E- mail Pragmatics BACK HOMEA Cross- sectional Study of Pragmatic Usage in making Academic. E- mail Requests. Shawn Ford. SLS 6. E: Pragmatic. Development in a Second Language. Fall 2. 00. 3 – Prof. Gabriele. Kasper. Indirectness and politeness in Turkish–German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (Appendix: the CCSARP coding manual.) Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1989) Blum-Kulka and. A Study of Iranian EFL Learners' Understanding and Production of Politeness in Three Speech Acts: Request, Refusal, and Apology Davud Kuhi Islamic Azad University Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran Email: [email protected]. Corpus annotation: a welcome addition or an interpretation too far? The 16-strong tagset captures things like apologies. Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and. AND APOLOGIES BY TURKISH AND AMERICAN TEENAGERS: A PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE POINT OF VIEW Berna BALCI. The development of a taxonomy of verbal disagreements in the light of the p-model. The CCSARP coding manual. In Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Course Paper. Introduction. In this paper, I. English native speakers (NS) and non- native speakers (NNS). English setting, when making academic e- mail requests. This. study is a continuation of my research interests in written electronic. If there are. differences, I would like to determine what those differences are. In doing so. it may be possible to propose developmental patterns for e- communication. With the. development of the Internet, increased attention has been given to the use of. Since Shea (1. 99. At this point in time, netiquette guidelines have become. Internet caf. Gaines (1. Likewise, Lan (2. Hong Kong and one in England, and found that formal. NSs and NNSs of English all. This line of research into linguistic. Cross- cultural Differences in Written. E- Communication. Due to the expanded use of e- communication through. Numerous studies of business e- communication have investigated. Internet usage. For example, Inglis (1. Internet browsing. He concludes. that companies should make e- communication and computer use rules explicit to. In the academic. arena, however, relatively few studies have analyzed cross- cultural differences. Chen (2. 00. 1) analyzed and compared e- mail requests sent by. Taiwanese and U. S. She concluded that. Taiwanese students used different request strategies than the U. S. Although limited in scope, this study helps shed some light on. E- mail pedagogy. E- communication. John and Cash (1. German as a second language. Lapp (2. 00. 0) employed e- mail dialog to facilitate the English language. ESL students at an American university. These. language instructors found that electronic discourse contributed to overall. Results in this area indicate that student language. Two additional. survey- based studies, a dissertation by Rinehart (2. Bloch (2. 00. 2), focused primarily on the reasons why ESL graduate students use. These researchers found that. E- mail requests. The line of. research most directly relevant to the current study are the handful of reports. ESL setting. She also found that her. Of particular. interest to my study is the report by Hartford and Bardovi- Harlig (1. NS and NNS graduate. They concluded that, in general, NNS e- mails did not. In. addition, NNS messages contained fewer downgraders and other mitigating. Additionally, the study discussed previously by Chen. ESL students when making e- mail. These e- mail request studies were highly. Summary. At this point in. ESL setting remains largely. While important groundwork has been done to investigate the. All of the studies reviewed previously, either. Through a carefully. Research Questions. Based on the. preceding literature review and the ongoing research I have been conducting in. I developed the following research questions to. If so, what are the differences? Utilizing a prompt designed to elicit an e- mail request to a. UHM faculty member, data was collected from subjects to help. Data was analyzed based on a unique. Subjects and Location The initial. Hawai. The subjects were categorized into 1. NS or NNS status and highest level of academic. English- language setting. Table 1 provides. Table 1 Research Subjects. Analysis and Discussion. Table 3 Averages of E- mail Features Per Collapsed Grouping. Obligatory E- mail. Formal Features. Group. N- size. SUBJGREETTITLENAMES NAMEAFFILCLOSSIGPre. NNS1. 30. 4. 60. 2. F/Gr. 1NNS1. 91. 0. UG/Gr. 2NNS1. 01. Gr/PCNS2. 80. 9. 60. Ph. DS 8. 10. 7. Optional E- mail Formal. Features. Requests. Group. INFO Pre. INFO Post. INT GREETQUESTIONR1. R2. R3. R4. COND RPre. NNS0. 01. 0. 1. 51. F/Gr. 1NNS0. 1. 60. UG/Gr. 2NNS0. 0. 2. Gr/PCNS0. 0. 40. 1. Ph. DS0. 0. 1. 30. Modals. Polite. Group. Can. Could. May. Might. Will. Would. Total. PMDNGRD SDNTNPre. NNS0. 0. 80. 2. 30. F/Gr. 1NNS0. 4. 20. UG/Gr. 2NNS0. 1. 10. Gr/PCNS0. 0. 2. 90. Ph. DS0. 1. 30. 5. Mitigating Supportive Moves. Group. PREPGRNDR Pre. GRNDR Post. COND SDISRMAPOLPROPPROMGRATCOMPTHNKPre. NNS1. 0. 81. 0. 80. F/Gr. 1NNS1. 1. 61. UG/Gr. 2NNS0. 6. 1. Gr/PCNS0. 5. 40. 7. Ph. DS0. 7. 50. 3. Upgraders. Length. Mechanics. Group. POL INTUPGRD SOrtho. UPGRDWPMSPMRPMSPCAPPUNCCONTRPre. NNS0. 3. 10. 2. 30. F/Gr. 1NNS0. 4. 20. UG/Gr. 2NNS0. 3. 0. Gr/PCNS0. 0. 70. 2. Ph. DS0. 2. 50. 2. From: Student’s Name. To: Instructor’s Name. Sent: 9/8/2. 00. 3 5: 1. PMFrom: Student’s. Name < Student’s e- mail address > Sent. Monday, March 3, 2. To: Instructor’s. Name < Instructor’s e- mail address> Subject. Research Project. Dr. I am a student in your History 3. Wednesday evening. From: Student’s. Name < Student’s Name > Sent: Wednesday. October 1. 5, 2. 00. To: Instructor’s. Subject. my project. Dear Dr. I understand that the first writing assignment is. This decision was not based. After constructing. I matched them with real examples from the data (see Appendix G. Although the real examples do not exactly match the. These prototypes and examples may be used pedagogically for genre. Additionally. based on the previous data analysis and discussion, several implications may be. Most notably. this data shows that there are patterns in the development of e- communication. English setting, although it does not. Conclusion. This study was. NS and NNS subjects with different levels of English language proficiency and. Through data coding and analysis, the study’s. If so, what are the. Yes, there are differences between. However, the most notable. Afterwards, more comprehensive pedagogical. It is hoped that this study and contributes to. References. Bloch, J. Student/teacher. interaction via email: The social context of Internet discourse. Journal of. Second Language Writing, 1. Blum- Kulka, S., House, J., &. Kasper, G., (Eds.). Cross- cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Making e- mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American. Association for Applied Linguistics (St. Louis, MO, February 2. Essid, J. Basics of electronic writing. Writer’s Web. Electronic mail- . An investigation into the text features of e- mail. English for. Specific Purposes, 1. Hacker. D. A Writer's Reference (5th. Martin's. Hambridge, S. Netiquette guidelines. RFC 1. 85. 5 http: //www. Dec. 2. 00. 3). Hartford, B. S., &. Bardovi- Harlig, K. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and. Language Learning Monograph Series, 7 (pp. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at. Urbana- Champaign. Hughes, S. W. OWL Online Writing. Cross- cultural undercurrents in the use of email and the Internet. Check. the figures: Variation in English email requests by Finnish and Swedish. AFin. LAn. 5. 9, 3. Kasange, L. A. Requests in. English by second- language users. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 1. Kasper. G., & Rose, K. R. Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lan, Li. Email: A. English? English Today, 1. Lapp, S. I. Using email. English as a second language classroom. The. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 2. Li, Y. Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task- based e- mail. System, 2. 8 (2), 2. Rinaldi, A. H. The Net: User guidelines and. International. students' use of electronic mail to communicate with faculty at a four- year. University of. Arkansas. Dissertation for degree of Doctor of Education. St. John, E., & Cash, D. German language learning via email: A case study. Re. CALL, 7 (2), 4. Shea, V. Netiquette table of contents. The effects of teaching approaches on student's writing. Paper. presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other. Languages (3. 2nd, Seattle, WA, March 1. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. Academic Writing. Graduate Students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wishnoff, J. Hedging your. L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and. Second Language Studies: Working Papers of the. Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai. Language. Use in an Electronic Environment: Email Message Prompt for Volunteers. Thank you. for agreeing to participate in my study looking into language use in an. The following task is in two parts. The first part is. Thanks for your patience! OK, for the first part of the task. I need you to do. Here’s the situation: Information about the setting and the Professor- . You don’t know this professor at all. Peterson, he is in his mid- 4. Caucasian man, and he has taught in his department at UH for. Information about your email message- . Peterson an email message to request an extension. Peterson requesting an. Sending your message- . Here’s the. situation: Information about the setting and the Professor- . Peterson, he is in his mid- 4. Caucasian man, and he has taught in the History Department at. UH for many years. Information about your email message- . Peterson an email message to request an extension. When finished. writing it, send it directly to me by email < sford@hawaii.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |