos 1978, 1984; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1984). The service logic or service-dominant logic make the active role of the consumer, and thus the impact of communication, even more significant (Grönroos 2008; Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008). Second, extant service marketing research ignores the role of language, and studies of language in marketing tend to focus on indirect communication, such as branding, advertising, written messages, or one-way channels (LeClerc, Schmitt, and Dubé 1994; Luna and Peracchio 2002, 2005; Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009; Yorkston and Menon 2004). Certainly language is relevant in these indirect settings, but we also argue that the interactive nature of services (e.g., Eiglier and Langeard 1976; Grönroos 1978; Surprenant and Solomon 1987) makes the importance of understanding language use during interpersonal service encounters even more crucial.

In this sense, we identify a paradox in existing marketing research: The very contexts in which language seems most crucial are the same contexts in which the influence of language has received the least attention. The paradox is somewhat understandable, in that both practitioners and researchers find it easier to focus on written or noninteractive language. The interactive nature of services that makes it necessary to study language also makes it more difficult to do so. However, the very fact that it is harder to study language in interactive service contexts, as well as to implement a company-wide language policy, makes it more critical to understand these effects.

To outline theoretically how language influences service encounters, we consider research into communication and interactions in service research, as well as relevant literature from sociolinguistic research, which clarifies why language is likely to be important for consumers and why we must study it in service contexts. Furthermore, sociolinguistic research implies that no single language can be used in international contexts; we propose that the use of a single language might not be enough even in national contexts. Finally, by building on current service marketing literature, we offer 11 propositions pertaining to language use in service contexts and call for continued research as a means to understand service encounters.

Why Is Research on Language Needed?

Why should service research pay attention to language? We detail two principal reasons here: The first concerns the multilingual state of the modern world, the second concerns the nature of the service encounter.

English may have emerged as a global lingua franca (Crystal 2003; Peters 2004), especially in North America and northern Europe, yet the vast majority of the world’s population still speak no English whatsoever (cf. Crystal 2003). Even in Europe, knowledge of English as a second language remains limited outside Scandinavia and the Netherlands (Eurobarometer, 2006). In individual markets, one language often dominates, but truly monolingual markets are rare. Luna and Peracchio (2001), building on research by Grossjean (1982) and Hoffman (1991), assert that more than half the consumers in the world speak more than one language. Many larger Asian and African countries contain people who speak a plethora of different languages, and in many major U.S. cities, Spanish is fast becoming a significant minority language. In Canada, English is spoken as the first language by less than 60% of the populations of Toronto and Vancouver and by a mere 12% in Montreal (Michon and Chebat 2004). The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL 2010) estimates that there are nearly 50 million native speakers of minority languages within the European Union. As the markets themselves become less dependent on national boundaries, this global situation indicates that we can no longer assume that a consumer and the company speak the same language.

Why does this situation matter for service research? We believe the answer lies in the very nature of services. Since first developed, service research has recognized that the interaction between the consumer and the service provider is a key component of services (Eiglier and Langeard 1976; Grönroos 1978; Lovelock 1983; Shostack 1977), because such encounters determine how the consumer perceives service quality (Bitner 1990, 1992; Grönroos 1984). A natural consequence of this emphasis on the interaction is a long-running recognition of the importance of communication in service encounters (Grönroos 1978; Gummesson 1979; Solomon and Surprenant 1987). For example, in their seminal analysis of service quality, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, p. 47) define communication as a primary determinant, stating that

Communication means keeping customers informed in language they can understand.

This definition is broad enough to encompass both the use of terminology that the customer understands while speaking the same language, and a more literal interpretation, as in this article, that focuses on the importance of using the customer’s own language when practical. Underlying both meanings is the requirement that the service provider ensures the customer can understand what the service provider is trying to communicate.

The service encounter thus constitutes an interaction between company and consumer that involves the exchange of some form of communication, which can be more or less extensive but virtually always exists to some extent (Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Grönroos 1978; Gummesson 1979; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Because communication quality in the interaction influences consumer perceptions of overall service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985), the use, or nonuse, of the consumer’s native language is also likely to influence the consumer’s assessment of the whole service. Research confirms that both the service outcome and the quality of communications directly influence how consumers perceive service encounters (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Gummesson 1991; Mattson and den Haring 1998; Stiles 1985).

Finally, in studies that connect language use to service perceptions, recent research has shown that consumers prefer using their native language (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009) and that even consumers who are fluent in more than one language expressly indicate that the use of their native language influences their perceptions of service providers (Holmqvist 2011). These findings reinforce the relevance of language for service encounters and further imply that native language preferences are even stronger in consumer contexts that demand extensive interactions (Holmqvist 2011). Despite this evidence that consumers perceive language use as an important characteristic of service provision, no research to date specifies how language can influence the service encounter or details the situations in which it might cause problems in the interaction. To address this research gap, we develop 11 propositions regarding the direct impact of language on consumers' perceptions of the service encounter.

Propositions for Service Research

Building on existing marketing and related literature, we propose three major themes that encompass our 11 propositions about how language influences services. We organize the propositions according to whether they refer to the period before, during, or after the service encounter. Clearly the actual interaction is a primary focus, but we argue that language use influences consumer perceptions both before and after the actual service encounter as well. As we outline in Table 1 , our propositions thus illustrate different influences of language across the three stages; the three stages also help delineate the research questions that remain for the field. We believe research into the use of language in service encounters is both an important and timely task, and the propositions in this article highlight key ways in which marketing researchers can approach this task.

Table 1.

Eleven Language Propositions for Service Research

Propositions	Previous research	Potential research questions
Language influence before the service encounter
P1: The language(s) used by the service provider will influence a consumer’s decision to use the service	Feelings related to language influence consumer choices (Gopinath and Glassman 2008). Consumers may choose companies based on the language the company uses (Spolsky and Cooper 1991)	Does language influence consumer selections of service providers?
		How strong is language’s influence on service selection compared with the influence of price, risk, or service quality?
P2: The interactive nature of services makes customers' emotional language attachment particularly prominent in services	Language influences identity perceptions (Pavlenko 2006). Even bilingual consumers prefer native language use (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009)	How strong is the impact of the emotions consumers attach to native language use?
		What influences consumer emotions for their native language?
Language influence during the service encounter
P3: The language used by the service provider influences the customer’s ability to interact during the service encounter	The interaction is crucial to the service encounter (Bitner 1992), and second language use may decrease the ability to interact	How is the customer’s role as an active participant influenced by a weaker or stronger ability to interact in a second language?
P4: The language used by the service provider influences the customer’s willingness to interact during the service encounter	The interaction is crucial to the service encounter (Bitner 1992), and second language use may decrease the willingness to interact (Holmqvist 2011)	Might using a second language decrease the customer’s willingness to actively participate in the encounter?
P5: Consumer preferences for native language use increases with higher intangibility and uncertainty in the service	It is harder to predict outcomes in services, due to their intangibility (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Laroche et al. 2005a)	How strong is the influence of language in interactive service encounters, compared with the documented effects in advertising?
P6: The importance customers attach to native language use increases with higher perceived risk in the service	Language preference depends strongly on the context (Holmqvist 2011). Bilingual patients perceive higher quality when doctors speak to them in their strongest language (Fernandez et al. 2004).	Is there a stronger language influence in high involvement services?
		Does the level of risk connected with a service influence consumer language preference?
P7: Customers belonging to a linguistic majority may react negatively to a service employee serving them in their language with an accent	Service encounters usually take place in the majority language (Callahan 2006) and majority consumers may be negative toward an accent (Ouellet 2007)	How do customers belonging to a linguistic majority react when served with an accent?
		How do attitudes to minorities shape majority speakers preference for native language use?
P8: Customers belonging to a linguistic minority may react positively to a service employee serving them in their language, even with an accent	Minority speakers are less used to being served in their language (Callahan 2006) and might find it a pleasant surprise, leading to higher satisfaction (Berry et al. 1994)	How do minority customers react to majority speakers serving the minority with an accent?
		Does use of the minority language lead to higher satisfaction among minority speakers?
Language influence after the service encounter
P9: The use of consumers' native language influences their propensity to return to a service provider	Customer identification influences return intentions (Fullerton 2003), and identification depends on language (Pavlenko 2006).	Are customers more likely to return if they were served in their native language?
P10: Using the customer’s language can result in positive word of mouth, particularly in multilingual markets and for speakers of minority languages	The quality of communication in service influences word of mouth (Harrison-Walker 2001)	To what extent does language influence word of mouth?
P11: By showing a willingness to use the customer’s language, the service provider may facilitate service recovery	Service recovery emphasizes the need to accommodate the customer (Miller, Craighead, and Karwan 2000; Shostack 1984). Using the language of the listener creates positive feelings (Giles et al. 1987; Kelly and Toshiyuki 1993)	How could the positive effects of speech accommodation be used in service recovery?
		In which situations can customer language use increase positive feelings?

Before presenting our propositions, we acknowledge that we focus on the language used in business-oriented services, even though language use could matter for nonprofit organizations as well. In some multilingual countries, language use is strongly connected to nonprofit organizations, with many nonprofit organizations specializing in guaranteeing that young children belonging to linguistic minorities can practice their hobbies in their native language (Kreander and Sundberg 2007). We anticipate that our propositions and analyses thus apply equally well to nonprofit organizations, though further research in that field would be beneficial.

Language Influence Before the Service Encounter

Language, as the foundation of most communication, is key to enabling consumers to interact with companies. However, the role of language is more extensive than merely as a means of communication. For example, even consumers who are fluent in a second language may not always be happy to use it, and might look for possibilities to use their native language instead. In this sense, we suggest that language can influence consumer perceptions about service providers even before the service encounter begins.

One important part of this preservice influence lies in the impact language has on which service providers the consumers will identify with, consider, and prefer. Languages and language use have the potential to communicate identities and determine loyalties (Pavlenko 2006; Spolsky and Cooper 1991); for example, language is strongly linked to nationalist feelings that influence the consumer’s perceptions (Dunn 1976; Redondo-Bellón 1999). Feelings for their own language or a foreign language have the potential to influence consumers, affecting the choices they make (Gopinath and Glassman 2008). Such feelings, in addition to the ability to use another language, represent a key characteristic in the sociolinguistic tradition. Spolsky and Cooper (1991) show that in the multilingual setting of Jerusalem, potential customers who speak either Hebrew or Arabic select and deselect companies, for emotional reasons, at the moment they see the language that companies use in their signs or advertising. Jerusalem likely represents a particularly tense sociolinguistic setting, but consumers in other multilingual markets also display preferences for their native language, such as in Belgium (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009), Canada, and Finland (Holmqvist 2011). In Canada, some consumers go so far as to refuse to even consider service providers that do not use their own native language (Holmqvist 2011). Thus we propose that when companies use only one language in multilingual markets, such as in their advertising, signs, or messages, companies signal to consumers that they identify or explicitly do not identify with a particular group, which causes some consumers to select or automatically deselect service providers based on the language used (Holmqvist 2011; Spolsky and Cooper 1991).

Proposition 1: The language(s) used by the service provider will influence a consumer’s decision to use the service.

To understand the role that language plays for consumers before taking part in a service encounter, marketers need to consider that language influences not only how well consumers communicate with service providers but also how willing they are to do so. Consumers generally display an emotional preference for native language use, even when perfectly able to speak a second language (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009). This preference suggests a direct connection between native language and identity, which reinforces the notion that language is not limited to communication and has emotional as well as functional implications. That is, language choices by a company influence consumers emotionally (Krishna and Ahluwalia 2008). Bilingual consumers thus connect advertising directed at them in their native language, rather than in their second language, to feelings about their family and friends, as demonstrated among Spanish speakers in the United States (Noriega and Blair 2008), underlining the emotional appeal of native language use. Such emotional attachments also appear in sociolinguistic research that demonstrates that language influences which stores consumers choose to patronize (Spolsky and Cooper 1991) and that fluent bilinguals still perceive their native language as more strongly connected to their identity (Brala 2007; Pavlenko 2006). Recent advertising research similarly indicates that consumers connect less strongly with ads in their second language, regardless of their fluency (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009). Thus feelings for language seem to take precedence over ability to speak a language. Compared with advertising or store patronage settings, services are far more interactive, which suggests they could induce an even stronger native language preference among consumers (Holmqvist 2011). Therefore, both service researchers and practitioners need to pay close attention to consumers' emotions in relation to their native language.

Proposition 2: The interactive nature of services makes customers' emotional language attachment particularly prominent in services.

Language Influence During the Service Encounter

The actual interaction is the predominant element of the service encounter (Bitner 1992; Grönroos 2008), so communication quality is crucial for the outcomes (Bitner et al. 1997; Eiglier and Langeard 1976; Grönroos 1978). Moreover, the emergence of the service logic or service-dominant logic (Grönroos 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008) mandate increased attention to the importance of the consumer as a value creator during service interactions (Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Grönroos 2008; Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2004). Common to this view is an increase in the importance awarded to the interaction between the consumer and the company, as it is precisely from this interaction that value creation with the consumer originates (Grönroos 2008; Gummesson 2006; Vargo and Lusch 2004). Emphasizing the role of the interaction between the consumer and the company, Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008) argue that for consumers to participate successfully in the interaction, they must have sufficient competences to interact with the company. If consumers cannot interact or communicate easily and effectively, a crucial component of this competence would be missing, which could influence how consumers perceive the service.

Moreover, the service encounter, according to Surprenant and Solomon (1987, p. 87), entails “the dyadic interaction between a customer and a service provider.” This definition emphasizes the active participation and involvement of both parties in the service encounter. With this point, we integrate sociolinguistic research that emphasizes the importance of ability (Chalhoub-Deville 2003) and willingness (Clément, Baker, and MacIntyre 2002; Yashima 2002) as key components of interacting in a second language. Combining the role of the consumer as an active participant in the service encounter with the sociolinguistic research on ability and willingness to interact in a second language, we propose that the language the service provider uses influences both the consumer’s ability and his or her willingness to interact during the service encounter.

Proposition 3: The language used by the service provider influences the consumer’s ability to interact during the service encounter.

Proposition 4: The language used by the service provider influences the consumer’s willingness to interact during the service encounter.

Another inherent characteristic of services, namely, intangibility and thus uncertainty about outcomes, provides another reason that marketers need to consider how language influences service encounters. Consumers who have to process information in a second language do so more slowly and less accurately than they would in their native language (Luna and Peracchio 2005; Schmitt, Pan, and Tavassoli, 1994; Tavassoli and Han 2001). Such efforts likely heighten their perceptions of the uncertainty surrounding the service and make it particularly relevant to understand language influence in service, as uncertainty can have a negative impact on how consumers perceive service providers (Kumar and Krishnamurthy 2008). The intangible nature of service processes alone makes it difficult to predict the outcomes of a service interaction (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; de Ruyter, Wetzels and Kleijnen. 2001; Laroche et al. 2005b; Murray and Schlacter 1990), so consumers might strongly prefer to interact in their native language to minimize this uncertainty and feel more confident about the service interaction. Furthermore, buying a tangible product using a foreign language is likely more challenging than a similar purchase in the consumer’s native language, but at least its tangibility provides some certainty about the outcome. The intangible element of services further increases feelings of uncertainty, as the intangibility of services makes the outcome even more uncertain (Laroche et al. 2005a). Thus a visitor to Paris who decides to buy a new shirt or a painting as a souvenir can evaluate the product before the purchase, but the same tourist would be more exposed to possible language difficulties when visiting a restaurant or participating in a guided tour. Uncertainty influences consumer perceptions in many settings (cf. Johnson 2005; Mitchell 1999; Thompson 2005). Whenever the consumer has to use a second language, this may lead to an increased feeling of uncertainty. As consumers prefer service providers that offer less uncertainty (LeClerc, Schmitt, and Dube 1995), the intangible nature of services, combined with the increased uncertainty associated with speaking a second language (cf. Luna and Peracchio 2005), suggests that the very nature of services enhance consumer preferences for native language use.

Proposition 5: Consumer preferences for native language use increases with higher intangibility and uncertainty in the service.

Communication is always important in service interactions (Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Bitner 1990; Grönroos 1978; Vargo and Lusch 2004), but we propose that the role of language may depend particularly on the level of perceived risk. The risk that consumers perceive when interacting with a company has a marked impact on their behaviors (Conchar et al. 2004; Grewal, Gotlieb, and Marmorstein 1994). Perceived risk refers to the form of uncertainty that consumers face when they cannot foresee the consequences of their purchase decisions (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2006); it is thus particularly relevant to services, whose intangible nature makes it harder to predict the outcomes of the interaction (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Laroche et al. 2005a). Predicting the outcomes of an interaction might be even harder if the consumer and service provider do not share a common language. Even fluent bilingual consumers feel less at ease when interacting in their second language (Luna and Peracchio 2001, 2005), and it is mental intangibility, rather than physical intangibility, that mainly causes consumers to perceive a higher risk of services (Laroche et al. 2004).

For example, in the health care field, perceived risk is often high (cf. McDougal and Levesque 2000), and hospital patients express a strong preference for native language use (John-Baptiste et al. 2004). Thus, research highlights the need for doctors and hospital staff to use the language of the patients (Brach and Fraser 2002; Fennel 2005). Studies in U.S. hospitals confirm that Spanish-speaking patients perceive higher service quality when their doctors speak to them in Spanish (Fernandez et al. 2004; Jacobs et al. 2006).

These findings reflect the inherent potential, when the service provider and the consumer do not share the same native language, of a risk for communication problems. This risk relates to how well the consumer can speak the language that the service provider uses (Marcella and Davies 2004). Across cultures, consumers consider it essential to use their native language in services that feature high financial or physical risk, such as health care, bank loan negotiations, or insurance; they assign language somewhat less importance in less risky service contexts, such as visiting a café or buying groceries (Holmqvist 2011). We thus propose that the level of perceived risk influences how important native language use is for consumers, such that it increases with higher perceived risk.

Proposition 6: The importance consumers attach to native language use increases with higher perceived risk in the service.

Thus far our discussion has focused on situations in which the consumers switch language. However, the service encounter can also be influenced by the service employee switching language. To a large extent, this situation bears similarities to services in which it is the consumer who switches language. As the service encounter is a dyadic interaction that involves both parties (Surprenant and Solomon 1987), and the outcome of the service is dependent on the quality of the communication between both parties (Bitner 1990, 1992; Grönroos 1984), any factor impeding good communication in the interaction can have a negative influence on perceived service quality.

Apart from these similarities, we believe that a service encounter in which the service employee changes language might have a marked influence on how different consumer groups perceive the service. We here propose an important distinction between speakers of the majority language and speakers of a minority language; we suggest that the first group might react cautiously or negatively, while the second group might react positively. The distinction we propose builds on the consumers' expectations of the service. As outlined by Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1991) in their seminal article on the zone of tolerance, consumers usually do not react to services that go as expected, but experience delight when positively surprised and dissatisfaction when negatively surprised.

How would then consumers react to being served by a service employee speaking their language with an accent? Findings from sociolinguistic research indicate that service encounters usually take place in the majority language of the market (Callahan 2006); this is a general rule that creates different expectations among majority and minority speakers. As majority speakers expect being served in their native language, a typical encounter in their first language falls within their zone of tolerance. Being served in their native language with an accent or by a service employee who is not fluent in their language is likely to still be within their zone of tolerance as long as communication is smooth. However, it would fall below what is expected if the service employee’s command of the majority language impedes the interaction. At what level the accent becomes so strong that the consumer perceives the situation as negative is individual and likely to be influenced by factors such as consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma 1987) and attitudes to other cultures (Ouellet 2007). There might even be situations in which a foreign accent is seen as positive, such as a waiter with a French accent that might enhance the experience in a French restaurant. Such situations notwithstanding, we propose that majority consumers being served in their native language with a strong accent will usually react negatively, as the quality of communication is worse than expected.

For consumers belonging to the minority, we suggest that the situation is markedly different. These consumers are used to having to switch language in service encounters (Callahan 2006) and the use of their native language, albeit with an accent, could thus surprise them positively. If the service provider’s accent is too strong, minority consumers are likely to switch to their second language, the majority language, which would be the language they expected to use. Even in such situations, they may still be positively surprised if they feel that the service employee tried to accommodate them (cf. Miller, Craighead, and Karwan 2000; Shostack 1984).

We thus propose that situations in which service employees speak their second language, and use the consumer’s first language, also influence how consumers perceive the service. Building on the zone of tolerance within service research and sociolinguistic research about which language consumers usually use in service encounters, we distinguish between speakers of the majority language and minority languages and propose that:

Proposition 7: Consumers belonging to a linguistic majority may react negatively to a service employee serving them in their language but with an accent.

Proposition 8: Consumers belonging to a linguistic minority may react positively to a service employee serving them in their language, even with an accent.

Language Influence After the Service Encounter

Even after the main interaction between the customer and the service provider comes to an end, language can continue to have a defining impact. We propose that the language used during the interaction persists in its influence on the consumer and thus can determine how likely consumers are to return to the service provider and how likely they are to spread positive word of mouth about the company.

Consumers' feelings of loyalty to a company and return intentions depend partly on whether they feel that they share the same values as the company and can identify with it (Fullerton 2003). Language is only one of several components that determine such consumer identification, but both sociolinguistic research (Spolsky and Cooper 1991) and consumer research (Redondo-Bellón 1999) suggest that language plays a prominent role in shaping consumer identification with companies. Considering the strength of language in studies of identification (Brala 2007; Pavlenko 2006) and the relevance of identification for shaping consumer loyalty, we propose that consumers are more likely to repatronize a company that used their native language during their initial service encounter.

Proposition 9: The use of consumers' native language influences their propensity to return to a service provider.

Another important outcome for the firm pertains to how language use might influence consumers' word-of-mouth behavior. In the aftermath of a service encounter, consumers' assessments of positive communication should encourage them to spread positive word of mouth about the company with which they shared the interaction (Harrison-Walker 2001). From a practical perspective, this tendency would have particular consequences in multilingual markets or for speakers of minority languages. That is, an English-speaking consumer living in the United States is unlikely to tell friends about having discovered a service provider that communicates in English, but the same consumer, living as an expatriate in Geneva, Buenos Aires, or Moscow, might be much more likely to tell fellow expatriates about the discovery of a service provider who speaks fluent English. Alternatively, service providers must also consider the potential for negative word of mouth, particularly in cities in which language use becomes a political matter (Heller 1982). A French speaker from Montreal would probably not react negatively to a service provider using only English in New York but may spread negative word of mouth about one who used only English and no French in Montreal. As these examples illustrate, the language in which the communication takes place can influence how consumers perceive their interaction with the service provider (cf. Holmqvist 2011), which in turn determines their likelihood to spread word of mouth, whether positive or negative, about the company.

Proposition 10: Using the consumer’s language can result in positive word of mouth, particularly in multilingual markets and for speakers of minority languages.

Finally, service failures create a special situation with regard to the postinteraction effects of language use. When a service failure occurs and causes the customers to feel dissatisfied with the service, service recovery is a crucial step to regaining the customer’s trust. A successful service recovery depends on the recovery voice, because providing customers with an opportunity to voice their complaints facilitates service recovery (Karande, Magnini, and Tam 2007; Sparks and McColl-Kennedy 2001), emphasizing the relevance of communication in service recovery. After the service failure, an important step of successful service recovery is that the customer feels that the service provider is prepared to accommodate his or her needs and demands (Miller, Craighead, and Karwan 2000; Shostack 1984). In parallel with the need to accommodate the consumer, we find that sociolinguistic research highlights perceptions of speech accommodation. In social psychology, research on speech accommodation demonstrates how efforts to accommodate an interlocutor contribute to more positive images (Giles et al. 1987; Kelly and Toshiyuki 1993). By adapting to the listeners' speech (whether language, dialect or sociolect [differences in language related to social status]), speakers create more favorable perceptions among the listeners, who then tend to reciprocate the speaker’s efforts (Giles et al. 1987; Kelly and Toshiyuki 1993). In a service setting, this entails using the consumer’s language. Such accommodations are essential for all stages of service interactions, but we propose that the importance of accommodating the consumer as a part of a service recovery makes speech accommodation particularly impactful in this context.

In turn, we recognize two sides to the role of speech accommodation in service interactions. Consumers who are native speakers of the market’s primary language are accustomed to being able to use their native language at all times; thus, they might be unpleasantly surprised if a service provider does not use their language. This scenario runs the risk of reinforcing the negative feelings created by the service failure. In contrast, consumers who are not native speakers of the dominant language might be less accustomed to being served in their native language, reacting positively to native language use. This is an important part of the recovery process, as emotional reactions play a key role in how consumers perceive service recovery (Chebat and Slusarczyk 2005). Although language may have less influence on service recovery in markets in which a single language is predominant, in multilingual markets and for tourists or expatriates, language should exert a strong impact on service recovery. A service provider that accommodates consumers using their language in a service recovery situation, especially if the consumer does not expect such an effort, could invoke perceptions of goodwill and reinforce the likelihood of a successful service recovery.

Proposition 11: By showing a willingness to use the consumer’s language, the service provider may facilitate service recovery.

Discussion

On the basis of a review of literature pertaining to services and language, this article suggested that service research needs to pay more attention to the role of language. Service research inherently emphasizes communication and interactions between consumer and company (Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Grönroos 2008), and the interaction is critical to the service logic (Grönroos 2008; Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2004; 2008). Therefore, language and its role in interactions can have a marked influence on how consumers perceive the service encounter.

