Lee Cynthia
-
Upload
irina-mihai -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Lee Cynthia
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
1/21
Knowledge & Discourse: Speculating on Disciplinary Futures, 2nd International Conference, Hong Kong, June, 2002
Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Theme: Voices from the Classroom
KD2 Proceedings Website: http://ec.hku.hk/kd2proc/default.asp [Eds. C. Barron, P. Benson & N. Bruce]
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse: A Study on the Use of Linguistic
Forms of Politeness by Chinese Learners of English
Cynthia Lee, Language Centre
Hong Kong Baptist University
Abstract
Politeness is a universal element in interaction, and linguistic politeness is the use
of language to attend to face needs to maintain smooth interaction and good social
relationships (Pan, 2000). Face work is important in Chinese society, and many
students speak up to teachers who have power in the traditional hierarchical
teacher-student classroom interaction. E-mail has initiated a new channel of
communication and social relationship between teachers and students, which in
return might bring some changes to their discourse.
This paper reports and describes the different types of students e-mail to teachers
and examines the linguistic forms of politeness and strategies, based on the
investigators own corpus which consists of the e-mail of Chinese undergraduate
and postgraduate students. The three politeness systems and the linguistic
strategies of involvement and/or independence proposed by Scollon & Scollon
(2001) were used as the base for the analysis. It was found that many students,
using the hierarchical politeness system, were inclined to use a number of
linguistic strategies of independence to show respect and distance in their e-mail.
Introduction
Politeness is a universal element in interpersonal communication, and linguistic
politeness is the use of language to attend to face needs to main smooth interaction and
good social relationships. Face work is important in both spoken and written
communication in Chinese society, particularly when the relationship between the
participants is asymmetrical. Traditional teacher-student classroom interaction is typical
of the asymmetrical and hierarchical relationship, because teachers are believed to be the
people who assume knowledge, authority and face wants. The advent of
communicating using technology such as e-mail has provided a speedy communicative
medium for the two parties to interact, which might induce students to consider being less
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
2/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee2
distant and more symmetrical with teachers in the virtual environment. However,
investigating linguistic politeness used by students in e-mail has not been well
documented. This paper aims to study the extent to which politeness is demonstrated by
Chinese learners of English in e-mail and identify their linguistic strategies. It first
discusses the role of politeness and linguistic strategies in communication, referring in
particular to Chinese culture. It then shows the linguistic politeness strategies in 107
e-mail messages written by two groups of Chinese learners of English who were doing
undergraduate and the postgraduate courses in a university in Hong Kong and explains
the results from a socio-cultural perspective. It is hoped that the results will contribute
to the study of interpersonal and electronic communication, especially in the Chinese
context.
Politeness in Face-to-Face Communication
Politeness is crucial in interpersonal and intercultural communication. From a social
perspective, politeness concerns the relationship between two participantsself (speaker)
and other (hearer) in an interaction (Leech, 1983). A speaker may want to maximize the
benefits, praise, sympathy and agreement with a hearer with a view to maintaining
politeness. From a socio-psychological perspective, politeness concerns the notion of
face, which is about the preservation of an individuals self-esteem (Brown and Levinson,
1987). The concept of face not only concerns politeness at the surface level by using
the right strategy, it also attends to the inner intrinsic levelself -esteem (Wong, 2000, p.
19). The highly abstract notion of face consists of two specific kinds of desire
(face-wants): the desire not to be unimpeded in ones action (negative face), and the
desire to be approved of (positive face). The concern of face wants results in a wide
range of strategies to avoid face-threatening acts (FTA). Although Brown and
Levinsons claim on face is said to be universal and is useful for providing a primary
descriptive framework to describe differences across cultures, the ways in which face is
realized might be subjected to cultural specifications such as personal style and the kinds
of act that threaten face.
In addition to the three principal theories of politeness, Scollon & Scollon (2001) propose
a more comprehensive society-based model to account for politeness across cultures,
which is also based on the concept of face and its relation with three factors1power (P),
distance (D) and weight of imposition (W) in interaction, as Brown and Levinson did.
However, Scollon & Scollon (2001) argue that the politeness system (face system) is just
part of the discourse system. The terms positive face and negative face wants as defined
by Brown and Levinson are confusing. In the society-based model, positive face is
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
3/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee3
termed involvement: paying attention to others, showing a strong interest in their affairs,
claiming common in-group membership of points of view, and using first names.
Negative face is termed independence: not putting words into others mouths, giving the
widest range of options, and using family names. There is always a paradox of strategy
use, because a speaker has to take into consideration the power difference with a hearer
(close or distant power relationship +P or P), the distance (little or no distance +D or D)
and the weight of imposition in a speech situation (more or less weight of imposition +W
or W)2. Three politeness systems are proposed mainly based on the factors of power
and distance: deference politeness system (-P, +D), solidarity politeness system (-P, -D)
and hierarchy politeness system (+P, +/-D). There are ten linguistic strategies for
achieving involvement and independence. When the participants see themselves as
being equal but treat each other at a distance, they may use more independence strategies.
When the participants see themselves as being unequal in social position and with
distance, they use more involvement strategies. The asymmetrical teacher-student
relationship in the Chinese context encourages students to use the hierarchical politeness
system. Their model has also been used to explain politeness in the Chinese context
(e.g. Pan, 2000) in a variety of face-to-face hierarchical and asymmetrical business and
family settings.
Pol iteness or lihmaauh3(? ?) in Chinese Cul tur e: Teachers and Students
The Chinese language has a lexicon rich in the description of face and face maintenance4
(Wong, 2000, p. 24). Face work denotes politeness or lihmaauh in Chinese culture,
two sides of the same coin. Lihmaauh is part of social etiquette; it is norm-oriented
and thus is an expected behaviour in the culture, whereas face work mainly involves
individual interpretation and feelings (Wong, 2000). Politeness or lihmaauh has been
crucial in Chinese culture since the time of Confucius. Gu (1990, pp. 23839) states that
the four underlying concepts for lihmaauh in China are respectfulness, modesty,
attitudinal warmth and refinement. Subsequent research on politeness in Chinese
face-to-face interactions on the bas is of the Western concepts of face has begun to emerge
(e.g., Gu, 1990; Mao, 1992; Chen, 1993, 1996; Pan, 2000; Wong, 2000). This social
etiquette and norm exists in many Chinese contexts today and is shown through words
and expressions.
Lihmaauh is soc ial etiquette demonstrated through language, such as the address system
in both asymmetrical formal and informal settings. It involves senior members of a
family according to age and rank (e.g., grandparents, aunts and uncles) or senior persons
according to rank in formal settings (e.g., teachers and bosses) (Wong, 2000, p. 152).
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
4/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee4
The behaviour is repeatedly reinforced both at home (informal) and in schools (formal)
(Bond, 1986, 1991). For instance, to seniors at schools, particularly to teachers who
assume knowledge and authority, very formal address forms, such as the title of the
senior or last name with a professional title, are used to denote seniority (Wong, 2000, p.
152). Some common expressions for requesting or seeking clarifications are:
(? ) ? ? , ? ?
(Whng) luh s, chng mahn
(Wong teacher, please ask )
(Teacher Wong, I want to ask)
Besides the formal address system, some expressions for asking for correction/ learning/
begging for teaching also denote seniority such as:
? ? ? ? ? / ? ? / ? ? / ? ? / ? ?
Chng louh si j gaau/ j dm/ chi gaau /chi sih/ chng gaau
(Please teacher point out the mistakes and teach/point out the mistakes/give
some teaching/ give a direction/ please teach)
The formal address system and the expressions of appreciating teachers instructions,
being corrected or receiving valuable instructions from teachers (e.g., ? ? ? /? ? /?
? /? ? : j gaau/ j dm/ chi gaau /chi sih/ chng gaau) demonstrate respect to seniors
(Gu 1990, p. 239). The examples above are only a few typical formulaic expressions
and are applicable to both speaking and writing, including the writing in contemporary
electronic communicatione-mail. The acts, regardless of their delivery mode, are
similar to the Maxims of Modesty and Approbation, proposed by Leech (1983). Wong
(2000) also found the two maxims particularly useful because they reflect some of the
values encompassed in the Chinese concept of politeness.
Politeness in E-mail Wr iti ng
Electronic mail (e-mail) or electronic discourse (Davis & Brewer, cited in Li 2000) is a
widespread communicative tool that focuses on exchanging ideas rather than on simply
delivering messages. Gains (1999) found that the majority of commercial and academic
e-mail was informative (45% and 41% respectively), followed by requests (32% and 13%)
and directives (11% and 0%). Recent studies on e-mail pay attention only to grammar,
orthography, text structure and features (Li, 2000; Li, 2000; Crystal, 1999, 2002). It is
agreed that e-mail has its unique language such as similes, ellipsis, short paragraphs
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
5/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee5
(Crystal, 2001) and features such as To, From, Date, Subject, and Body of the Message
(Li, 2000). Body of the Message usually contains Openingand Closing,greetings and
farewell. However, the writing style of the body message varies with individual users.
People who write e-mail have to be aware of the appropriate ways to present the message
(such the appropriate opening and closing), and politeness is one of the ways. However,
very little research has been done on politeness and e-mail writing, and the linguistic
forms of politeness used by Chinese students in English e-mail to seniors have not been
well documented.
Design of the Study
Research Questions
In the light of the gaps in the research of e-mail discourse and the importance of
politeness in formal and informal asymmetrical settings in Chinese culture, this study
attempts to examine three fundamental questions, focusing on the e-mail written by
Chinese learners of English to their teacher (the investigator):
1. What types of interaction are commonly found in the teacher-student e-mail,and what are their functions?
2. What kind of politeness system do Chinese learners of English assume inwriting e-mail to their teacher?
3. What are the linguistic politeness strategies used by Chinese learners of Englishin each type of e-mail?
Procedure
The data of the study consisted of e-mail written by both Chinese undergraduate and
postgraduate students in Hong Kong to me, their English instructor during the collection
period. All messages were written in English. I saved the e-mail messages when I
received them from the system every day. The students and I are ethnic Chinese, using
English as a second language in study and work. The university students major in
different disciplines, and they are my students from three main types of degree course and
writing workshop: English for Academic Purposes (EAP), Master of Arts (MA) in
Language Studies, and English Writing Enhancement Service. A total of 107 e-mail
messages were collected, 76 from undergraduate students and 31 from postgraduate
students.
In the study, an e-mail message is defined as text that begins with an automatic e-mail
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
6/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee6
header, such as To, From, Subject and Attachment. Forwarded e-mail without text
between the forwarding header and the original e-mail header were not counted as an
e-mail.
Linguistic Politeness Strategies
The study uses the linguistic politeness strategies proposed by Scollon & Scollon (2000)
for involvement (=positive face) and independence (=negative face) as the basis for
analysis. The model used a society-based approach, which has been used to explore
politeness in the Chinese academic and business settings (Pan 2001), as politeness is a
form of social etiquette. Since e-mail messages do not take place in a face-to-face
setting, some modifications were made on the linguistic politeness strategies, the agents
involved in the communication and the communication mode. The two agents involved
in e-mail communication are no longer speaker (S) and hearer (H), but sender (S) and
recipient (R), and they write to each other without using any facial expressions. Some
examples are given to illustrate the strategies. The linguistic politeness strategies are
used as reference and are not exhaustive. The following table summarizes the linguistic
politeness strategies used in the study based on Scollon & Scollons framework (2001):
Table 1
Linguistic Politeness Strategies
Involvement strategies:
1. Notice or attend to R (recipient), e.g. I like your presentation.2. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy), e.g. You always write so well.3. Claim in-group membership with R, The use of we, us, our etc.4. Claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge and empathy,
e.g. I agree that
5. Be optimistic.6. Indicate S (Sender) knows Rs (Recipients) wants and is taking them into
account.
7. Assume or assert reciprocity.8. Use given names and nicknames.9. Be voluble (write a lot).10. Use Rs language or dialect.
Independence strategies:
1. Make minimal assumptions about Rs wants, e.g. I dont know if you wantto send
2. Give R the option not to perform the act.
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
7/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee7
3. Minimize threat.4. Apologize.5. Be pessimistic.6. Dissociate S and R from the discourse.7. State a general rule.8. Use family names and titles.9. Be taciturn (write little).10.Use own language or dialect.(Source: Scollon & Scollon, 2001)
Results
Types and Functions of E -mail
The types of e-mail were classified according to the Body of the Message rather than the
Subject, because the title of the Subject does not always effectively reflect the nature of
the message. Informative e-mail was the most frequent type of correspondence
(U=65.80%, P=48.39%). This was followed by blank e-mail (U=11.84%), apology
(7.89%) and enquiry (7.89%) for the undergraduate students; but request (19.35%) and
thank-you e-mail (12.90%) for the postgraduate students. The average number of words
in the e-mail of the undergraduate students was about 32, whereas the average number of
words in the e-mail of the postgraduate students was 76.52. The average number of
words of the latter was 2.4 times more than that of the former. Table 2 is a summary of
the total frequency of occurrence for each type of e-mail. Table 3 is a breakdown for the
undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Table 2
A Summary of the Total Frequency of Occurrence
Functions of E-mail Total Frequency of Occurrence (%)
Informative 65 (60.75%)
Enquiry 9 (8.41%)
Blank (no body message) 9 (8.41%)
Apology 8 (7.48%)
Request 8 (7.48%)
Thank-you 7 (6.54%)
Others (invitation) 1 (0.93%)
Total of both groups 107
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
8/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee8
Table 3
A Breakdown of the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students
Functions of
E-mail
Frequency Percentage
Undergrad. (U) Postgrad. (P) Undergrad. (U) Postgrad. (P)
Informative 50* 15 65.80% 48.39%
Apology 6 2 7.89% 6.45%
Enquiry 6 3 7.89% 9.68%
Thank-you 3 4 3.95% 12.90%
Request 2 6 2.63% 19.35%
Blank (no body
message)
9 0 11.84% 0%
Others(invitation)
0 1 0% 3.23%
Total 76 31 100% 100%
*The highlighted numbers are the three most frequent types of e-mail and their percentage.
An e-mail that is informative is glossed as a message that aims to give a recipient some
(useful) information. For instance,
I want to inform you that I have found that material about prepositions. (U)
This is the first written assignment. (U)Here is attached POLS3720_Term_Paper.doc for WES today. For the presentation,
I think I can finish it myself. (U)
I can use my e-mail and the new password. Thanks. (U)
A request e-mail is interpreted as a message in which a sender asks a recipient to do
something. For instance,
I will write some essays each month in addition to the assignments, and I hope you
can correct them for me. (U)
An enquiry e-mail consists of a message from a sender who asks a recipient a question in
order to find out more ideas, opinions or information for a thought or an action.
I would like to change my question to a new question: How can a public relations
practitioner become an effective management counselor? Shall I change my
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
9/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee9
question, and what do you think about my new question? (U)
I would like to know, is it possible to postpone my presentation to next week?(U)
Can I change my topic? (U)
Messages in which a sender says sorry for an action and thanks a recipient for an action
or favour done for the sender are an apology e-mail and a thank you e-mail.
Thank you for your reply. Your answer is of importance to the success of my
honours project. (U)
Sorry for not coming to WES this Tuesday morning. Actually I forgot to submit my
file to you also. Sorry! (U)
Some informative e-mail, however, also consisted of an apology, a request, a reason for
an act, a thank-you, a suggested act, and a reminder of an act or an enquiry. For
instance,
Thank you for your teaching. This is my assignment one. (U) (thank-you +
informative)
Here is the bibliography of my essay. I want to ask about citation. (U)
(informative+ enquiry)
Here is my honours project; please take a look. (U) (informative + request)
This is the first assignment. Sorry to hand it in so late and thanks for checking.(U)
(informative + apology + thank-you)
Nine e-mail messages from undergraduate students consisted of no message in the body
and had no titles for the Subject. Only the senders identity (Student ID number) and an
attached file were found. The only way to know the type of e-mail was to open the
attached file. The following is the screen printout of this type of e-mail.
Figure 1
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
10/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee10
Linguistic Politeness Strategies used by Chinese Learners of English
Examining the linguistic politeness strategies used by the students in their e-mail is a way
to reveal the concept of politeness and the politeness system between teachers and
students in the Chinese culture. Following the linguistic politeness strategies proposed by
Scollon & Scollon (2000) as the framework to analyse politeness in the e-mail discourse,
it was found that the students used 11 independence and involvement strategies, but the
number of independence strategies slightly outnumbers the involvement strategies (six vs.
five) in the three parts of an e-mail: Opening, Body Message and Closing. The six
identified independence strategies were:
Opening: 1. Address the recipients (=investigators) title and family name.Body: 2. Apologise for wrongdoings/offences.
3. State the general rule or necessary information and give therecipient (=investigator) an option not to do the action.
4. Make minimal assumptions about recipients (=investigators)wants.
5. Be taciturn.Closing: 6. Use formal pre-closing system.The five involvement strategies were:
Opening:
Body: 1. Notice or attend to recipient (=investigator).
2. Indicate sender (=student) knows recipients (=investigators) want
and is taking them into account.
3. Exaggerate.
4. Be optimistic.
Closing: 5. Use English name or initials.
Involvement strategies were frequently used by the postgraduate students in their request
and informative e-mail (50% and 20%) and by undergraduates when they thanked (33.3%)
and made a promise to submit their assignments (22%).
The following presents the linguistic politeness strategies identified from the different
types of e-mail. They are supported with relevant written discourse and figures.
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
11/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee11
Linguistic Politeness Strategies Identified in the Opening
Address system: Use title and family name
In the Opening, almost all students addressed the investigator in one of the following
ways. Only one student addressed the investigator by her English name.
1. Dear + Title + Surname: Dear Miss Lee2. Dear + Academic title + Surname: Dear Dr. Lee3. Title + Surname: Miss Lee4. Academic title + Surname: Dr. Lee5. Position: Lecturer
Linguistic Politeness Strategies Identified from the Body of the Message
Notice or attend to R (recipient)
Only one student used this strategy.
Hows your teaching these days?
Be apologetic.
The apologetic tone was commonly found in some informative and apology e-mail.
When the students had to inform the investigator that they were not able to come to the
meeting or submit the assignment on time, they always used an apologetic tone followed
by a reason. In the apology e -mail, they tended to apologise first and then give relevant
information such as a reason or an excuse and a suggestion. Apologetic behaviour, which
is one linguistic strategy of independence, was frequently found. For instance,
Apology for an offence/ violation of a social norm:
I forgot to tell you that I have sent you the file of my re-written assignment of an
application letter. I am very sorry about it and now Im sending it to you again5. (U)
Apology for an offence/ violation of a social norm, followed by a reason/ a repair
action
Here is the final [part] of my honours project. There are many pages. I am so sorry
that I cannot send a part of the honours project beforehand because the
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
12/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee12
questionnaires were received so late, that [and] all parts linked with each other. I
would suggest correctingfrom Methodology to Conclusion. The sections prior to
Methodology have been checked by my supervisor and you. (U)
Im sorry to tell you that the meeting on this Thursday has to be postponed because I
havent finished my writing yet. (U)
The attached file is my draft on session 2. Im sorry that I hand in my work so late
because of fever. I am just managed to hand in my work. Im really sorry for the
inconvenience caused to you. (U)
I am terribly sorry that I cant meet you this afternoon, for I have got an urgent job
from my supervisor this afternoon. Sorry! (P)
I am very sorry. I have something to do that Im unable to present on Monday
language lesson. (U)
State the general rule or necessary information + give the recipient an option not to
perform the action.
In the enquiry or request e-mail, students were inclined to give the investigator the option
not to perform the action. In other words, they were concerned about the investigators
negative face wants, and some would state the general rule or the necessary information
to the investigator for her consideration. For instance,
Enquiry
I will have a school activity after school on 3rd
May but I can arrive at 5 p.m. Is it
possible? If not, please arrange another timefor me. (U)
Sorry to tell you that I am unable to finish the presentation outline by this evening.
May that be okay if I send it to you by tomorrow morning? (U)
Thank you for your patience. I will be free on May 15 afternoon and 16 all day, or the
week after. How about you? (U)
I was wondering if you could kindly bring a copy on the work of xxx tomorrow. (P)
Request
I would like to send the whole honours project to you to have a look. The deadline of
sending the honours project is 25 April. You can call me to discuss the project if you
are free. (U)
Here is my corrected honours project, please take a look if you have time. (U)
Invitation
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
13/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee13
The class wants to invite you for a casual dinner gathering on 5 Oct evening.
Please let me know if you can join us at xxx Restaurant. (U)
Make minimal assumptions about recipients wants.
In informative and requesting e-mails, some students wrote:
Informative
I send my honours project to you once again as I am not sure whether you have
received my document. Thanks. (U)
Request
I will write some essays each month, and I hope you can correct them for me. So do I
say it is an extra work for you, would you like to accept it? (U)
I am a bit slow; I think it would help if I can tape the lectures. Here I would like to
seek your permission in allowing me to record your lectures. Please let me know if it
is acceptable to you. (P)
The students had made some assumptions about the investigators wants. They assumed
that the investigator was waiting for the honours project, would consider the correction of
some essays as extra work, and would like to be asked for permission to record her
lectures.
Indicate S knows Rs (=investigators) wants and is taking them into account.
The students cared about the investigators wants and feelings. In the request e-mail
(e.g., asking the investigator to read their work or changing the consultation time), they
would express their concern of the investigators face and wants.
Request
Can I submit the final draft on 21 May to your office? I know this will interrupt the
working schedule you have planned and cause you inconvenience . Im so sorry. (P)
I will go to conference for the rest of this week. Maybe next week is okay for you
too. (P)
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
14/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee14
Exaggerate
Two students emphasized the significance of having feedback from the investigator.
Thank
Thank you for your reply. Your answer is of great importance to the success of my
honours project. (U)
Request
I hope you will help me scale new heights in both my knowledge and career. (P)
I think you are the most suitable person in this respect. I hope you will help me with
this. (P)
Be optimistic.
In the informative e-mail, when the students told the investigator when they would hand
in the assignments and the contents of the assignments, they usually made optimistic
statements using a definite tone such as I will or I hope. For instance,
Informative
I am late to hand in the re -written assignment because I feel sick. Therefore Im
handing it in today and I will hand in my proposal on Wednesday morning by e-mail.
(U)
I am really sorry for the late submission of the first assignment. I hope I can
compensate it by doing well in the coming presentation and other tasks. (U)
I will talk about TV commercials, and I will report more about the types of structure
of TV commercials. (U)
I will apply for extension and I will send the application letter to the department.
(U)
A few students did not conform to any of the linguistic strategies. Rather they are
assertive and gave little or no choice about performing the act when making an enquiry or
informing the investigator of a message or an action. For instance, in some informative
e-mail, students wrote,
Attached are th e files of Introduction and the Literature Review. Would you mind
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
15/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee15
checking the mistakes of the highlighted part for me? (U)
Please find the attached correction for my assignment Mahler, and I have just
received a notice that I need to do some setup for the Lunch Concert of Girls Choir
on Wednesday. Therefore, may I have the second meeting from 11:30 to 12 p.m? (U)
I would like to meet you on next Tuesday afternoon at 3:30. (U)
Attached is the unfinished essay. According to the number of words, it is far from
satisfactory. However, I want to focus on the logic of the argument when we meet on
Tuesday. (U)
One can argue that the students were explicit in their requests and made them politely by
using forms of expression such as Would you mind ?, May I have , and I would
like to .
Taciturnity.
Taciturnity means the speaker (here, the sender) says very littlea few words onlyor
laughs. The blank body message that went with the senders ID number, Subject and the
attachment were found in the undergraduates e-mail (Please refer to Figure 1).
Linguistic politeness strategies identified in the closing of different types of e-mail.
Salutation: formal pre-closing
Thirty-eight out of 76 undergraduate e-mail messages (50%) and 19 out of 38
postgraduate e-mail (50%) had a proper salutation and a closing. Undergraduates used
seven types of expression for salutation. The sequence was: (Best/Warm) Regards
(36.86%), Yours (28.95%), (Yours) sincerely (23.68%), Love (2.63%), Best wishes
(2.63%), From (2.63%) and Yours faithfully (2.63%). By contrast, the postgraduate
students used only four types of expression. The most frequent ones were: (Best/Warm)
regards (73.68%), followed by (Yours) sincerely (10.53%), Best wishes (10.53%) and
Respectfully yours (5.26%).
Closing: informal and intimate closing
An average of 70% of both groups of students put their English name rather than their
full name at the end of the e-mail. Of the undergraduate students, 49 (73.68%) put their
English names; however, 20 students (26.32%) did not mention their names. Of the
postgraduate students, 31 (81.58%) wrote their English names, 4 (10.53%) used their full
names (English name + surname), 2 (5.26%) did not put down their names and 1 (2.63%)
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
16/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee16
used initials.
A summary of the data is shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4
Salutation: Formal Pre-closing
(a) Undergraduate
students
(b) Postgraduate
students
Overall (a+b)
(Best/Warm)
Regards
14 (36.84%) 14 (73.68%) 28 (49.12%)
Yours 11 (28.95%) 0 (0%) 11 (19.30%)
(Yours) Sincerely 9 (23.68%) 2 (10.53%) 11 (19.30%)
Love 1 (2.63%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.75%)Best Wishes 1 (2.63%) 2 (10.53%) 3 (5.26%)
From 1 (2.63%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.75%)
Yours faithfully 1 (2.63%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.75%)
Respectfully yours 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%) 1 (1.75%)
Total 38 19 57
Table 5
Closing: Informal Closing
(a) Undergraduate
students
(b) Postgraduate
students
Overall (a)+(b)
End with an initial 0 (0%) 1 (2.63%) 1 (0.93%)
End with an
English name
49 (73.68%) 31 (81.58%) 80 (74.77%)
End with no name
given
20 (26.32%) 2 (5.26%) 22 (20.56%)
End with full name
(Eng.
Name+surname)
0 (0%) 4 (10.53%) 4 (3.74%)
Total 69 (100%) 38 (100%) 107 (100%)
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
17/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee17
Discussion
Types and Functions of E -mail
Similar to Gainss findings (1999), the majority of the e-mail was informative. In the
same way as people interact in face-to-face communication, e-mail is an electronic
communication tool for people to exchange information and ask questions. The
students make use of this channel to tell and ask the investigators about thoughts, ideas
and action, and the data showed that the two groups of students used e-mail in a similar
way despite the difference in the frequency of occurrence of a few types of e-mail. It is
interesting to note that about 11.84% of the e -mail sent by the undergraduate students had
no Body messages. The nature or function of the e-mail could only be noted from the
features of Subject and Attachment (if any). No Body message may cause
inconvenience and irritation to the recipient, who has to search for hints (e.g., from
Subject or Student Number) elsewhere. This practice may be common among
undergraduate students, who take it for granted that the recipients are wise enough to
identify the content of the e-mail from the headings. However, a phrase in the Body of
the e-mail telling the recipient what the attachment is and what it is for will definitely
enhance electronic communication. It will be useful if the students could find reasons
for not writing anything in the Body of an e-mail, to increase their awareness of the
extent to which blank Body messages affect interpersonal communication.
In addition to Gainss findings for academic e-mail (1999), the data consisted of other
types of e-mail not mentioned in the literature, such as thank-you, invitation and enquiry
e-mail. The nature of interaction and the participants involved in the study generated a
variety of e-mail. A larger corpus of data might be useful to find more about the types
and functions of e-mail in student-teacher interactions and to inves tigate e-mail returned
by teachers.
Politeness System and Linguistic Forms of Politeness used by Chinese Learners of
English
Politeness is an essential element in communication and exists in different cultures,
though it is realized and emphasized in different ways. In Chinese culture, politeness or
lihmaauh is important when one interacts with a senior member of the family or an
authoritative person such as a teacher. The data from the study showed that the students
used both independence and involvement strategies in their e-mail, and the former
slightly outnumbered the latter. Although the students seem to use both types of
strategy, closer investigation shows that the hierarchical politeness system prevails, and
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
18/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee18
the involvement strategies of (1) exaggeration, (2) notice or attend to recipient and (3)
indicate sender knows recipients wants and is taking them into account in request,
thank-you and informative e-mail are indeed a respectable way of speaking to seniors in
Chinese culture, particularly when juniors are seeking advice or assistance from seniors.
The involvement strategies are indeed an implicit indication of power difference and
distance between the students and the investigator.
Asymmetry and power difference between the two parties are explicitly shown through
the use of independence strategies in different parts of the e-mail. In the Opening, they
formally address the investigator using the academic title, family name and/or position.
In the Body, they used an apologetic tone, gave the investigator an option to perform an
act, made minimal assumptions about the investigators wants, and wrote very little
(taciturnity). A great majority of students made formal salutations in the pre-closing.
The inclination of the students to speak up to the investigator may reflect their perception
of themselves as being lower in power and therefore maintaining greater distance with
their teacher. However, they confirm the norm and the social etiquette of lihmaauh to
seniors in the culture and should not be imposing when making requests or giving
information to seniors. Emphasizing the importance of the investigators feedback on the
students work and expressing optimistic intentions are a demonstration of the underlying
concept of respect in lihmaauh to teachers in Chinese culture (Gu, 1990). In addition,
the formal address system takes into account the investigators positive face wants. Many
Chinese learners of English are not used to addressing a teacher by first name unless they
are permitted to do so6. The use of a formal address system can be interpreted as an act
of respect or agreed social etiquette widely practised in the culture.
Application of Scollon & Scollons Linguistic Politeness Strategies
The linguistic politeness strategies proposed by Scollon & Scollon (2001) are applicable
to the written mode of communication. However, a few strategies such as exaggeration,
notice or attention to recipient, and giving the recipient an option not to perform the
action deserve deeper thought and careful interpretation in the light of the language users
culture. Emphasizing the important role of teacher and maximizing the benefits that can
be gained, paying tribute and being considerate (e.g., giving an option to the teacher not
to act) are frequently found in the postgraduates e-mail. A closer investigation of the
nature of the exaggeration made by the students in the study seems to show that it is not
used for seeking approval or showing interest, as described by Scollon & Scollon, but it
is indeed a sign of respect of authority and power in a hierarchy in the Chinese culture.
The postgraduate students who are more mature in age and learning attitude tend to
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
19/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee19
understand the power of the strategy, especially when they made a request to the
investigator who shares the same socio-cultural background. The occasional use of
involvement strategies for making requests, thanking and making a promise for
submission of work also indicates the students respect for their teacher. Students express
their praise, thanks and commitments for any comments and feedback from teachers,
perhaps because of the significant role of teachers in education, a significance is
conveyed through linguistic expressions (e.g., ? / ? ? / ? ? /? ? /: j gaau/ j
dm/ chi gaau /chi sih/ chng gaau). These strategies, in fact, are positive because they
demonstrate the acts of modesty and humility and observe the norm of social respect to
seniors such as teachers. Although respecting teachers and speaking to teachers politely
might not be the true representation in the Chinese context in some places, traditional
social etiquette to seniors to a large extent holds true in written English in the study. Thus,
it is possible to say that the students are still using the hierarchical politeness system but
deliberately using the solidarity politeness system on a few occasions to tune down the
specific speech acts (e.g., request).
Conclusion
To conclude, the analysis of the nature and linguistic politeness strategies of the students
e-mail indicates that the majority of students explicitly and implicitly assume the
hierarchical politeness systems with a view to demonstrating respect and modesty and
following the cultures social etiquette. Although the occasional use of involvement
strategies indicates that some students may want to make a change in their relationship
with the investigator, they implicitly speak up to the investigator, and distance between
the two parties still exists. However, the data of the study that came only from the
investigator, and the participants who are from the same socio-economic groupChinese
tertiary learners of English, may not be able to generalize any definite conclusions. The
results should be treated with caution. It would be more useful if the same kind of study
were based on a larger e-mail corpus, e-mail collected between Chinese learners of
English and their teachers who are native English speakers and Chinese speakers of
English. A cross-cultural comparison could be made, which would enable us to see how
politeness works and see differences (if any) when Chinese learners of English write
e-mail to teachers who are also ethnic Chinese and to teachers who are native English
speakers.
Acknowledgements
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
20/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee20
This study was supported by the Faculty Research Grant (20012002) of The Hong Kong
Baptist University. I would like to thank my Research Assistant, Ms Marylu Chan, for
assisting me in collating and analysing the students e-mails.
References
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bond, Michael Harris (1986). (ed.) The psychology of the Chinese people . Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Bond, Michael Harris (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong
Kong; New York: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Rong (1993). Responding to compliments: a contrastive study of politeness
strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 20 , 4975.
Chen, Rong (1996). Food-plying and Chinese politenes. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 7, (3 & 4), 14355.
Crystal, David (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gains, Jonathan (1999). Electronic maila new style of communication or just a new
medium?: An investigation into the text features of e-mail.English for Specific
Purposes, 18 (1), 81101.
Gu, Yueguo (1990). Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese.Journal of Pragmatics, 14,
23757.
Leech, Geoffrey (1983). The Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Li, Lan (2000). E-mail: a challenge to standard English?English Today, 16(4), 2329.
Li, Yong Yan (2000). Surfing e-mails.English Today, 16(4), 3055.
Mao, Lu Ming (1992). Invitational discourse and Chinese identity.Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication, 13 (1), 7996.
Pan, Yuling (2000).Politeness in Chinese face-to-face interaction . Stanford, CT: Ablex
Pub. Corp.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse
approach . Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Wong, Song Mei-Lee (2000). Cross cultural communication: Politeness and face in
Chinese culture. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
1 The same three factors are mentioned in Brown and Levinsons book (1987, p. 15). They are:relative power (P) of H over S, the social distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the
-
7/28/2019 Lee Cynthia
21/21
Politeness and E-Mail Discourse
KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003 Cynthia Lee21
imposition (R) involved in doing the face-threatening act (FTA).2 Weight of imposition (W) is not as crucial as distance (D) and power (P).3Lihmaauh is the Cantonese pronunciation in Yale Romanization found in The English-Cantonese
Dictonary, published by New Asia-Yale-in-China Chinese Language Centre, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong (1996) (2nd
Printing). Yale Romanization is used for other Cantonese
expressions in the paper.4 Wong (2000, p. 24) has pointed out five expressions concerning the notion of face and facemaintenance in Chinese culture: (1) ai mianzi: love face (be concerned about face-saving), (2) youmianzi: to have face (enjoy due respect), (3)gei mianzi : give face (show due respect for someonesfeelings), (4) tiu mianzi: lose face (shame/ humiliation), and (5) baoquan mianzi: save face
(maintain ones self-respect/ reputation).5 The extracted quotations from the students e-mails were corrected and edited.
6 Some teachers might tell their students t o address them by their first names.