A Cross-sectional Study of Pragmatic Usage in making Academic E-mail Requests
Shawn Ford
SLS 680E: Pragmatic
Development in a Second Language
Fall 2003 Š Prof. Gabriele
Kasper
Course Paper
Introduction
In this paper, I discuss a cross-sectional study designed to help investigate the pragmatic features used by English native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS)[1], at different academic levels and with varying degrees of university education experience in an English setting, when making academic e-mail requests. This study is a continuation of my research interests in written electronic communication (e-communication[2]). In this current research, I am interested to see if there are differences in pragmatic usage between the different subject groups in my study. 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 pragmatics.
Pragmatics of
Written E-communication
With the development of the Internet, increased attention has been given to the use of pragmatics in written e-communication. Since Shea (1994) first presented her principles of business "netiquette" (a blend of the words network and etiquette), which are basic rules and guidelines for behaving and interacting via written e-communication, several others (Hambridge, 1995; Rinaldi, 1998) have further developed and applied netiquette principles to the full range of possible written e-communication purposes, from formal (e.g., business e-mail, academic discussion boards) to informal (e.g., personal e-mail, Internet Ņfan-clubÓ chat rooms). At this point in time, netiquette guidelines have become conventionalized and are publicized wherever e-communication may take place, from office settings to Internet cafˇs; they have even found their way into ESL textbooks (e.g., Swales and Feak, 1994; Hacker, 2003) and onto university writing Web sites (e.g., Hughes, 2002; Essid, 2003).
An interesting offshoot of research into written e-communication concerns the study of linguistic differences between standard written communication and written e-communication. Gaines (1999) studied a large corpus of business and academic e-mails and concluded that the academic data contained evidence of new written genres with unique textual features, most notably Ņa pseudo-conversational form of communication, conducted in extended time and with an absent interlocutorÓ (p. 81). Likewise, Lan (2000) examined and compared e-mail messages from two universities, one in Hong Kong and one in England, and found that formal, semi-formal, and friendly e-mail messages from both NSs and NNSs of English all contain varying degrees of conversational style. This line of research into linguistic variation in written e-communication has possible implications for pragmatics research if it can be shown that different pragmatic strategies are required to successfully communicate in different electronic environments for different purposes.
Due to the expanded use of e-communication through globalization, researchers have also begun to examine cross-cultural differences involving written e-communication in different electronic environments. Numerous studies of business e-communication have investigated cross-cultural miscommunications that arise in office environments because of culturally different perceptions of appropriateness in e-mail communication and Internet usage. For example, Inglis (1998) suggests that there are different cultural tolerances for ŅflamingÓ (criticizing or attacking someone on a discussion board, in a chat room, or by e-mail) and varying cultural understandings about what constitutes acceptable Internet browsing. He concludes that companies should make e-communication and computer use rules explicit to employees, and that they also should attempt to understand differing cultural expectations that some employees may have about e-communication and computer usage.
In the academic arena, however, relatively few studies have analyzed cross-cultural differences in e-communication. Chen (2001) analyzed and compared e-mail requests sent by Taiwanese and U.S. graduate students to their professors. She concluded that the Taiwanese students used different request strategies than the U.S. students due to culturally different perceptions of power relations, familiarity, and imposition. Although limited in scope, this study helps shed some light on written e-communication strategies used by students from different cultural backgrounds.
E-communication has also been examined from a pedagogical perspective when used to generate discourse in the classroom. St. John and Cash (1995) utilized e-mail in the instruction of an intermediate-level learner of German as a second language, and Lapp (2000) employed e-mail dialog to facilitate the English language development of graduate-level ESL students at an American university. These language instructors found that electronic discourse contributed to overall language development primarily due to the conversational nature of e-mail. Other researchers (Sun, 1998; Li, 2000) have looked into the language use strategies of ESL students by examining specific characteristics of student writing through e-mail assignments. Results in this area indicate that student language use strategies through e-mail communication vary considerably according to perceived formality of the e-mail task and depending on whether or not the task involves an actual audience with an exchange of dialog.
Two additional survey-based studies, a dissertation by Rinehart (2001) and a research article by Bloch (2002), focused primarily on the reasons why ESL graduate students use e-mail to communicate with their instructors. These researchers found that their subjects use e-mail primarily to carry on phatic conversations with their instructors and secondarily to ask for instructional help.
The line of research most directly relevant to the current study are the handful of reports that investigate the pragmatics of e-mail requests in the ESL setting. Kankaanranta (2001) reported that Finnish and Swedish colleagues of one European company showed significant differences across L1 groups in their use of politeness strategies in English e-mail messages. She also found that her subjects prefer imperative and interrogative request forms, which can negatively affect politeness and increase the threat to the hearerÕs face.
Of particular interest to my study is the report by Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig (1996), who analyzed for perlocutionary affect e-mail requests sent by NS and NNS graduate students to professors. They concluded that, in general, NNS e-mails did not adequately address imposition, which negatively affected perlocution. In addition, NNS messages contained fewer downgraders and other mitigating supportive moves such as grounders and apologies, which negatively affected the impact of the requests. Additionally, the study discussed previously by Chen (2001) illuminates the possibility of divergent culture-specific pragmatic strategies employed by even advanced-level ESL students when making e-mail requests in the academic setting. These e-mail request studies were highly influential to the research design and analysis portions of my study.
At this point in time, the use of e-mail pragmatics in the ESL setting remains largely under-researched. While important groundwork has been done to investigate the nature of e-mail pragmatics and cross-cultural differences evident in e-mail pragmatics, cross-sectional research such as the current study has not yet been conducted in this area. All of the studies reviewed previously, either corpus-based, survey-based, or pedagogy-based, were single-moment studies by design. As discussed by Kasper and Rose (2002), these types of studies are useful for comparing NS and NNS performance data at a single moment in time, but Ņ[t]his sort of research cannot shed light on developmentÓ (p. 79). Through a carefully designed cross-sectional study, my current research project will shine a bright light on the possible existence of developmental patterns in e-communication pragmatics.
Based on the preceding literature review and the ongoing research I have been conducting in the area of e-communication, I developed the following research questions to guide my study:
1. What are the pragmatic features used by NS and NNS with different years of university education experience when they make academic e-mail requests?
2. Are there differences in the usage of e-mail pragmatic features between the different groups in my study? If so, what are the differences? and
3. Is there any evidence of developmental patterns?
Possible answers to these questions are addressed in the Analysis and Discussion section that follows in this paper.
This cross-sectional study was conducted over the Spring and Fall semesters of 2003 and drew primarily from students enrolled in degree-culminating academic programs. Utilizing a prompt designed to elicit an e-mail request to a hypothetical UHM faculty member, data was collected from subjects to help answer the studyÕs research questions. Data was analyzed based on a unique coding scheme developed specifically for e-mail data.
The initial participants of this study were 82 subjects enrolled in different academic programs in two HawaiŌi universities: the University of HawaiŌi at Manoa (UHM) and TransPacific HawaiŌi College (TPHC). The subjects were categorized into 12 different groups based on NS or NNS status and highest level of academic experience attained in an English-language setting. Table 1 provides information about each subject
Table 1 Research Subjects
group organized by education level: the associated grouping code, the number of subjects in the group (N-size), the location that the group was drawn from, and the type of contact that the group had with the researcher. The lowest-level subject group, Pre-college NNS (PreNNS), was composed of 13 students from an intact college preparatory class at TPHC taught by a research colleague. The next higher subject group, Freshman NNS (FNNS), included 15 students from two different intact sections of ELI100, the required academic writing course for all undergraduate ESL students at UHM enrolled in degree programs. These sections were taught by two different instructors: one by a research colleague and one by myself.
All other subject groups were composed of volunteers. The undergraduate NS (UGNS) and NNS (UGNNS) groups were formed from student volunteers solicited in UHM Department of Second Language Studies (DSLS) undergraduate courses. The remaining groups were comprised of subjects solicited via the DSLS e-mail list, which consists of e-mail addresses for DSLS students, faculty, staff, alumni, and colleagues. The graduate NS (Gr1NS and Gr2NS) and NNS (Gr1NNS and Gr2NNS) groups were made up of first and second-year students enrolled in the DSLS M.A. in ESL program. Additionally, the PhDNS and PhDNNS groups consisted of students enrolled in the DSLS PhD in SLA program. Lastly, the Post-college NS (PCNS) and NNS (PCNNS) groups contained DSLS alumni working in ESL or EFL programs in HawaiŌi and abroad.
The proportionally higher number of Gr2NS and Gr2NNS subjects, as compared to the other subject groups, is due to the fact that these students were part of the same DSLS M.A. in ESL cohort as myself; therefore, I knew this group more personally than the other groups, which put me in a better position to obtain data from these subjects. Conversely, the relatively low number of undergraduate and first-year graduate subjects is the result of my unfamiliarity with these students. Additionally, for this particular research project, I had no means to gather data from freshman or pre-college NS subjects, thus, these groups are not represented in this study.
Data Collection
As indicated previously, subjects for this study were solicited via the DSLS e-mail list, DSLS undergraduate classes, and intact classrooms. Utilizing the DSLS e-mail list, I sent out a request for volunteers three times at monthly intervals over each of the 2003 academic semesters. The request made an appeal for research subjects, described the study briefly, offered compensation for participation, and asked those interested to e-mail me with their willingness to volunteer. To reach the UGNS and UGNNS subjects, I made the same appeal one time in three different DSLS undergraduate classrooms during the Fall 2003 semester. Once subjects responded to my appeal, I e-mailed them the survey instrument (see Appendix A) and electronic consent form. I had no further contact with the volunteers about completing the survey instrument unless they returned to me their data, at which time I sent them an e-mail thanking them for their participation and offering compensation. I made no attempts to collect data from those volunteers who did not return their data; however, of the 65 subjects who were sent the survey instrument, 57 returned data, representing an 88% return rate. Three of the e-mail data were later excluded from the study because the prompt portion was not completed, leaving a total of 54 data pieces collected through the e-mail solicitation phase of this research project.
In the intact ESL classrooms, students were provided the survey instrument (see Appendix A) by the regular course instructor. ELI100 students were told to complete the e-mail activity as a homework assignment due the following scheduled class meeting time. Data from one ELI100 section, taught by myself, was gathered during the Spring 2003 semester, and data from the other ELI100 section was collected by a colleague during the Fall 2003 semester. The students in the TPHC college preparatory program were administered the survey instrument as a classroom activity held in the schoolÕs computer lab. Other than this difference in survey administration, the teachers were asked to provide no relevant instruction or information before the activity or assistance during the activity, in order to try to make the classroom conditions as similar as possible. From these three intact classes, a total of 28 data samples were collected.
In addition to the differing conditions under which subject data was collected, there was also a slight difference in the two versions of the survey instrument, designed to consider subjectsÕ educational levels and experiences. Whereas the e-mailed survey version, told subjects to request an extension to turn in a five page critique, the classroom version told subjects to request an extension to turn in a three page book report. Other than this difference, the survey instrument versions were identical.
Data Coding
Once e-mail data was received from a subject, it was reviewed for completion, grouped according to the subjectÕs education level, assigned a data-coding number, and filed in a computer folder for later transcription, coding, and analysis. The transcription process was rather straightforward since the data was already in written electronic form; transcription involved cutting and pasting text from an e-mail program to a word processing program and then reformatting the text to facilitate coding. An example of a reformatted e-mail message ready for coding is show in Table 2:
Table 2 Sample
Transcribed E-mail Message
As can be seen in Table 2, the message is formatted sentence by sentence in the upper left quadrant, and space is provided on the right-hand side to code pragmatic features of each sentence. Directly below on the right is a section to record mechanics features of the message, and on the lower left the entire e-mail message is recorded for easy reference. This transcription format facilitated the data coding process and organized the coding for subsequent analysis.
However, data coding for this study presented several practical and logistical challenges that had to be overcome. First of all, unfortunately, neither of the two studies of academic e-mail requests previously mentioned (Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Chen, 2001) addressed specifics of data coding or were appended with coding materials. Furthermore, information and materials found in other similar studies seem inadequate for the purpose of coding detailed and lengthy streams of e-mail discourse. For example, the CCSARP Coding Manual provided by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), while providing a basis for analyzing discourse data, was designed primarily for analyzing specific types of discourse completion test (DCT) data. Although the CCSARP Coding Manual provides categories and descriptions of features typically associated with requests, it is inadequate as-is as a manual for coding and analyzing the range of possible discourse features that constitute an entire e-mail message. Therefore, with the CCSARP manual as a base, combined with netiquette guidelines (Shea, 1994) and techniques drawn from text analysis research, I approached the coding process from a qualitative perspective, analyzing each sentence and feature and its relation to the connected pieces of discourse. Furthermore, this process was concerned more with actual subject use of features instead of appropriateness or accuracy; therefore, appropriacy judgments were not made, and possible accuracy features such as grammar and lexical choice were not considered. After an initial round of coding, I developed the guide in Table 3 based on features evident in the data:
Table 3 Data
Coding Guide
A brief description of each code on the guide is provided in Appendix B.
With the data coding guide as an analytic tool, I reanalyzed all of the transcribed and coded data to check my preliminary feature classifications. This step also served to test the usefulness of the guide. Using the guide as a checklist of possible features evident in the data, I recoded each e-mail transcription following the format outlined in Table 2 discussed previously. Afterwards, I entered all of the data in a spreadsheet for analysis, organized by the 12 subject groups and the first 47 message features (ŅMiscellaneousÓ codings excluded), and averaged the use of features by group.
At this stage, I analyzed the averages to compare trends across groups and found that several groups were similar in their usage of message features (see Appendix C; note that the similar groups are color-coded to facilitate comparison). Based on this finding, I decided to collapse the following groups, creating the new grouping codes provided: FNNS and Gr1NNS (F/Gr1NNS); UGNNS and Gr2NNS (UG/Gr2NNS); Gr1NS, Gr2NS, and PCNS (Gr/PCNS); and PhDNNS and PhDNS (PhDS). After collapsing and re-averaging these groups, I noticed that the groups with the fewest subjects (two each), PCNNS and UGNNS, were not similar to any other group and were not representative samples (see Appendix D, also color-coded for reference); therefore, these two groups were excluded from any further analysis.
Table 3 shows the final groupings and averages after collapsing and excluding groups, and was used as the basis for the remaining qualitative and quantitative analyses. Note that the remaining five groups were arranged by level of education experience and that the N-sizes of the groups increased due to collapsing, allowing for the possibility of more generalized findings from the data.
Table 3 Averages of E-mail Features Per Collapsed Grouping
|
|
Obligatory E-mail
Formal Features
|
|
|
|||||||
Group |
N-size |
SUBJ |
GREET |
TITLE |
NAME |
S NAME |
AFFIL |
CLOS |
SIG |
|
|
PreNNS |
13 |
0.46 |
0.23 |
0.54 |
0.54 |
1 |
0.92 |
0.62 |
0.23 |
|
|
F/Gr1NNS |
19 |
1 |
0.89 |
0.95 |
1 |
0.79 |
0.95 |
0.84 |
0.95 |
|
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
10 |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Gr/PCNS |
28 |
0.96 |
0.79 |
1 |
1 |
0.54 |
0.64 |
0.75 |
0.89 |
|
|
PhDS |
8 |
1 |
0.75 |
1 |
1 |
0.63 |
0.63 |
0.75 |
0.88 |
|
|
|
Optional E-mail Formal
Features |
Requests |
|
|
|||||||
Group |
INFO Pre |
INFO Post |
INT GREET |
QUESTION |
R1 |
R2 |
R3 |
R4 |
COND R |
|
|
PreNNS |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.15 |
1 |
0.62 |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0.16 |
0.37 |
0.42 |
0 |
1 |
0.84 |
0.37 |
0.26 |
0.47 |
|
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
Gr/PCNS |
0.04 |
0.18 |
0.14 |
0.04 |
1 |
0.68 |
0.18 |
0.07 |
0.82 |
|
|
PhDS |
0 |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0 |
1 |
0.88 |
0.25 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
Modals |
Polite |
|
||||||||
Group |
Can |
Could |
May |
Might |
Will |
Would |
Total |
PM |
DNGRD S |
DNTN |
|
PreNNS |
0.08 |
0.23 |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
0.38 |
0.77 |
0.69 |
0 |
0 |
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0.42 |
0.47 |
0.05 |
0 |
0 |
0.58 |
1.53 |
0.42 |
0.11 |
0.05 |
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0.1 |
1 |
0.1 |
0 |
0 |
0.1 |
1.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0 |
|
Gr/PCNS |
0 |
0.29 |
0.14 |
0.07 |
0.04 |
0.79 |
1.32 |
0.5 |
0.07 |
0.71 |
|
PhDS |
0.13 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
1.13 |
0.38 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
|
Mitigating Supportive Moves |
||||||||||
Group |
PREP |
GRNDR Pre |
GRNDR Post |
COND S |
DISRM |
APOL |
PROP |
PROM |
GRAT |
COMP |
THNK |
PreNNS |
1.08 |
1.08 |
0.46 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.31 |
0 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.15 |
0.38 |
F/Gr1NNS |
1.16 |
1.05 |
0.95 |
0.42 |
0.37 |
0.37 |
0.21 |
0.37 |
0.47 |
0.05 |
0.63 |
UG/Gr2NNS |
0.6 |
1.3 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
Gr/PCNS |
0.54 |
0.79 |
0.89 |
0.14 |
0.43 |
0.21 |
0.54 |
0.11 |
0.25 |
0.04 |
0.46 |
PhDS |
0.75 |
0.38 |
1.13 |
0.25 |
1 |
0.63 |
0.88 |
0.5 |
0.38 |
0.25 |
0.38 |
|
Upgraders |
Length |
Mechanics |
|
|||||||
Group |
POL INT |
UPGRD S |
Ortho.UPGRD |
WPM |
SPM |
RPM |
SP |
CAP |
PUNC |
CONTR |
|
PreNNS |
0.31 |
0.23 |
0.46 |
75.1 |
6.5 |
1.7 |
0.02 |
0.1 |
0.15 |
0.32 |
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0.42 |
0.26 |
0.32 |
134.1 |
8.1 |
2.5 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.16 |
0.17 |
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
106.4 |
6.7 |
2.0 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.07 |
0.17 |
|
Gr/PCNS |
0.07 |
0.25 |
0.11 |
102.9 |
5.9 |
1.9 |
0 |
0.01 |
0.1 |
0.29 |
|
PhDS |
0.25 |
0.25 |
0 |
125.1 |
6.9 |
2.1 |
0 |
0.01 |
0.11 |
0.16 |
|
Obligatory E-mail
Formal Features
Figure 1: Obligatory Formal Features used in E-mail per Group
(1)
From: StudentÕs Name
To: InstructorÕs Name
Sent: 9/8/2003 5:11 PM
Hello, I am StudentÕs Name. Do you know me? I think
this is the firse time to send email to you. I am a student in your classÉ
(2)
From: StudentÕs
Name < StudentÕs e-mail address >
Sent:
Monday, March 3, 2003 10:40 am
To: InstructorÕs
Name < InstructorÕs e-mail address>
Subject:
Research Project
Dr.
Peterson,
My name
is Eric StudentÕs Name. I am a student in your History 345 class that
meets on Wednesday evening.
(3)
From: StudentÕs
Name < StudentÕs Name >
Sent: Wednesday,
October 15, 2003 11:48 am
To: InstructorÕs
e-mail address
Subject:
my project
Dear Dr.
Peterson:
I am
writing to request an extension for my critique assignment for ETEC680. I understand that the first writing assignment is
due next week, but would need more time to
work on my critiqueÉ
Optional E-mail Formal Features
(4) Phatic greeting questions
(a) ÉThe first writing assignmentÕs due in your class is next week, isnÕt it?É
(b) hello, Dr.Peterson. how do yo do?É
(c) Hello, I am StudentÕs Name. Do you know me?É
(d) Hi, how are you doing?É
(5)
ÉYou can contact me at:
Home Number: StudentÕs phone
Cell Phone No number: StudentÕs phone
E-mail address: StudentÕs e-mail address
If you would like to check my student status, you can refer to the following information:
Course: History 200
CRN: 12345
Time: MWF 9:30-10:20
Student ID #: ###-##-####
Thank you again.
StudentÕs Name
(6) Pre-message information
September 2nd 2003
History 200
Dr. Peterson,É
(7) Post-message information
(a) Thank you I advance.
Sincerely,
StudentÕs Name
SLS department
StudentÕs e-mail address
(b)Sincerely yours
StudentÕs Name
MA candidate in Second Language Studies
UHM
(c)Thank you,
StudentÕs Name
email: StudentÕs e-mail address
Request Use
Figure
2: Requests used per Message
Figure 3: Modals Used in Requests Per Group
Mitigating
Supportive Moves
Figure 4: Mitigating Supportive Moves Used in Message Per Group
Downgraders and
Upgraders
Figure 5: Downgraders and Upgraders Used in Message Per Group
Additional Textual Features
Figure
6: Average of Requests used per Group |
|
Figure
7: Words Per Message Per Group |
|
||
|
|
|
Figure
8: Sentences Per Message Per Group |
|
Figure
9: Words Per Sentence Per Group |
|
Message Mechanics
Figure 10: Mechanics of Message
Per Group
Through coding and analysis of the data, it was possible to construct prototypical e-mail request message patterns for each subject group, shown in Table 4.
Table
4 Prototypical E-mail Structure per Group |
|||||
Group |
PreNNS |
F/Gr1NNS |
UG/Gr2NNS |
Gr/PCNS |
PhDS |
|
TITLE |
SUBJ |
SUBJ |
SUBJ |
SUBJ |
|
NAME |
GREET |
GREET |
GREET |
GREET |
|
INT GREET |
TITLE |
TITLE |
TITLE |
TITLE |
|
S NAME |
NAME |
NAME |
NAME |
NAME |
|
AFFIL |
S NAME |
S NAME |
S NAME |
S NAME |
|
PREP |
AFFIL |
AFFIL |
AFFIL |
AFFIL |
|
GRNDR Pre |
PREP |
PREP |
PREP |
PREP |
Structure of |
R1 |
GRNDR Pre |
GRNDR Pre |
GRNDR Pre |
R1 |
E-mail and |
R2 |
R1 |
R1 |
R1 |
GRNDR Post |
Request |
PM |
GRNDR Post |
GRNDR Post |
GRNDR Post |
R2 |
Features in |
CLOS |
R2 |
R2 |
R2 |
COND R |
Prototypical |
|
Would |
COND R |
COND R |
Could |
Message |
|
THNK |
Could |
Would |
Would |
|
|
CLOS |
DISRM |
DNTN |
DNTN |
|
|
SIG |
CLOS |
PM |
DISRM |
|
|
|
SIG |
PROP |
APOL |
|
|
|
|
CLOS |
PROP |
|
|
|
|
SIG |
PROM |
|
|
|
|
|
CLOS |
|
|
|
|
|
SIG |
WPM |
75 |
134 |
106 |
103 |
125 |
SPM |
6.5 |
8 |
6.5 |
6 |
7 |
WPS |
11.5 |
16.5 |
16 |
17.5 |
18 |
RPM |
1.5 |
2.5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
SP |
2% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
CAP |
10% |
4% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
PUNC |
15% |
16% |
7% |
1% |
11% |
CONTR |
32% |
17% |
17% |
29% |
16% |
To construct the prototypes, I decided to include all features used by a group 50% or more of the time(see Appendix F for ŅE-mail Prototype Analysis ChartÓ). This decision was not based on any pre-existing criteria or reference to my knowledge, but was simply based on my intuition that if a majority of a group used a particular feature, then that feature could be considered normative for the group. After constructing the prototypes, I matched them with real examples from the data (see Appendix G for example messages). Although the real examples do not exactly match the prototypes developed, they do contain most of the features in corresponding order. These prototypes and examples may be used pedagogically for genre analysis, text analysis, and production activities.
Additionally, based on the previous data analysis and discussion, several implications may be provided concerning pragmatic development in e-communication. Most notably, this data shows that there are patterns in the development of e-communication pragmatics, strategies, and usage, corresponding to academic level and university education experience in an English setting, although it does not show that the more advanced subjects produced messages that necessarily were more acceptable, which is an issue outside the scope of this particular study. However, the data does show tendencies of the subject groups, which may imply general knowledge of the use of certain pragmatic features to attain locutionary intents, and which in turn may inform pedagogy about possible focuses of instruction in the area of e-communication.
This study was designed to examine the pragmatic features of academic e-mail requests made by NS and NNS subjects with different levels of English language proficiency and university education experience. Through data coding and analysis, the studyÕs research questions were answered:
1.
What are the pragmatic features used by NS and NNS with
different years of university education experience when they make academic
e-mail requests?
Although too numerous to describe in detail here, features used included obligatory formal features (e.g., subject heading, greeting, closing), optional formal features (e.g., phatic questions), specific request types (e.g., conditionals), modals, politeness features (e.g., downtoners), mitigating supportive moves (e.g., preparators, grounders, thanks), and upgraders.
2.
Are there differences in the usage of e-mail pragmatic
features between the different groups in my study? If so, what are the
differences?
Yes, there are differences between groups, but too numerous to describe in detail here. However, the most notable difference between groups included
į obligatory formal features- used in opposite proportions across groups,
į conditional requests- used frequently by higher groups and never by lowest group,
į modals- use of can and would in opposite proportions across groups,
į politeness markers- used more frequently by lower than higher groups,
į pre- and post-request grounders- used in opposite proportions across groups,
į preparators- used more frequently by lower than higher groups,
į disarmers and proposals- used frequently by highest group, proportionately less for each lower group, and never by lowest group,
į orthographic upgraders- used more frequently by lower than higher groups,
į words per message- inconsistently different averages across all groups, and
į mechanics- greater frequency of errors by lower than higher groups.
3.
Is there any evidence of developmental patterns?
Yes, according to the data coding and analysis, there appear to be developmental patterns that correspond to the assigned groupings based on different academic levels and varying degrees of university education experience in an English setting.
Future research in this area should focus on acceptability judgments and ratings of the data to corroborate findings from this cross-sectional study. Afterwards, more comprehensive pedagogical implications may be made. It is hoped that this study and contributes to research in the area of developmental pragmatics and e-communication in a second language, and informs pedagogy about possible areas for instruction.
References
Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: The social context of Internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11 (2), 117-134.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G., (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Chen,
C.F.E. (2001). Making e-mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics (St. Louis, MO, February 24-27, 2001).
Essid, J. (17 Dec. 2003). Basics of electronic writing. WriterÕs Web. http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/ewriting.html (17 Dec.
2003).
Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail- a new style of communication or just a new medium?: An investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 81-101.
Hacker, D. (2003). A Writer's Reference (5th ed.). NY: St. Martin's.
Hambridge, S. (1995). Netiquette guidelines. RFC 1855 http://www.stanton.dtcc.edu/stanton/cs/rfc1855.html (17 Dec. 2003).
Hartford, B.S., &
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). "At your earliest convenience:" A study of
written student requests to faculty. In L.F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and
Language Learning Monograph Series, 7 (pp.
55-69). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Hughes, S.W. (2002). Email etiquette. OWL Online Writing
Lab. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/pw/p_emailett.html
(17 Dec. 2003).
Inglis, N.L. (1998). Worlds apart: Cross-cultural undercurrents in the use of email and the Internet. Language International, 10 (2), 16-17.
Kankaanranta, A. (2001). Check the figures: Variation in English email requests by Finnish and Swedish. AFinLAn, 59, 304-337.
Kasange, L.A. (1998). Requests in English by second-language users. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 123-153.
Kasper,
G., & Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lan, Li. (2000). Email: A challenge to standard English? English Today, 16 (4), 23-29.
Lapp, S.I. (2000). Using email dialog to generate communication in an English as a second language classroom. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23 (1), 50-62.
Li, Y.
(2000). Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail
activities. System, 28 (2), 229-245.
Rinaldi, A.H. (1998). The Net: User guidelines and netiquette. Netiquette home page. http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/netiquette.html (17 Dec. 2003).
Rinehart, P.S. (2001). International students' use of electronic mail to communicate with faculty at a four-year public research institution. University of Arkansas. Dissertation for degree of Doctor of Education.
St. John, E., & Cash, D. (1995). German language learning via email: A case study. ReCALL, 7 (2), 47-51.
Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette table of contents. Netiquette. http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html (17 Dec. 2003).
Sun,
Y.C. (1998). The effects of teaching approaches on student's writing
strategies in the e-mail settings. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (32nd, Seattle, WA, March 17-21, 1998).
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learnersÕ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies: Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of HawaiŌi, 19, 119-157.
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 electronic environment. The following task is in two parts. The first part is an email message prompt, and the second part is a language use questionnaire. If possible, PLEASE try not to read or complete the second part of the task until after you have completed the first part. Thanks for your patience!
OK, for the first part of the task, hereÕs what I need you to doÉ
IÕd like you to write a hypothetical email message to a professor. HereÕs the situation:
į YouÕre taking a course from a professor in a department other than your major field. You donÕt know this professor at all.
į His name is Dr. Peterson, he is in his mid-40s, he is an average-sized Caucasian man, and he has taught in his department at UH for many years.
į Other than this information, you donÕt know anything else about Dr. Peterson.
į ItÕs within the first two weeks of the beginning of the semester.
į Your first writing assignment is due next week, which is a 5-page article critique.
į Everyone in the class had to read the same article and do the same assignment.
į You need more time to finish your critique, so you must send Dr. Peterson an email message to request an extension.
į This is the first time that you have ever sent Dr. Peterson an email message.
į Write your message to Dr. Peterson requesting an extension to turn in your critique.
į After youÕve composed your email message, please cut and paste the ŅElectronic ConsentÓ section of the Agreement to Participate in Research form into your email message.
į When finished writing your email message, cutting and pasting your electronic consent, and attaching your language use questionnaire, send the message directly to me by email <sford@hawaii.edu>.
Email
Request Homework Assignment 1
For this short homework assignment, I want you to write a hypothetical email message to a professor. HereÕs the situation:
į YouÕre taking a 200-level History course from a professor who you donÕt know at all.
į His name is Dr. Peterson, he is in his mid-40s, he is an average-sized Caucasian man, and he has taught in the History Department at UH for many years.
į Other than this information, you donÕt know anything else about Dr. Peterson.
į ItÕs within the first two weeks of the beginning of the semester.
į Your first major writing assignment is due next week, which is a 3-page book report.
į Everyone in the class had to read the same book and do the same assignment.
į You need more time to finish your book report, so you must send Dr. Peterson an email message to request an extension.
į This is the first time that you have ever sent Dr. Peterson an email message.
Write your email message to Dr. Peterson requesting an extension to turn in your book report. When finished writing it, send it directly to me by email <sford@hawaii.edu>.
This homework assignment is due by the end of the day, __ insert due date here___.
The data coding check-list in Table 3 contains the following netiquette elements, listed under the heading ŅFormal FeaturesÓ: subject line (SUBJ), greeting (GREET), title of recipient (TITLE), name of recipient (NAME), studentÕs name (S NAME), studentÕs affiliation (AFFIL), closing (CLOS), signature (SIG), pre-message information (INFO Pre), post-message information (INFO Post), internal greeting (INT GREET), and the additional feature question (QUESTION).
The column ŅRequest FeaturesÓ has codes for the individual requests found in each e-mail in addition to request features drawn from the CCSARP Coding Manual: requests R1, R2, R3, and R4; an option for conditional requests (COND R); the modals can, could, may, might, will, and would; politeness markers (PM); downgrading features (DNGRD); and downtoners (DNTN).
The ŅOptional StrategiesÓ column consists of features borrowed from CCSARP and supplemented with features that emerged from the data: preparator (PREP), pre-request grounder (GRNDR Pre), post-request grounder (GRNDR Post), conditional statement (COND S), disarmer (DISRM), apology (APOL), proposal (PROP), promise (PROM), gratitude (GRAT), compliment (COMP), thanks (THNK), politeness intensifier (POLINT), upgrading statement (UPGRDS), and orthographic upgrader (Orth UPGRD).
The last column, ŅMechanicsÓ, provides for coding of the text analysis features words per message (WPM), sentences per message (SPM), requests per message (RPM), spelling errors (SP), capitalization errors (CAP), punctuation errors (PUNC), and contractions used (CONTR). In addition, this column contains options for coding specific request types and unique combinations and sequences of features found in the message.
|
E-mail Formal Features |
|||||||||||
|
Obligatory |
Optional |
||||||||||
Group |
SUBJ |
GREET |
TITLE |
NAME |
S NAME |
AFFIL |
CLOS |
SIG |
INFO Pre |
INFO Post |
INT GREET |
QUESTION |
PreNNS |
0.46 |
0.23 |
0.54 |
0.54 |
1 |
0.92 |
0.62 |
0.23 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.15 |
FNNS |
1 |
0.87 |
0.93 |
1 |
0.87 |
1 |
0.87 |
0.93 |
0.13 |
0.27 |
0.47 |
0 |
UGNNS |
1 |
1 |
0.75 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0.25 |
0.75 |
0 |
Gr1NNS |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
0.75 |
0.75 |
1 |
0.25 |
0.75 |
0.25 |
0 |
Gr2NNS |
1 |
0.67 |
1 |
1 |
0.67 |
0.67 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
0 |
PhDNNS |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0 |
PCNNS |
1 |
0.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
UGNS |
0.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Gr1NS |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.2 |
0 |
Gr2NS |
0.94 |
0.69 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
0.63 |
0.88 |
0.94 |
0 |
0.19 |
0 |
0 |
PhDNS |
1 |
0.67 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.67 |
0.67 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
PCNS |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.43 |
0.57 |
0.57 |
0.71 |
0.14 |
0.29 |
0.43 |
0.14 |
|
Requests |
Modals |
||||||||||
Group |
R1 |
R2 |
R3 |
R4 |
COND R |
Can |
Could |
May |
Might |
Will |
Would |
Total |
PreNNS |
1 |
0.62 |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
0.08 |
0.23 |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
0.38 |
0.77 |
FNNS |
1 |
0.8 |
0.33 |
0.27 |
0.27 |
0.53 |
0.27 |
0.07 |
0 |
0 |
0.4 |
1.27 |
UGNNS |
1 |
0.75 |
0 |
0 |
0.75 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
0.25 |
0 |
0 |
0.25 |
1.25 |
Gr1NNS |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
0.25 |
1.25 |
0 |
1.25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.25 |
2.5 |
Gr2NNS |
1 |
0.83 |
0.33 |
0 |
1.17 |
0 |
1.33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.33 |
PhDNNS |
1 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.4 |
1.4 |
PCNNS |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
2 |
UGNS |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
Gr1NS |
1 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
0 |
0.4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.6 |
1 |
Gr2NS |
1 |
0.69 |
0.19 |
0.06 |
0.81 |
0 |
0.25 |
0.19 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.75 |
1.31 |
PhDNS |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.67 |
0.67 |
PCNS |
1 |
0.71 |
0.14 |
0 |
0.86 |
0 |
0.29 |
0.14 |
0.14 |
0 |
1 |
1.57 |
|
Mitigating Supportive Moves |
||||||||||
Group |
PREP |
GRNDR Pre |
GRNDR Post |
COND S |
DISRM |
APOL |
PROP |
PROM |
GRAT |
COMP |
THNK |
PreNNS |
1.08 |
1.08 |
0.46 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.31 |
0 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.15 |
0.38 |
FNNS |
1.33 |
0.87 |
0.93 |
0.27 |
0.4 |
0.33 |
0.27 |
0.40 |
0.33 |
0.07 |
0.67 |
UGNNS |
0.5 |
1.5 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0.25 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
Gr1NNS |
0.5 |
1.75 |
1 |
1 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
0 |
0.25 |
1 |
0 |
0.5 |
Gr2NNS |
0.67 |
1.17 |
0.83 |
0.17 |
0.83 |
0.33 |
0.17 |
0 |
0.33 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
PhDNNS |
0.8 |
0.4 |
1 |
0.2 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
1 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
PCNNS |
2 |
2 |
0.5 |
1 |
0 |
0.5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
UGNS |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
Gr1NS |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
0 |
0.4 |
0 |
0.6 |
Gr2NS |
0.5 |
0.88 |
1.06 |
0 |
0.25 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
0.13 |
0.25 |
0 |
0.38 |
PhDNS |
0.67 |
0.33 |
1.33 |
0.33 |
0.67 |
1 |
0.67 |
0.67 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
PCNS |
0.57 |
0.57 |
0.86 |
0.14 |
0.71 |
0.14 |
0.43 |
0.14 |
0.14 |
0.14 |
0.57 |
|
Polite |
Upgraders |
Length |
Mechanics |
|||||||||
Group |
PM |
DNGRD |
DNTN |
P I |
UPGRD |
Orth UP |
WPM |
SPM |
RPM |
SP |
CAP |
PUNC |
CONTR |
PreNNS |
0.69 |
0 |
0 |
0.31 |
0.23 |
0.46 |
75.08 |
6.46 |
1.69 |
0.02 |
0.1 |
0.15 |
0.32 |
FNNS |
0.53 |
0.13 |
0 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
134.8 |
7.87 |
2.47 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.16 |
0.2 |
UGNNS |
0.5 |
0.25 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
95 |
7.5 |
1.75 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.07 |
0.06 |
Gr1NNS |
0 |
0 |
0.25 |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
131.5 |
9 |
2.75 |
0.01 |
0 |
0.17 |
0.04 |
Gr2NNS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
0.17 |
114 |
6.17 |
2.17 |
0 |
0.02 |
0.07 |
0.24 |
PhDNNS |
0.2 |
0 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0 |
125.4 |
6.6 |
2.2 |
0 |
0.01 |
0.08 |
0.13 |
PCNNS |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
162 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0.04 |
0.31 |
UGNS |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
44 |
3.5 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0.14 |
0 |
Gr1NS |
0.6 |
0 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
95.4 |
5.6 |
2 |
0 |
0.02 |
0.07 |
0.3 |
Gr2NS |
0.5 |
0.06 |
0.69 |
0.06 |
0.25 |
0 |
98 |
5.5 |
1.94 |
0 |
0.01 |
0.09 |
0.28 |
PhDNS |
0.67 |
0 |
0.67 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
124.7 |
7.33 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0.15 |
0.2 |
PCNS |
0.43 |
0.14 |
0.71 |
0 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
119.6 |
6.9 |
1.9 |
0 |
0 |
0.17 |
0.3 |
|
|
Obligatory E-mail Formal Features |
|
|
|||||||
N-size |
Group |
SUBJ |
GREET |
TITLE |
NAME |
S NAME |
AFFIL |
CLOS |
SIG |
|
|
13 |
PreNNS |
0.46 |
0.23 |
0.54 |
0.54 |
1 |
0.92 |
0.62 |
0.23 |
|
|
19 |
F/Gr1NNS |
1 |
0.89 |
0.95 |
1 |
0.79 |
0.95 |
0.84 |
0.95 |
|
|
10 |
UG/Gr2NNS |
1 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
PCNNS |
1 |
0.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
UGNS |
0.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
28 |
Gr/PCNS |
0.96 |
0.79 |
1 |
1 |
0.54 |
0.64 |
0.75 |
0.89 |
|
|
8 |
PhDS |
1 |
0.75 |
1 |
1 |
0.63 |
0.63 |
0.75 |
0.88 |
|
|
|
Optional E-mail Formal Features |
Requests |
|
|
|||||||
Group |
INFO Pre |
INFO Post |
INT GREET |
QUESTION |
R1 |
R2 |
R3 |
R4 |
COND R |
|
|
PreNNS |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.15 |
1 |
0.62 |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0.16 |
0.37 |
0.42 |
0 |
1 |
0.84 |
0.37 |
0.26 |
0.47 |
|
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
PCNNS |
0.5 |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
|
UGNS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Gr/PCNS |
0.04 |
0.18 |
0.14 |
0.04 |
1 |
0.68 |
0.18 |
0.07 |
0.82 |
|
|
PhDS |
0 |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0 |
1 |
0.88 |
0.25 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
Modals |
Polite |
|
||||||||
Group |
Can |
Could |
May |
Might |
Will |
Would |
Total |
PM |
DNGRD S |
DNTN |
|
PreNNS |
0.08 |
0.23 |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
0.38 |
0.77 |
0.69 |
0 |
0 |
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0.42 |
0.47 |
0.05 |
0 |
0 |
0.58 |
1.53 |
0.42 |
0.11 |
0.05 |
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0.1 |
1 |
0.1 |
0 |
0 |
0.1 |
1.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0 |
|
PCNNS |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
UGNS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Gr/PCNS |
0 |
0.29 |
0.14 |
0.07 |
0.04 |
0.79 |
1.32 |
0.5 |
0.07 |
0.71 |
|
PhDS |
0.13 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
1.13 |
0.38 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
|
Mitigating Supportive Moves |
||||||||||
Group |
PREP |
GRNDR Pre |
GRNDR Post |
COND S |
DISRM |
APOL |
PROP |
PROM |
GRAT |
COMP |
THNK |
PreNNS |
1.08 |
1.08 |
0.46 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.31 |
0 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.15 |
0.38 |
F/Gr1NNS |
1.16 |
1.05 |
0.95 |
0.42 |
0.37 |
0.37 |
0.21 |
0.37 |
0.47 |
0.05 |
0.63 |
UG/Gr2NNS |
0.6 |
1.3 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
PCNNS |
2 |
2 |
0.5 |
1 |
0 |
0.5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
UGNS |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
Gr/PCNS |
0.54 |
0.79 |
0.89 |
0.14 |
0.43 |
0.21 |
0.54 |
0.11 |
0.25 |
0.04 |
0.46 |
PhDS |
0.75 |
0.38 |
1.13 |
0.25 |
1 |
0.63 |
0.88 |
0.5 |
0.38 |
0.25 |
0.38 |
|
Upgraders |
Length |
Mechanics |
|
|||||||
Group |
POL INT |
UPGRD S |
Ortho.UPGRD |
WPM |
SPM |
RPM |
SP |
CAP |
PUNC |
CONTR |
|
PreNNS |
0.31 |
0.23 |
0.46 |
75.08 |
6.46 |
1.69 |
0.02 |
0.1 |
0.15 |
0.32 |
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0.42 |
0.26 |
0.32 |
134.11 |
8.11 |
2.53 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.16 |
0.17 |
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
106.4 |
6.7 |
2 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.07 |
0.17 |
|
PCNNS |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
162 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0.04 |
0.31 |
|
UGNS |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
44 |
3.5 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0.14 |
0 |
|
Gr/PCNS |
0.07 |
0.25 |
0.11 |
102.93 |
5.86 |
1.93 |
0 |
0.01 |
0.1 |
0.29 |
|
PhDS |
0.25 |
0.25 |
0 |
125.13 |
6.88 |
2.13 |
0 |
0.01 |
0.11 |
0.16 |
|
E-mail Proto-features Table- Features used per Group
|
Obligatory E-mail Formal Features |
|
|
|
|||||||
Group |
SUBJ |
GREET |
TITLE |
NAME |
S NAME |
AFFIL |
CLOS |
SIG |
|
|
|
PreNNS |
~ |
0 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
0 |
|
|
|
F/Gr1NNS |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Gr/PCNS |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
PhDS |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
Optional E-mail Formal Features |
Requests |
|
|
|||||||
Group |
INFO Pre |
INFO Post |
INT GREET |
QUESTION |
R1 |
R2 |
R3 |
R4 |
COND R |
|
|
PreNNS |
0 |
0 |
X |
0 |
X |
X |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
F/Gr1NNS |
0 |
~ |
~ |
0 |
X |
X |
~ |
~ |
~ |
|
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
0 |
0 |
~ |
0 |
X |
X |
0 |
0 |
X |
|
|
Gr/PCNS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
X |
X |
0 |
0 |
X |
|
|
PhDS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
X |
X |
~ |
0 |
X |
|
|
|
Modals |
Polite |
|
|
|||||||
Group |
Can |
Could |
May |
Might |
Will |
Would |
PM |
DNGRD S |
DNTN |
|
|
PreNNS |
~ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
~ |
~ |
X |
0 |
0 |
|
|
F/Gr1NNS |
~ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
X |
~ |
~ |
0 |
0 |
|
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
X |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
X |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Gr/PCNS |
~ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
X |
~ |
X |
0 |
X |
|
|
PhDS |
X |
0 |
0 |
0 |
X |
X |
~ |
0 |
X |
|
|
|
Mitigating Supportive Moves |
||||||||||
Group |
PREP |
GRNDR Pre |
GRNDR Post |
COND S |
DISRM |
APOL |
PROP |
PROM |
GRAT |
COMP |
THNK |
PreNNS |
X |
X |
~ |
0 |
0 |
~ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
~ |
F/Gr1NNS |
X |
X |
X |
~ |
~ |
~ |
0 |
~ |
~ |
0 |
X |
UG/Gr2NNS |
X |
X |
X |
~ |
X |
0 |
0 |
0 |
~ |
0 |
~ |
Gr/PCNS |
X |
X |
X |
0 |
~ |
0 |
X |
0 |
~ |
0 |
~ |
PhDS |
X |
~ |
X |
~ |
X |
X |
X |
X |
~ |
~ |
~ |
|
Upgraders |
Length |
Mechanics |
|
|||||||
Group |
POL INT |
UPGRD S |
Ortho.UPGRD |
WPM |
SPM |
RPM |
SP |
CAP |
PUNC |
CONTR |
|
PreNNS |
~ |
0 |
~ |
75.1 |
6.5 |
1.7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
~ |
|
F/Gr1NNS |
~ |
~ |
~ |
134.1 |
8.1 |
2.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
UG/Gr2NNS |
~ |
0 |
0 |
106.4 |
6.7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr/PCNS |
0 |
~ |
0 |
102.9 |
5.9 |
1.9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
~ |
|
PhDS |
~ |
~ |
0 |
125.1 |
6.9 |
2.1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 < 25% average
occurrence
~ = 25 Š 49% average
occurrence
X > 50% average
occurrence
Prototypical PreNNS E-mail Request
|
|
# 1 |
|
1 |
About book
report in your 200-level History class. |
SUBJ |
|
2 |
Hello, Dr.
Peterson. |
GREET, TITLE, NAME |
|
3 |
This is SubjectÕs
Name, UH student in your 200-level History class. |
S NAME, AFFIL |
|
4 |
Today I'd like
to get your acceptance to extense turning in my book report. |
PREP |
|
5 |
I'd like to
spend more time to finish it. |
GRNDR Pre |
|
6 |
May I turn in
it by the end of the next week? |
R1: INT, MAY |
|
7 |
I'm sorry about
it. |
APOL |
|
8 |
Please reply to
e-mail. |
PM, R2: IMP |
|
9 |
Thank you. |
CLOS |
|
|
|
|
|
From: SubjectÕs Name To: ResearcherÕs Name Sent: 9/8/2003
5:28 PM Subject: About
book report in your 200-level History class. Hello, Dr.
Peterson. This is Tomoko SubjectÕs Name, UH student in your 200-level
History class. Today I'd like to get your acceptance to extense turning in my
book report. I'd like to spend more time to finish it. May I turn in it by
the end of the next week? I'm sorry about it. Please reply to e-mail. Thank
you. |
|
|
|
WPM |
63 |
||
SPM |
6 |
||
WPS |
10.5 |
||
RPM |
2 |
||
SP |
2% |
||
CAP |
0% |
||
PUNC |
8% |
||
CONTR |
100% |
||
|
|
Prototypical F/Gr1NNS E-mail Request
|
|
#19 |
|
1 |
homework
assignment |
SUBJ |
|
2 |
Dear Dr.
Peterson, |
GREET, TITLE, NAME |
|
3 |
I am SubjectÕs
Name, one of your student in History 200. |
S NAME, AFFIL |
|
4 |
I sent you an
email because I have a problem doing it. |
PREP |
|
5 |
You know I am
an immigrant student who came here two years ago and I have a little
difficulty in understanding the book. |
PREP |
|
6 |
I already
finish reading the book and starting to do the book report, which is due next
week. |
PREP |
|
7 |
However, I am
still on the introduction and I am struggling to continue it. |
GRNDR |
|
8 |
I don't think
that I can finish it and turn it in by the due date. |
GRNDR |
|
9 |
I need more
time to do the book report. |
WANT S |
|
10 |
So if you could
please give me
an extension to finish my book report. |
COND S, COULD PM, R1: IMP |
|
11 |
I hope you
understand. |
R2: WANT |
|
12 |
Thank You for
your kind consideration. |
THNK |
|
13 |
Sincerely, |
CLOS |
|
14 |
SubjectÕs Name
|
SIG |
|
|
|
|
|
From: SubjectÕs Name <SubjectÕs
E-mail Address> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:47:59 -1000 To: ResearcherÕs E-Mail Address Subject: homework assignment Dear Dr.
Peterson, I am SubjectÕs
Name, one of your student in History 200. I sent you an email because I
have a problem doing it. You know I am an immigrant student who came here two
years ago and I have a little difficulty in understanding the book. I already
finish reading the book and starting to do the book report, which is due next
week. However, I am still on the introduction and I am struggling to continue
it. I don't think that I can finish it and turn it in by the due date. I need
more time to do the book report. So if you could please give me an extension
to finish my book report. I hope you
understand. Thank You for your kind consideration. Sincerely, SubjectÕs
Name |
|
|
|
WPM |
134 |
||
SPM |
10 |
||
WPS |
13.5 |
||
RPM |
2 |
||
SP |
0% |
||
CAP |
4% |
||
PUNC |
17% |
||
CONTR |
14% |
||
|
|
Prototypical UG/Gr2NNS E-mail Request
|
|
#38 |
|
1 |
Research: NNS
of English |
SUBJ |
|
2 |
Dear Dr.
Peterson, |
GREET, TITLE, NAME |
|
3 |
This is SubjectÕs
Name, your student in the XXX course. |
S NAME, AFFIL |
|
4 |
I am running
late with some of my assignments due to personal reasons and I was wondering
if I could have a one-week extension to the deadline of the Critique, which
is due next week. |
GRNDR R1: COND, COULD |
|
5 |
As an
instructor myself, I fully understand the importance of being on time with
the requirements of a course, but the present situation has gone a bit out of
my control. |
DISRM GRNDR |
|
6 |
I'll be looking
forward to your response. |
R2: IND |
|
7 |
yours
sincerely, |
CLOS |
|
8 |
SubjectÕs
Name |
SIG |
|
|
|
|
|
From SubjectÕs Name <SubjectÕs E-mail Address> Sent Friday, September 26, 2003 12:07 pm To ResearcherÕs Name <ResearcherÕs E-Mail Address> Subject Research: NNS of English Dear Dr. Peterson, This is SubjectÕs Name, your student in the XXX course. I
am running late with some of my assignments due to personal reasons and I was
wondering if I could have a one-week extension to the deadline of the
Critique, which is due next week. As an instructor myself, I fully
understand the importance of being on time with the requirements of a course,
but the present situation has gone a bit out of my control. I'll be looking
forward to your response. yours sincerely, SubjectÕs Name |
|
|
|
WPM |
92 |
||
SPM |
4 |
||
WPS |
23 |
||
RPM |
2 |
||
SP |
0 |
||
CAP |
7% |
||
PUNC |
8% |
||
CONTR |
50% |
||
|
|
Prototypical GR/PCNS E-mail Request
|
|
#60 |
|
1 |
Subject HIS 614
Article critique |
SUBJ |
|
2 |
Dr. Peterson -- |
TITLE, NAME |
|
3 |
My name is SubjectÕs
Name and I'm in your HIS 614 class. |
S NAME, AFFIL |
|
4 |
Although I know
the article critique is due next week, I'm wondering
if I could have a few extra days to finish the paper. |
PREP R1: COND |
|
5 |
I've become
extremely interested in the topic and have been doing additional research to
better understand the writer's position. |
GRNDR |
|
6 |
While it's been
rewarding, I've found it consumed more time than I anticipated. |
GRNDR |
|
7 |
Please let me
know if an extension is possible. |
PM, R2: IMP, DNTN |
|
8 |
Thank you. |
CLOS |
|
9 |
SubjectÕs
Name |
SIG |
|
|
|
|
|
From SubjectÕs
Name <SubjectÕs E-mail Address> Sent Thursday,
March 13, 2003 3:32 pm To ResearcherÕs
Name <ResearcherÕs E-Mail Address> Subject HIS 614
Article critique Dr. Peterson -- My name is SubjectÕs
Name and I'm in your HIS 614 class. Although I know the article critique
is due next week, I'm wondering if I could have a few extra days to finish
the paper. I've become extremely interested in the topic and have been doing
additional research to better understand the writer's position. While it's
been rewarding, I've found it consumed more time than I anticipated. Please
let me know if an extension is possible. Thank you. SubjectÕs
Name |
|
|
|
WPM |
88 |
||
SPM |
5 |
||
WPS |
17.5 |
||
RPM |
2 |
||
SP |
0 |
||
CAP |
0 |
||
PUNC |
27% |
||
CONTR |
100% |
||
|
|
Prototypical PhDS
E-mail Request
|
|
#73 |
|
1 |
Research
Project |
SUBJ |
|
2 |
Dear Dr.
Peterson, |
GREET, TITLE, NAME |
|
3 |
My name is SubjectÕs
Name and I am a student in your CUL 611 this semester. |
S NAME, AFFIL |
|
4 |
I am writing
you to request an extension on the article critique that is due next week. |
R1: DRCT |
|
5 |
A crisis of
sorts has arisen at the hemp factory where I work and it looks like it will
require a significant amount of my time the next few days. |
GRNDR |
|
6 |
Would it be
possible to extend the deadline two or three days? |
R2: INT, PROP, WOULD |
|
7 |
I could have
the paper to you by Friday, Feb 21st at the very latest. |
PROM |
|
8 |
My apologies if
this is an inconvenience. |
APOL |
|
9 |
SubjectÕs
Name |
SIG |
|
|
|
|
|
From: SubjectÕs
Name <SubjectÕs E-mail Address> Sent: Tuesday,
February 11, 2003 8:55 pm To: ResearcherÕs
Name <ResearcherÕs E-Mail Address> Subject:
Research Project Dear Dr.
Peterson, My name is SubjectÕs
Name and I am a student in your CUL 611 this semester. I am writing
you to request an extension on the article critique that is due next
week. A crisis of sorts has arisen at the hemp factory where I work and
it looks like it will require a significant amount of my time the next few
days. Would it be
possible to extend the deadline two or three days? I could have the
paper to you by Friday, Feb 21st at the very latest. My apologies if
this is an inconvenience. SubjectÕs
Name |
|
|
|
WPM |
101 |
||
SPM |
6 |
||
WPS |
16.8 |
||
RPM |
2 |
||
SP |
0% |
||
CAP |
0% |
||
PUNC |
25% |
||
CONTR |
0% |
||
|
[1] NS and NNS used henceforth for ŅEnglish native
speakerÓ and ŅEnglish non-native speakerÓ respectively.