Language also plays different roles for consumers, and understanding these roles is a challenge for marketers. On the one hand, language is a necessary tool that enables consumers to interact with companies. On the other hand, language cannot be regarded merely as a means for communication. Although crucial to interactions, language also contains an important emotional aspect and influences perceptions of identity (Brala 2007). Even consumers who are fluent in a second language still show an emotional attachment to their native language (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009). Recent research shows that consumers prefer to use their native language in service encounters (Holmqvist 2011), but no research outlines the consequences of language difficulties in service encounters.

We propose that these consequences are far reaching. In a market or for a consumer segment, it is not enough for marketers to assume that all consumers with strong second language skills are willing or pleased to communicate in that second language. In this sense, our propositions recognize both emotional and functional roles of language for consumers (Holmqvist 2011; Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009). An interesting implication of the emotional role of language involves its consequences for how consumers react to service providers. The emotional connotations of native language use suggest that consumers will prefer and select those companies that are willing to serve them in their native language compared to those that are not prepared to do so. If findings from health care management (Morales et al. 1999) and advertising (Puntoni, de Langhe, and van Osselaer 2009) generalize to service contexts, many consumers prefer to interact with companies in their native languages, no matter how strong their second language skills. We believe that the interactive role of the consumer prompts even stronger native language preferences in service contexts than appears in the more passive context of consumers who interpret advertising messages.

Although we focus on different languages, other aspects of communication are also likely to influence services. Nonverbal communication is a crucial part of all communication; regardless of the language used, consumers are influenced by tone of voice, facial expressions, and other nonverbal communication methods. Verbal communication also can be hampered by other aspects; in sociolinguistics, the notion of variety (or code) recognizes that most people speak somewhat differently depending on the situation and audience. We speak in one way with our family, another way with close friends, and yet another way in business contexts. Furthermore, the existence of sociolects (social dialects) could be influential, because people speak differently based on their gender, age, education, and social group. Both sociolects and language variety, though outside the scope of this article, might influence communication in service encounters.

In addition to acknowledging these other important influences related to language use, we recognize that language is only one of several factors that influence consumers. In many situations, other aspects take precedence over language use; for example, even consumers who prefer to use their native language might decide to patronize a service provider that communicates in a different language if its perceived quality is much higher or perceived risk or price is lower. The extent to which language, compared with other service features, influences consumers thus varies. We offer our 11 propositions in an attempt to suggest factors that could explain such variance. Level of involvement, the nature of services, consumers' second language skills, and consumers' emotional attachment to their native language are all likely to influence the extent to which language matters for the consumer.

The lack of existing research into language use in services is likely due, at least partially, to the complex nature of service and thus the challenging task of analyzing service encounters. Consumer responses to advertising or other messages can be measured in several, relatively straightforward ways; the roles of language in services pose a more intricate research problem, because these intangible service processes are harder to evaluate or simulate through experiments. In considering these challenges, we suggest that researchers might adopt our three temporal stages to define the influence of language use.

Before interacting with a service provider, consumers likely screen companies, consciously or unconsciously, to select service providers that will allow them to use their mother tongue. In multilingual markets, consumers probably know, whether from previous experience or word of mouth, which languages different companies employ and use this information to evaluate which service providers to include in their consideration sets.

During the actual service encounter, language influences the interaction in a multitude of ways. It can have a very direct influence on communication quality, as well as more indirect influences on how the consumer perceives the service. If the consumer must switch language, he or she might develop less positive quality perceptions, even if the interaction still is possible. The language skills of the service provider likely have very strong influences in situations in which consumers perceive it important for them to use their native language.

After having taken part in the encounter, language and its impact could influence factors such as the consumer’s repurchase intentions or propensity to spread positive or negative word of mouth. On a more indirect level, language likely has an influence as part of the overall customer satisfaction and perceived service quality evaluation.

Managerial Challenges

The role that language plays in service encounter poses several challenges for managers in service companies. In this section, we outline some of the major challenges that we believe could arise from the situations described in the propositions of this article. Building on our propositions, we discuss how language use challenges marketers before, during, and after the service.

We believe it is important to understand that language poses a challenge already before the service encounter begins. As we describe in Proposition 1, the language that the service provider uses can influence consumers' decision to use the service. The main challenge for managers before the actual service encounter thus lies in communicating to prospective consumers that they will be able to use their language when interacting with the service provider. In markets with two official languages, both language groups expect to be served in their own language and so language use is a sensitive issue. The challenge in this situation is to use both languages, and in such a way that neither language group feels that the other language is prioritized; this can be a real challenge in practice, as it involves all details, including the language coming first on signs or the language in which service employees first greet customers. This is echoed in Proposition 2 that proposes that consumers' emotional attachment to their own language plays a role in services. A real challenge for managers consists of identifying how different consumer groups react emotionally not just toward the use of their language, but also toward the use of their language in relation to other languages that the company uses.

In markets with one dominating language but a plethora of minority languages, the challenge lies in identifying which consumer groups to target and decide how to do it. While it would be unfeasible to target every language spoken in major cities, it might be a good idea to target the larger minority languages, and the challenge lies both in identifying which languages to use and finding ways to communicate it to the consumers. One commonly used approach is to state on signs outside the entrance which languages the employees speak.

Language influence on consumers is at its greatest during the service encounter, as it is in the encounter that the consumer interacts and communicates with the service employee. As we proposed in Propositions 3 and 4, the language the service provider uses influences both how able and how willing consumers are to interact in the service encounter. One way to approach this challenge is for service personnel to carry identifiers that list the languages they speak; this would facilitate a consumer’s ability to find a service employee with whom he or she can interact confidently in their chosen language.

We further suggest that language influence could be tied to the type of service that the service provider offers. In Propositions 5 and 6, we propose that intangibility and uncertainty influence consumers, and that higher perceived risk in the service leads to stronger preferences for native language use. This accentuates the relevance of language use in service with high uncertainty or high risk, such as hospital visits, legal matters, or financial matters. We suggest there are two main options to face this challenge. The first option is for marketers in high-risk services to ensure that they recruit personnel that are able to serve consumers in the main languages used by the consumer segments. This option is probably preferable for larger consumer groups, but it is not always feasible in all situations or for all consumer groups. In cases where it is not, the challenge for managers is to try to reduce levels of uncertainty and risk. One way to do this, currently used in some metropolitan hospitals, is to provide written information materials in the consumer’s language. Even though it may not be feasible to have medical doctors who speak 10 or more different languages, it is possible to distribute short information leaflets in the consumers' language that consumers can read while they are waiting to see the doctor. Even though there may still be a communication problem during the encounter, this measure goes some way toward reducing perceived uncertainty and risk.

Language continues to pose a challenge for managers after the service encounter is over. In Propositions 9 and 10, we outlined how language could influence both consumers' propensity to return and their word of mouth. If the service provider was not able to use the consumer’s language during the service, the challenge after the encounter is to address this situation. In multilingual countries such as Canada, Belgium, or Switzerland, most companies operating in all parts of the country have employees from all major language groups. This means that even if no employee speaking the consumer’s language was available during the interaction, the company can still use the consumer’s language when following up on the service. This is widely practiced in multilingual countries where the native language of the customer is saved along with other information in customer databases, to make sure that each time the company initiates contact with the customer, they can use the customer’s language. We believe this is particularly important in cases of service recovery, as described in Proposition 11. Findings from social psychology show that adapting to the interlocutor’s language creates positive feelings, akin to the need to create positive feelings during service recovery. By showing a willingness to use the consumer’s language, service providers could facilitate service recovery, and the challenge lies in how best to achieve this.

Language use thus poses challenges for managers before, during, and after the service encounter. The challenges range from situations that can be addressed fairly easily, such as using signs to indicate which language each employee speaks to challenges that are extensive, such as the company’s recruiting policies. We believe that the 11 propositions in this article can help managers to identify and deal with many of the challenges that language use causes.

Research Challenges

The article calls attention to a largely neglected area of service research and encourages further research that expands on our 11 propositions. We believe that these propositions serve to highlight a number of key challenges for service research. At the core of these propositions is the idea that language use has a considerable impact on several crucial service elements, which may vary depending on the kinds of services, the consumer’s ability to participate in the value-creation process, consumers' emotional perceptions of their native language, and consumers' perceptions of the quality of the service they receive.

The role of language in service thus presents several challenges, one of the most fundamental of which is whether service quality depends on the language used in the interaction. We propose that this is likely to be the case and that service research needs to start paying increasing attention to language. Multilingual markets are becoming the rule rather than the exception, and the assumption that the service employee and the consumer always are able to communicate effortlessly is not matched by today’s reality in many countries and markets.

While we feel confident that language has an impact on services, we believe that the greatest challenge is to understand the influence of two factors in particular: language skills and language-related emotions. In this article, we have focused on both and highlighted that it is not enough to assume that consumers who are able to speak a second language are willing to do so. Testing whether emotional attachment to a native language leads to increased loyalty and satisfaction to providers that communicate in that language, or conversely dissatisfaction or decreasing repurchase intentions toward those that communicate in a different language, is an interesting and relevant research challenge.

In accordance with our 11 propositions, we propose further research questions in Table 1. That is, we draw on service, advertising, and sociolinguistic research to develop potential research questions that represent our predictions of the possible ways language influences service. Their application to actual service encounters and their real-life implications represent critical challenges for ongoing service research.

We acknowledge that our 11 propositions do not cover all situations in which language influences services. As we have focused our propositions around service interactions involving active communication between consumers and service providers, we would like to conclude by looking further and direct attention to two additional areas in which we believe language can have a very real impact.

One such area is the Internet, which facilitates contact between consumers and service providers from language groups around the world. The development of the Internet has fundamentally changed communication; it has made it easier, cheaper, and faster to communicate regardless of geographical distance, thus contributing to a marked increase in international and intercultural communication. While this opens up several new possibilities for service companies, it also increases the challenges precisely due to the increase in intercultural communication. Serving consumers from many different countries can be a challenge, and while web translators support the efforts of some service providers to help consumers understand the basic meaning of messages, but they remain unable to provide grammatically accurate translations. The challenges arising from this new type of service communication, which is so different from face-to-face interactions, represent an interesting and timely research field.

Another important area is the field of business-to-business services, which presents its own distinct challenges. On the one hand, the close and often extensive contacts between parties means communication in a language in which both sides feel comfortable is absolutely crucial. On the other hand, companies that focus on a few key customers probably are acutely aware of their specific language needs and thus should have undertaken steps to ensure they have the resources and service personnel necessary to be able to speak the language of their customers. A major challenge caused by language in business to business is likely to be recruiting employees able to deal with major clients in the latter’s native language.

Conclusions

Current service marketing literature emphasizes the importance of communication and interactions, yet it assumes that consumers and service personnel all speak the same language. This scenario might be likely or common, but in many markets, it cannot simply be taken for granted. In the modern global world, countries with only one official language are fewer than multilingual countries. These developments suggest that the increasing importance of language is a relevant timely challenge for service research. In turn, the interactive and intangible nature of services means that language, language skills, and language difficulties will increasingly influence how consumers perceive, execute, and evaluate their service interactions with companies.

The lack of research into how language affects services constitutes a serious problem for marketing research, because the contexts in which language is likely to be most crucial are the same contexts in which the influence of language remains least studied. Building on sociolinguistic research, we have suggested that language should have a considerable impact on service encounters, through both functional and emotional routes. We thus reemphasize the urgent need for more research into how language influences service encounters.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Antonella Carú, Charles Hoffacker and Duncan Guest for their valuable comments on previous versions of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bendapudi

Neeli

Leone

Robert P.

(2003), “Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (1) 14–28.

Bitner

Mary Jo

Faranda

William T.

Hubbert

Amy R.

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

(1997), “Customer Contributions and Roles in Service Delivery,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8 (3), 193–205.

Bitner

Mary Jo

(1992), “Serviscapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), 57–71.

Bitner

Mary Jo

(1990), “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 69–82.

Bitner

Mary Jo

Booms

Bernard H.

Tetreault

Mary Stanfield

(1990), “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 71–84.

Brach

Cindy

Fraser

Irene

(2002), “Reducing Disparities through Culturally Competent Health Care: An Analysis of the Business Case,” Quality Management in Health Care, 10 (4), 15–28.

Brala

Marija

(2007), “I am the Language I Speak: Bilingualism and Identity,” in Jezik i Identiteti—Language and Identities, Granic , ed. Zagreb–Split: Hrvatsko drusto za primijenjenu lingvistiku, 71–79.

Callahan

Laura

(2006), “English or Spanish? Language Accommodation in New York City Service Encounters,” Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(1), 29–54.

Chalhoub-Deville

Micheline

(2003), “Second Language Interaction: Current Perspectives and Future Trends,” Language Testing, 20 (4), 369–383.

10.

Chebat

Jean-Charles

Slusarczyk

Witold

(2005), “How Emotions Mediate the Effects of Perceived Justice on Loyalty in Service Recovery Situations: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (5), 664–673.

11.

Clément

Richard

Baker

Susan C.

MacIntyre

Peter D.

(2002), “Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The Effects of Context, Norms and Vitality,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22 (2), 190–209.

12.

Conchar

Margy P.

Zinkhan

George M.

Peters

Cara

Olavarrieta

Sergio

(2004), “An Integrated Framework for the Conceptualization of Consumers' Perceived Risk Processing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 32 (4), 373–389.

13.

Crosby

Lawrence A.

Evans

Kenneth R.

Cowles

Deborah

(1990), “Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 68–81.

14.

Crystal

David

(2003), English as a Global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

15.

de Ruyter

Wetzels

Martin

Kleijnen

Mirella

(2001), “Customer Adoption of E-service: An Experimental Study,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (2), 184–207.

16.

Dunn

S Watson

(1976), “Effect of National Identity on Multinational Promotion Strategy in Europe,” Journal of Marketing, 40 (4), 50–57.

17.

EBLUL (2010), European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages: Information (accessed April 15, 2010), [available at http://www.eblul.org/index.php].

18.

Eiglier

Pierre

Langeard

Eric

(1976), “Principe De politique Marketing pour les Entreprises De service,” working paper of the Institute d’Administration des Entreprises Université d’Aix-Marseille.

19.

Eurobarometer (2006), Europeans and their Languages (accessed April 15, 2010), [available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf].

20.

Fennel

Mary L.

(2005), “Racial Disparities in Care: Looking Beyond the Clinical Encounter,” Health Research and Educational Trust, 40 (6), 1713–1721.

21.

Fernandez

Alicia

Schillinger

Dean

Grumbach

Kevin

Rosenthal

Anne

Stewart

Anita L.

Wang

Frances

Pérez-Stable

Eliseo

(2004), “Physician Language Ability and Cultural Competence: An Exploratory Study of Communication with Spanish-Speaking Patients,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19 (2), 167–174.

22.

Fullerton

Gordon

(2003), “When Does Commitment Lead to Loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 5 (4), 333–344.

23.

Giles

Howard

Mulac

Antony

Bradac

James J.

Johnson

Patricia

(1987), “Speech Accommodation Theory: In the First Decade and Beyond,” In Communication Year Book 10, McLaughlin

, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 13–48.

24.

Gopinath

Mahesh

Glassman

Myron

(2008), “The Effect of Multiple Language Product Descriptions on Product Evaluations,” Psychology & Marketing, 25 (3), 233–261.

25.

Grewal

Dhruv

Gotlieb

Jerry

Marmorstein

Howard

(1994), “The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 145–153.

26.

Grossjean

François

(1982), Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

27.

Grönroos

Christian

(2008), “Service Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? And Who Co-creates?” European Business Review, 20 (4), 298–314.

28.

Grönroos

Christian

(1984), “A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications,” European Journal of Marketing, 18 (4), 36–44.

29.

Grönroos

Christian

(1978), “A Service-Oriented Approach to Marketing of Services,” European Journal of Marketing, 12 (8), 588–601.

30.

Gummesson

Evert

(2006), “Many-to-Many Marketing as Grand Theory: A Nordic School Contribution,” in The Service–Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Lusch

Robert F.

Vargo

Stephen L.

, eds. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 339–353.

31.

Gummesson

Evert

(2002), “Practical Value of Adequate Marketing Management Theory,” European Journal of Marketing, 36 (3), 325–349.

32.

Gummesson

Evert

(1991), “Marketing-Orientation Revisited: The Crucial Role of the Part-Time Marketer,” European Journal of Marketing, 25 (2), 60–75.

33.

Gummesson

Evert

(1979), “The Marketing of Professional Services: An Organizational Dilemma,” European Journal of Marketing, 13 (5), 308–318.

34.

Harrison-Walker

L. Jean

(2001), “The Measurement of Word-of-Mouth Communication and an Investigation of Service Quality and Customer Commitment as Potential Antecedents,” Journal of Service Research, 4 (1), 60–85.

35.

Heller

Monica

(1982), “Negotiations of Language Choice in Montreal,” in Language and social identity, Gumperz

John

, ed. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 108–118.

36.

Hoffman

Charlotte

(1991), An Introduction to Bilingualism. New York: Longman.

37.

Holmqvist

Jonas

(2011), “Consumer Language Preferences in Service Encounters: A cross-cultural perspective,” Managing Service Quality, 21 (2), 178–191.

38.

Jacobs

Elizabeth

Chen

Alice Hm

Karliner

Leah S.

Agger-Gupta

Niels

Mutha

Sunita

(2006), “The Need for More Research on Language Barriers in Health Care: A Proposed Research Agenda,” The Milbank Quarterly, 84 (1), 111–133.

39.

John-Baptiste

Ava

Naglie

Gary

Tomlinson

George

Alibhai

Shabbir M. H.

Etchells

Edward

Cheung

Angela

Kapral

Moira

Gold

Wayne L.

Abrams

Howard

Bacchus

Maria

Krahn

Murray

(2004), “The Effect of English Language Proficiency on Length of Stay and In-hospital Mortality,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19 (3), 221–228.

40.

Johnson

Eric J.

(2005), “Rediscovering Risk,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 23 (1), 2–6.

41.

Karande

Kiran

Magnini

Vincent P.

Tam

Leona

(2007), “Recovery Voice and Satisfaction after Service Failure,” Journal of Service Research, 10 (2), 187–203.

42.

Kelly

Aune R.

Toshiyuki

Kikuchi

(1993), “Effects of Language Intensity Similarity on Perceptions of Credibility, Relational Attributions, and Persuasion,” Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 12 (3), 224–238.

43.

Kreander

Maria

Sundberg

Jan

(2007), “Cultural Autonomy in Politics and in Swedish Voluntary Organizations,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 187 /188, 55–74.

44.

Krishna

Aradhna

Ahluwalia

Rohini

(2008), “Language Choice in Advertising to Bilinguals: Asymmetric Effects for Multinationals versus Local Firms,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 692–705.

45.

Kumar

Piyush

Krishnamurthy

Parthasarathy

(2008), “The Impact of Service-Time Uncertainty and Anticipated Congestion on Customers' Waiting-Time Decisions,” Journal of Service Research , 10 (3), 282–292.

46.

Laroche

Michel

Teng

Lefa

Michon

Richard

Chebat

Jean-Charles

(2005a), “Incorporating Service Quality into Consumer Mall Shopping Decision Making: A Comparison Between English and French Canadian Consumers,” Journal of Services Marketing, 19 (3), 157–163.

47.

Laroche

Zhiyong Yang

McDougall

Gordong H. G.

Bergeron

Jasmin

(2005b), “Internet Versus Bricks-and-Mortar Retailers: An Investigation into Intangibility and its Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 251–267.

48.

Laroche

Zhiyong Yang

McDougall

Gordong H. G.

Bergeron

Jasmin

Yang

Zhiyong

(2004), “Exploring How Intangibility Affects Perceived Risk,” Journal of Service Research, 6 (4), 373–389.

49.

LeClerc

France

Schmitt

Bernd H.

Dubé

Laurette

(1995), “Waiting Time Decision Making: Is Time Like Money?” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 110–119.

50.

LeClerc

France

Schmitt

Bernd H.

Dubé

Laurette

1994), “Foreign Branding and Its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (2), 263–270.

51.

Leonard

Berry

Parasuraman Valarie

A. Zeithaml

(1994), “Improving service quality in America: Lessons learned,” Academy of Management Executive, 8 (2), 32–52.

52.

Lovelock

Christopher

(1983), “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 9–20.

53.

Luna

David

Peracchio

Laura A.

(2005), “Sociolinguistic Effects on Code-Switched Ads Targeting Bilingual Consumers,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 43–56.

54.

Luna

David

Peracchio

Laura A.

(2002), ““Where There Is a Will . . .”: Motivation as a Moderator of Language Processing by Bilingual Consumers,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (7-8), 573–593.

55.

Luna

David

Peracchio

Laura A.

(2001), “Moderators of Language Effects in Advertising to Bilinguals: A Psycholinguistic Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2), 284–295.

56.

Marcella

Rita

Davies

Sylvie

(2004), “The Use of Customer Language in International Marketing Communication in the Scottish Food and Drink Industry,” European Journal of Marketing, 38 (11/12), 1382–1395.

57.

Mattson

Jan

Haring

Marten J. den

(1998), “Communication Dynamics in the Service Encounter: A Linguistic Study in a Hotel Conference Department,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (5), 416–435.

58.

McDougal

Gordon H. G.

Levesque

Terrence

(2000), “Customer Satisfaction with Services: Putting Perceived Value into the Equation,” Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (5), 392–410.

59.

Michon

Richard

Chebat

Jean-Charles

(2004), “Cross-Cultural Mall Shopping Values and Habitats: A Comparison Between English- and French-speaking Canadians,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (8), 883–892.

60.

Miller

Janis L.

Craighead

Christopher W.

Karwan

Kirk R.

(2000), “Service Recovery: A Framework and Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Operations Management, 18 (4), 387–400.

61.

Mitchell

Vincent-Wayne

(1999), “Consumer Perceived Risk: Conceptualisations and Models,” European Journal of Marketing, 33 (1/2), 163–195.

62.

Morales

Leo S.

Cunningham

William E.

Brown

Julie A.

Liu

Honghu

Hays

Ron D.

(1999), “Are Latinos Less Satisfied with Communication by Health Care Providers?” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14 (7), 409–417.

63.

Murray

Keith B.

Schlacter

John L.

(1990), “The Impact of Services versus Goods on Consumer Assessment of Perceived Risk and Variability,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (1), 51–65.

64.

Noriega

Jaime

Blair

Edward

(2008), “Advertising to Bilinguals: Does the Language of Advertising Influence the Nature of Thoughts,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (September), 69–83.

65.

Ouellet

Jean-François

(2007), “Consumer Racism and its Effects on Domestic Cross-Ethnic Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the United States, Canada, and France,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 113–128.

66.

Parasuraman

Berry

Leonard L.

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

(1991), “Understanding Customer Expectations of Service,” Sloan Management Review, 32 (3), 39–48.

67.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

Berry

Leonard L.

(1985), “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Further Research,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (Fall), 41–50.

68.

Pavlenko

Aneta

(2006), “Bilingual Selves,” in Bilingual Minds. Emotional Experience, Expression, and Representation, Pavlenko

Aneta

, ed. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1–33.

69.

Payne

Adrian F.

Storbacka

Kaj

Frow

Pennie

(2008), “Managing the Co-Creation of Value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 83–96.

70.

Peters

Pam

(2004), The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Puntoni

Stefano

Langhe

Bart de

Osselaer

Stijn M. J. van

(2009), “Bilingualism and the Emotional Intensity of Advertising Language,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), 1012–1025.

72.

Redondo-Bellón

Ignacio

(1999), “The Effects of Bilingualism on the Consumer: The Case of Spain,” European Journal of Marketing, 33 (11/12), 1136–1160.

73.

Schiffman

Leon G.

Kanuk

Leslie L.

(2006), Consumer Behavior, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

74.

Schmitt

Bernd H.

Pan

Yigang

Tavassoli

Nader T.

(1994), “Language and Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic Differences between Chinese and English,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 419–431.

75.

Shimp

Terence A.

Sharma

Subash

(1987), “Consumer Ethnocentricism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing, 24 (3), 280–289.

76.

Shostack

G. Lynn

(1984), “Designing Services that Deliver,” Harvard Business Review, 62 (1), 133–139.

77.

Shostack

G. Lynn

(1977), “Breaking Free from Product Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (2), 73–80.

78.

Sparks

Beverley A.

McColl-Kennedy

Janet R.

(2001), “Justice Strategy Options for Increased Customer Satisfaction in a Services Recovery Setting,” Journal of Business, 54 (3), 209–218.

79.

Spolsky

Bernard

Cooper

Robert L.

(1991), Languages of Jerusalem. New York: Oxford University Press.

80.

Stiles

William B.

(1985), “Measuring Roles in Service Encounters: The Verbal Exchange Structure,” in The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, Czepiel

John A.

Solomon

Michael R.

, eds. New York: Lexington Books.

81.

Surprenant

Carol F.

Solomon

Michael R.

(1987), “Predictability and Personalization in the Service Encounter,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 73–80.

82.

Tavassoli

Nader T.

Han

Jin K.

(2001), “Scripted Thought: Processing Korean Hancha and Hangul in a Multimedia Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 482–493.

83.

Thompson

Craig J.

(2005), “Consumer Risk Perceptions in a Community of Reflexive Doubt,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 235–248.

84.

Vargo

Stephen L.

(2008), “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–10.

85.

Vargo

Stephen L.

Lusch

Robert F

. (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1–17.

86.

Yashima

Tomoko

(2002), “Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The Japanese EFL Context,” The Modern Language Journal, 86 (i), 54–66.

87.

Yorkston

Eric

Menon

Geeta

(2004), “A Sound Idea: Effects of Brand Names on Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 43–51.

88.

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

Berry

Leonard L.

Parasuraman

(1996), “The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 31–46.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB