![3D"Interfaz](3D"7.Gomez_Salazar_archivos/image003.jpg")
![3D"Cuadro](3D"7.Gomez_Salazar_archivos/image004.gif")
<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font-fam=
ily:
Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana;background:white;mso-highlight:white;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-bidi-font-style:italic'>
Bus=
iness
students’ email requests: pragmatic production and perception of power
and social distance
Peticiones de estudiantes de negocios en correos electrónicos:
producción pragmática y percepción de poder y distancia
social
Universitat Jaume I
al441688@uji.es
Patr=
icia
Salazar-Campillo
Universitat Jaume I /IULMA
csalazar@uji.es
A=
BSTRACT
This study
investigates Business and Administration students’ pragmatic producti=
on
and perception of high-imposition email requests. Thirty L1 Spanish students
with a high proficiency level in English wrote four re=
questive
emails by means of Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs). These tasks included =
two
distinct social variables: more power and social distance (+P, +D) in emails
addressed to the manager, and less power and social distance (-P, -D) in em=
ails
addressed to a colleague. Results show that students opted for conventional=
ly
indirect strategies regardless of power and social distance, and that only
closings partly contributed to soften the degree of imposition. As for
pragmatic perception, the students who were interviewed reported they were
aware of the difference in power and social distance of the addressees;
however, this awareness did not show in the strategies used in their reques=
ts.
Keywords: email, requests, perception, power, business <= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso= -fareast-font-family: Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana;color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB'><= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
RESU=
MEN
En este estudio se investiga la
producción y percepción pragmática de peticiones con a=
lto
nivel de imposición en correos electrónicos escritos por
estudiantes de Administración de Empresas. Treinta estudiantes espa&=
ntilde;oles
con alto nivel de inglés redactaron cuatro correos electrónic=
os
de petición mediante Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs). Estas tareas
incluían dos variables sociales diferentes: mayor poder y distancia
social (+P, +D) en los correos dirigidos al director, y menor poder y dista=
ncia
social (-P, -D) en aquellos dirigidos a un colega de trabajo. Los resultados
muestran que los estudiantes optaron por estrategias convencionalmente
indirectas con independencia del nivel de poder o distancia social, y que s=
olo
los cierres contribuyeron en parte a mitigar el nivel de imposición.=
En
lo que respecta a la percepción pragmática, los estudiantes
entrevistados señalaron que eran conscientes de la diferencia de pod=
er y
distancia de los receptores; sin embargo, esta concienciación no
cristalizó en las estrategias empleadas en sus peticiones.
Palabras
clave: correo electrónico, peticiones, percepción, poder,
negocios.
1. INTRODUCTI=
ON
According to the Radicati Email Statisti=
cs
Report (2023-2027), the expected number of worldwide email users will be ov=
er
4, 800 billion by the end of 2027, that is, over half the world population.=
The
universal use of email in business communication is due to its “immed=
iacy,
practical efficiency, and organizational exigency collectively” (Louhiala-Salminen, 1999: 103). In addition, in inter-=
and
intra-organisational communication, hierarchical relationships are present,=
and
the notion of negative face (Brown and Levinson, 1987), or the need for res=
pect
and autonomy, has to be considered in these
status-unequal relationships. This is a concern for businesspeople whose L1=
is
not English, as communication with partners or other companies in the busin=
ess
context is frequently carried out in English as the lingua franca (Hendriks,
2010). Therefore, the appropriate use of face work and the English language=
in
emails may pose serious problems for non-native speakers in the business
setting. In Guffey and Loewy’s (2011: 157) words, “Although e-m=
ail
is recognized as the mainstay of business communication, it’s not alw=
ays
done well”. In this sense, as future workers, owners or managers of
companies, English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) students have the compelling
need to develop their sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competence when writing emails to en=
sure
smooth interactions and avoid negative reactions on the recipient.
For some decades now, a vast body of research has centred on the
analysis of different degrees of imposition in request=
ive
emails in institutional contexts, especially between students and faculty (=
for
example, Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2018). However,
results are inconclusive due to the myriad of
variables at stake (high/low imposition, level of proficiency in the L2,
gender, to mention but a few). For example, whereas some research points to
students’ choice of formality and deference by means of polite strate=
gies
(Bella, 2021) and formal address terms (Savić and Đorđevi=
63;,
2021), other investigations reveal that EFL students may encounter problems
when choosing the appropriate address terms (Schauer, 2021). With regards to
students’ perception of sociocontextual
variables in emails, Codina-Espurz (2022) claim=
ed
that students were aware of these factors, especially among peers in order =
not
to jeopardize their relationship.
Research on business students’ production and perception of
<= o:p>
2.1
Requests
in the business context
The fact that emails are extensively used in the business world is
directly linked to a number of advantages over
business letters. On the one hand, their high-speed transmission and low co=
st
are some of the advantages of email communication (Hashemian and Farhang-Ju,
2020); on the other hand, due to their asynchronous nature, the sender and =
the
receiver(s) do not have to be available at the same time (Beer, 2017) and
furthermore, emails allow for the possibility of attaching documents, photo=
s,
etc. to provide additional information (Thongtong,
2022).
Two decades ago, Tassabehji and Vakola (2005) claimed that email was already “an
integral part of how people conduct their business” (p. 66). This
statement has been further corroborated by Kozí=
k
and Slivová (2014: 69) “email is a
preferred form of communication in companies”. However, input from
Business textbooks or courses may not mirror actual communication in this
context (Kankaanranta, 2006), and prospective
professionals (i.e., Business students) may commit pra=
gmalinguistic
mistakes resulting in negative consequences on the recipient’s part. =
Due
to the imbalance of power in business situations, the act of requesting
2.2
Perception of imposition in email
requests
In high-imposition email requests, negative face, or the fact of not
being impeded by others (Brown and Levinson, 1987) has =
to
be accounted for, especially in asymmetrical relationships. In this sense,
three social variables may threat the recipient’s negative face: soci=
al
distance, power and imposition. Requesters need to acknowledge and perceive
those variables and therefore use politeness strategies to mitigate
high-imposing email requests.
For some years now and in the
academic setting, a body of research has investigated lecturers’ and
students’ perceptions of imposition and (im)politeness
in requestive emails (e.g., Economidou-Kogetsidis,
2016; Hashemian and Farhang-Ju, 2019). Overall, lecturers’ main conce=
rns
focus on appropriate openings and closings and language accuracy, whereas
students seem to put more emphasis on email content than on form.
In the business context,
evaluators’ perception of emails sent from employees to managers in <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Aldhulaee’s (2017) study reported that indirect
strategies (in the form of query preparatory) should be used to redress the
level of imposition and increase the politeness of the request. However, so=
me
other research has showed opposing results: for example, Louhiala-Salminen
et al. (2005) argued that their Finnish participants opted for more direct
requests in an attempt to make communication more
efficient and goal-oriented. Xie (2009) also claimed that the main goal of
business communication is to get business done, so directness was preferred=
in
this particular context.
Recently, Hendriks et al. (20=
23)
showed that a less polite email in a work-related context was perceived as =
more bossy and email writers were regarded as less com=
petent
if they underused modification. In a study on hyperneg=
ative
interpretation of workplace emails, Sillars and Zorn (2021) warned about the
potential recipient’s perception of face attacks if the message did n=
ot
conform to the appropriate use of the email, especially if the sender was a
subordinate.
3.
THE STUDY
Unlike the vast body of research focusing on either natural or elici=
ted
student-faculty email interaction, the novelty of this investigation lies in
the fact that the participants were Business and Administration students who
were required to compose emails framed in a context which may be close to
situations they can face in their professional career using English as a li=
ngua
franca. Moreover, a small sample of participants was interviewed so that th=
ey
could provide insights regarding perception of the variables involved in th=
e emails
they wrote. For the purposes of the present study, the following Research
Questions (RQs) were put forward:
RQ1: What strategies and framing moves do Business and Administration
students use in their emails in +/-P and +/-D high-imposition requests?
RQ2: Do Business and Administration students perceive +/-P and +/-D =
in
high-imposition requests?
3.1 Participants
The participants of the study were 30 Spanish EFL students (24 femal=
es,
6 males) aged 18-20 with a C1 level of proficiency according to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages. They were undergraduates of =
Bachelors’ Degree in Business Administration in a
private institution in Valencia (Spain) who had not been instructed in the
pragmatics of email requests in a business context. In addition, their Engl=
ish
textbook mainly focused on linguistic aspects such as grammar or vocabulary,
thus resulting in an emphasis on their linguistic competence but not on the=
ir
pragmatic one. The participants consented to have their emails as part of
research, provided that their names were deleted so anonymity was preserved=
.
3.2 Instrument and data collection procedure
Data were collected by means of Discourse Completion Tasks. This typ=
e of
tasks has extensively been used in speech act research because they allow f=
or
control of social variables and thus comparability of data. Despite some cl=
aims
(e.g., Beebe and Cummings, 1985) on their artificiality, that is, participa=
nts
have time to think about what to say in a particular situation so they can
organize their ideas (Cohen, 1996) and lack of authenticity (i.e., DCTs may=
not
reflect real language use), if properly contextualised these tasks may mirr=
or
life-like situations. In the present study, DCTs were chosen as instruments=
to
collect data since they represent written discourse and thus served well for
the purposes of this investigation, which did not focus on oral interaction=
.
DCTs involved a high imposition on the email recipient, as either th=
ey
were requests on deadline extension and action (writing a reference letter)=
in
the case of the emails to the manager or swapping shifts and co-lead a meet=
ing
with a very short notice in the emails to a colleague (see Appendix 1). The
difference lay in the power relationship and social distance between
interlocutors, ranging from +P, +D in the manager situations and -P, -D in =
the
colleague ones. For the sake of simplicity, the former situations were code=
d as
+P and the latter as –P.
In order to collect data on students’ perception of power and social
distance, four volunteer students carried out a tailor-made interview, that=
is,
they were asked to make comments on the specific strategies they had used w=
hen
writing the emails. These interviews took place by means of the Zoom platfo=
rm
depending on the students’ availability.
3.3 Data analysis
A mixed-methods approach was employed to examine the data from the
students’ emails. For RQ1, strategies to perform requests, internal a=
nd
external modification and framing moves were analysed quantitatively, where=
as
the sample of interviews for perception of power and social distance
relationships were addressed qualitatively in order to<=
/span>
answer RQ2. On some occasions, more than one request was performed in some
students’ emails. In these cases, only the first request was analysed=
as
the second or subsequent request was a reformulation or repetition of the f=
irst
one.
The study followed Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) coding scheme
described in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Project (CCSARP) to
examine the strategies students employed in their requ=
estive
emails; however, a modified version was used to fit the strategies that
occurred in our data (for example, there were no occurrences of Non-conventionally indirect strategies). The analysis =
to
answer RQ 1 centred on the head act (i.e., the request) and on the mitigati=
ng
elements (internal and external modifications) that contribute to soften the
request; in addition, Salazar-Campillo and Codina-Espu=
rz’s
(2018) typology was used to examine the framing moves in the emails.
4.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
RQ1 asked about the strategies and framing moves participants used in
their requestive emails. As for Direct strategi=
es, no
occurrences of Direct questions were found (see Table 1), a result which
differs from Leopold’s (2015) findings, which revealed that questions
were more often used with recipients sharing a professional and formal
relationship, that is, when there was social distance between interlocutors=
. In
the case of Performatives, the same percentage (10.7%) was found irrespecti=
ve
of being hedged or unhedged in +P requests, but Performatives hedged increa=
sed
to 33.3% in –P situations. The use of the verb “ask”
by non-native speakers, which is indicative of a more direct request, is in
line with Park et al.’s (2021) results, since their Korean profession=
als
tended to employ this performative verb more often than the native speakers counterparts.
|
|
|
+P |
-P |
|
|
|
N &nbs=
p;
% |
N &nbs=
p;
% |
|
Direct (D) |
|
|
|
|
Direct question |
|
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
Performative unhedged |
|
3 &nbs=
p;
10.7 |
2 &nbs=
p;
16.6 |
|
Performative hedged |
|
3 &nbs=
p;
10.7 |
4 &nbs=
p;
33.3 |
|
Want/like statement |
|
15 &nbs=
p;
53.2 |
4 &nbs=
p;
33.3 |
|
Expectation statement |
|
1 &nbs=
p;
3.6 |
2 &nbs=
p;
16.6 |
|
Pre-decided statement |
|
1 &nbs=
p;
3.6 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
Locution derivable |
|
5 &nbs=
p;
17.9 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
TOTAL D |
|
28 &nbs=
p;
100 |
12 &nbs=
p;
100 |
|
Conventionally indirect (CI) |
|
|
|
|
Query preparatory |
|
|
|
|
|
Ability |
25 &nbs=
p;
78.1 |
38 &nbs=
p;
79.1 |
|
|
Possibility |
4 &nbs=
p;
12.5 |
5 &nbs=
p;
10.4 |
|
|
Willingness |
3 &nbs=
p;
9.3 |
5 &nbs=
p;
10.4 |
|
TOTAL CI |
|
32 &nbs=
p;
100 |
48 &nbs=
p;
100 |
Table 1. Frequency of strategies
In over 50% of the +P emails students used Want/like statements in t=
he
form of I’d like to…, (I would like to have two more weeks to
finish it properly, S10). Students used more Expectation statements with
colleagues (16.6%), in the hopes that their request was granted and not so =
much
with managers (3.6%). Our result contradicts Leopold’s (2015) content=
ion
that they are more used in emails addressed to superiors. Only one occurren=
ce
of Pre-decided statement (I think that a good idea will be to add two more weeks, S24) to=
ok
place in the +P situation, which may be regarded as too imposing for the
recipient. Five Locution derivables occurred in=
+P
emails (It would be better to have =
a more
extended deadline to perfection (sic) every single detail, S5) when
addressing their manager, whereas the students did not opt for this strateg=
y in
–P emails.
Conventionally indirect strategies were the most frequently used
strategies in students’ emails (32 instances in +P situations and 48
instances in –P situations). Although the percentages for these indir=
ect
strategies do not differ much in +/-P emails, a closer look reveals that
students used more Ability (Would y=
ou be
able to swap shifts with me for this weekend?, S2) and Willingness (Would you be open to swapping shifts w=
ith
me?, S22) strategies in –P situations and more Possibility strate=
gies
(Would that be possible?, S11) =
in +P
emails. The high incidence of Ability strategies may be explained by the
traditional formal instruction Spanish students had received, which focuses
mainly on the expression Can/Could
you…? to make a request (Codina-Espurz and
Salazar-Campillo, 2019). Overall, the findings for the choice of strategies=
in
the present study partly corroborate Peterson et al.’s (2011: 93) cla=
im
that an email will be more formal “if it is sent to someone with a hi=
gher
rank”, as students produced a similar number of Direct and Indirect
strategies (25 vs 32) in those situations in which +P was involved.
The head act in the students’ emails was accompanied by extern=
al
and/or internal modification, as Table 2 below illustrates.
|
INTERNAL MODIFICATION |
+P &nbs=
p;
% |
-P &nbs=
p;
% |
|
Syntactic (conditional, past, progressive) |
21 &nbs=
p;
45.6 |
21 &nbs=
p;
35 |
|
Politeness marker “Please” |
7 &nbs=
p;
15.2 |
18 &nbs=
p;
30 |
|
Cajoler |
11 &nbs=
p;
24 |
12 &nbs=
p;
20 |
|
Downtoner |
3 &nbs=
p;
6.5 |
8 &nbs=
p;
13=
.3 |
|
Apprec. embedding |
3 &nbs=
p;
6.5 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
Subjectiviser |
1 &nbs=
p;
2.1 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
Appealer |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
1 &nbs=
p;
1.6 |
|
EXTERNAL MODIFICATION |
+P |
-P |
|
Grounder |
39 &nbs=
p;
48.7 |
50 &nbs=
p;
41.6 |
|
Disc. orientation move |
32 &nbs=
p;
40 |
20 &nbs=
p;
16.6 |
|
Preparator |
5 &nbs=
p;
6.25 |
14 &nbs=
p;
11.6 |
|
Disarmer |
2 &nbs=
p;
2.5 |
4 &nbs=
p;
3.3 |
|
Promise of reward |
0 &nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p; 0 |
12 &nbs=
p;
10 |
|
Imposition minimiser |
1 &nbs=
p;
1.2 |
11 &nbs=
p;
9.1 |
|
Intensifier&nbs=
p;
|
1 &nbs=
p;
1.2 |
4 &nbs=
p;
3.3 |
|
Sweetener/ Compliment |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
3 &nbs=
p;
2.5 |
|
Alerter<=
/span> |
0 &nbs=
p; 0 |
2 &nbs=
p;
1.6 |
Table 2. Frequency of internal and external modification
Within internal modification, syntactic modification was most favour=
ed
by students in both situations (45.6% and 35%, respectively) in
order to minimize the face threat, in line with previous studies (e.=
g.,
Velilla, 2015). Some other research (e.g., Dakrouri,
2024) found a limited use of syntactic modification in business emails, a
finding the author attributed to the level of the subjects. As mentioned ab=
ove,
our participants had a C1 level of proficiency in English, and therefore th=
ey
were likely to include this type of modification in their requests by means=
of
conditional, past or progressive structures. The politeness marker please was mostly used before the
imperative let me know, and it =
was
scarcely used in the +P emails (7 occurrences) with a higher incidence in
emails to colleagues (18 occurrences). This finding is in stark contrast to=
its
wide use in other contexts (i.e., Hashemian and Farhang-Ju, 2020, in the
academic setting). Very similar occurrences of Cajolers (As you know) took place in both situations, and this is a somew=
hat
surprising fact due to the informal nature of this type of modification, wh=
ich
should be more appropriate in –P situations.
Fewer occurrences of other internal modification were present in the
data. For example, Downtoners (for a few days), although minimally used, were used nearly as m=
uch
as three times more in –P emails, whereas Appreciative embedding (I’d appreciate it very much if&#=
8230;)
was only used on three occasions in +P situations; finally, only one Subjectiviser (I’m
afraid, S9 +P) and one Appealer (you
know? S1, –P) occurred in our data.
Table 2 shows that students tended to employ more external modificat=
ion,
corroborating recent research among business co-workers (Dakrouri,
2024). In this sense, Grounders were by far the most prevalent strategy.
Students seemed to resort to explanations or reasons to fully justify their
requests. Our results resemble previous findings (e.g., Pan, 2012) which al=
so
revealed a clear tendency to use Grounders on the part of students. Moreove=
r,
in our study, Grounders were long utterances including justifications prior=
to
make the request (see Example 1 below). This verbosity had already been poi=
nted
out by Hassall (2012), which may result in positive politeness by presuppos=
ing
the recipient’s help.
(1)&=
nbsp;
Last
night I started to feel a little bit sick but I thought I would be better but it is not the case, I am feeling probably w=
orst
but our boss still wanting me to lead the meeting, and I feel I just
can’t deal with all this by myself. (S18, -=
P)
Importantly, in –P situations our students showed an even high=
er
incidence of Grounders, a fact which may show that regardless of degree of
familiarity with the email recipient, they feel the need to provide motives=
in order to have their request accepted and possibly l=
essen
the imposition on their business colleagues. In other contexts (e.g., acade=
mic)
the extensive use of Grounders has also been attested (Hashemian and
Farhang-Ju, 2020) as a means to modify externall=
y the
coerciveness of the request. In our data, and especially in +P situations, =
most
Grounders were preceded by Discourse orientation moves with the aim of
providing the manager (32 occurrences) or colleague (20 occurrences) with
enough background information to justify their request and contribute to
negative face work. In the same way as Grounders, most Discourse orientation
moves were long stretches of discourse, as Example 2 shows:
(2)&=
nbsp;
I
have been working on the visibility project of the company, which it (sic) =
is
going pretty well at the mom=
ent,
however after analysing the progress we have made and the near deadline to
complete the task we have, … (S24, +P)
Lengthy Discourse orientation moves can be justified by the role they
play in providing information about the context of the request and/or any o=
ther
relevant information needed to introduce it (Park et al., 2021), thus
increasing the intelligibility of the content of the email.
Preparators were far more used in –P emails, preparing the
colleague for the coming request (I=
am
going to need a big favour from your part, S17). Disarmers were used to
anticipate the requestee’s potential objection and they were found tw=
ice
as many times in –P emails (I
understand it’s a big ask, S2). Only in –P situations did t=
he
students employ Promise of reward (=
I will
invite you to lunch later on to compensate the f=
avour,
S18), as obviously, they could not offer any type of compensation to their
manager if the request were granted. Similarly, many more instances of
Imposition minimisers (I know it is=
very
early, but this is an urgency, S5) were found in –P emails. Final=
ly,
other external modifiers were minimally used, for example, Intensifiers (ASAP, urgently) which may exacerbate the aggravating power they invol=
ve.
Students refrained themselves from using Sweeteners or Compliments when
addressing their managers but probably due to the symmetry of social distan=
ce,
3 examples were found in –P emails (You
are a very professional person, S15,-P).
Similarly, the two occurrences of Alerters (Listen) were only employed by S6 i=
n the
–P emails, as they denote familiarity and a close relationship among
co-workers.
With regards to the framing moves, Table 3 shows that all emails in =
our
data started with some form of salutation. The presence of a salutation in =
the
students’ emails fosters the establishment of a positive tone, as cla=
imed
by Dakrouri (2024).
|
|
+P |
-P |
|
|
N &nbs=
p;
% |
N &nbs=
p;
% |
|
A Salutation |
|
|
|
GE* |
28 &nbs=
p;
46.6 |
22 &nbs=
p;
36.6 |
|
GE+T |
19 &nbs=
p;
31.6 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
GE+FN |
7 &nbs=
p;
11.6 |
29 &nbs=
p;
48.3 |
|
GE+T+LN |
4 &nbs=
p;
6.6 |
2 &nbs=
p;
3.3 |
|
GE+T+ “Manager” |
2 &nbs=
p;
3.3 |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
|
GE+ “colleague” |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
6 &nbs=
p;
10 |
|
FN |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
1 &nbs=
p;
1.6 |
|
B Pleasantry |
16 &nbs=
p;
26.6 |
23 &nbs=
p;
38.3 |
|
C Identification of self |
3 &nbs=
p;
5 |
2 &nbs=
p;
3.3 |
*Note:
GE stands for “Greeting Expression”, FN for “First
Name”, T for “Title” and LN for “Last Name”
Table 3. Frequency of opening moves in the emails (adapted from Sala=
zar-Campillo
and Codina-Espurz, 2018)
In +P emails, salutations were mainly operationalized by means of a =
Greeting
Expression (Hello, Good morning=
),
followed by a Greeting Expression plus Title (Dear Project Manager). In over 11% of the emails, students chos=
e to
start their emails with a Greeting Expression and the recipient’s fir=
st
name. Only 6.6% of students in +P situations opted for the more conventional
and deferent form of salutation GE+T+LN (Dear
Mr. Ezzat). Our findings differ from more common practices found in nat=
ural
email data, for example, Xie (2009) claimed that T+LN or T+Full
Name were the most used forms to greet. In view of these findings, it seems
that students did not address their higher-ups with the expected degree of
respect in their salutations, and they also skipped formality. In this line,
over two decades ago, Briz (2003) pointed out that the Spanish culture favo=
urs
closeness and egalitarianism. This claim is therefore supported in the pres=
ent
study, since the students adopted an egalitarian stance on the use of more
informal salutations in +P situations. In the case of –P emails, almo=
st
50% of the salutations were in the form of a Greeting Expression and the
recipient’s first name. This is not a surprising outcome, as the use =
of
the first name indicates solidarity and closeness (e.g., Velilla, 2015). Th=
is
fact may also be applied to those emails starting with only a Greeting
Expression (36.6%) and also to the emails starti=
ng
with Hello, colleague (10%) whi=
ch
signals camaraderie. To a much lesser degree, students employed other forms=
to
greet, for example, using a more formal salutation (GE+T+LN) or only the
recipients’ first name (1.6%).
The higher incidence of Pleasantries (i.e., phatic communication or
small talk) in –P emails may be a sign of more informality, as previo=
usly
suggested by Pérez-Sabater et al. (2008). Example 3 illustrates a
Pleasantry:
(3)&=
nbsp;
I
trust this message finds you well (S4, -P)
In Business oral discourse, Pullin (2010: 459) argued that small talk
nurtures “relations and a sense of community among colleagues”.=
Our
data seem to support her claim, in the sense that senders accounted for both
the transactional and the relational goals of their emails, especially in t=
heir
requests to colleagues. As for Identification of self, very few instances of
this move were found in the emails, most likely due to =
the
fact that the students assumed that the managers and colleagues knew=
who
the sender was.
The data show that closings were included in the emails, although not
all of them featuring the three moves of Pre-closing statement, Complimenta=
ry
close and Signature (see Table 4). In this vein, closings lessen the degree=
of
imposition of the request (Hashemian and Farhang-Ju, 2020) and this is
paramount when there are real communicative needs in unequal professional
encounters.
|
|
+P |
-P |
|
|
N &nbs=
p;
% |
N &nbs=
p;
% |
|
A Pre-closing statement* |
|
|
|
Gratitude |
37 &nbs=
p;
61.6 |
40 &nbs=
p; 66.6 |
|
Appeal |
15 &nbs=
p;
25 |
15 &nbs=
p;
25 |
|
Hope/wish |
3 &nbs=
p;
5 |
6 &nbs=
p;
10 |
|
Apology |
0 &nbs=
p;
0 |
1 &nbs=
p;
1.6 |
|
Ø |
5 &nbs=
p;
8.3 |
2 &nbs=
p;
3.3 |
|
B Complimentary close |
31 &nbs=
p;
51.6 |
16 &nbs=
p; 26.6 |
|
C Signature |
|
|
|
FN |
23 &nbs=
p;
38.3 |
26 &nbs=
p;
43.3 |
|
FN+LN |
16 &nbs=
p;
26.6 |
13 &nbs=
p;
21.6 |
|
Ø |
21 &nbs=
p;
35 |
21 &nbs=
p;
35 |
*Note:
Pre-closing statements add up more than 60 (both in +P and –P) as the=
re
were instances of Gratitude+Appeal and they were
counted separately.
Table 4. Frequency of closing moves in the emails (Salazar-Campillo =
and
Codina-Espurz, 2018)
In line with previous research on the use of Pre-closing statements
(e.g., Nickerson, 2000), the majority of emails
included such a move, regardless of the degree of power. Statements of
gratitude were by far the most widely used (although they may indicate the
sender’s presupposition that the request will be met with compliance),
followed by appeals and senders’ hopes that their request is fulfille=
d.
This may imply that the higher the degree of imposition involved, the more
likely it is that a Pre-closing statement is used to show positive politene=
ss.
On the contrary, Complimentary closes (Best
regards, S9, +P; Sincerely,=
S14,
+P) occurred in 51.6% of +P emails and slightly above 25% in -P messages. T=
his
finding may corroborate Trang’s (2019) claims that Complimentary clos=
es
are regarded more as a routine to end an email than as a politeness strateg=
y.
Our participants opted mostly for signatures including their first n=
ame
only, probably supposing that the manager knew his workers (as mentioned ab=
ove,
in the same way that few Identifications of self were employed) and they
fostered a closer relation. When making a request to a colleague, the use of
first names seems the most natural way to sign emails; however, in over 20%=
of
the instances the students signed with their full name (i.e., FN+LN).
Importantly, 21 emails in both power situations were left unsigned, a fact =
that
may render the emails incomplete especially in the +P situation.
RQ 2 inquired about students’ perception of the power and soci=
al
distance involved in the emails. Their answers reveal that they employed
internal and external modification to soften the imposition emerging from t=
heir
requests, as Example 4 shows in response to why S1 had used “Would yo=
u be
willing to provide references for me?” when addressing the manager:
(4)&=
nbsp;
No
es una obligación
para el manager, sino si podría él, como una petición más suave (The ma=
nager
does not have to feel in the obligation, but if he could, as a more mitigat=
ed
request)
Overall, the students seem to perceive the role of the social variab=
les
in the sense that by means of modifications, they cared for the preservatio=
n of
status and social relations. However, a closer inspection reveals that they
used a similar number of conventionally indirect strategies and syntactic
modification regardless of those variables, and that there was a higher
incidence of Hedged performatives in the –P emails. In addition, more
Preparators, Disarmers and Imposition minimizers also occurred in –P
emails, when a priori they should be more appropriate in the emails to the
manager in order to mitigate imposition.
With regards to framing moves, it seems that students were aware of
contextual variables when composing their emails, as illustrated in Example=
5
which refers to a greeting:
(5)&=
nbsp;
A
un manager, que es como superior a ti, hay que usar una expresión más
formal […] a un compañero le diría Hi or Hello, o algo así
(For a manager, who is above you, you have to use a more formal expression
[…], to a colleague I would say Hi or Hello or something like that) (=
S1).
However, in many emails a lack of deference was found in the salutat=
ion
to the manager, probably because there was no indication of the managerR=
17;s
name in the prompts. This is clearly expressed by S4 in her following comme=
nt:
(6)&=
nbsp;
Si hubiera tenido el nombre, por
ejemplo, Toby Roberts, hab=
ría
puesto Dear Mr. Roberts (If I ha=
d had
the name, for example, Toby Roberts, I would have written Dear Mr. Roberts)=
This student also reported that she had used “Greetings
Joan” in one of the emails to a colleague because she was not address=
ing
a superior but a peer (No le estoy hablando a un cargo superior sin=
o
a un igual). S1 held the same opinion on us=
ing a
first name with colleagues: En los correos de los compañeros
Our results also point to students’ awareness of contextual
variables in the form of Complimentary closes in +P emails, since they used
more respectful ways to end these emails and thus employed more
status-congruent formulas to convey politeness. S1 highlighted the importan=
ce
of ending an email to the manager in an appropriate way, as Example 7 depic=
ts:
(7) =
Cómo cierras un=
correo
puede afectar la respuesta de esa persona (The way you end an email may a=
ffect
that person’s reply)
The answers of the small number of students who were interviewed for=
RQ2
point to the fact that students perceive that contextual variables are
important in the process of writing an email; however, the quantitative res=
ults
for RQ1 do not fully support this perception. It is likely that the weight =
of
the imposition played a more influential role than the variables of power a=
nd
social distance. Further research is needed to confirm this assumption, bot=
h in
elicited and in real workplace situations.
5.
CONCLUSION
Requests may represent a threat to the recipient’s face, so
writing business emails involving this speech act may be a challenging task=
for
employees, especially when they address superiors because variables such as
social distance and power are at stake. This study attempted to investigate
Business and Administration students’ production and awareness of
requests in (un)equal power and social distance in elicited emails from a
quantitative and qualitative perspective. In light of
our results, we found a similar use of Conventionally indirect strategies a=
nd
syntactic modification irrespective of power and social distance. Contrary =
to
what was expected, a higher incidence of Hedged performatives occurred in
–P emails, as well as in the categories of Preparators, Disarmers and
Imposition minimizers. The impact of power and social distance is reflected=
in
the use of more Complimentary closes in +P situations, although not much
deference was found in a number of salutations i=
n the
emails addressed to the manager.
One major limitation to the study refers to the lack of naturalistic
data, as the emails were elicited by means of DCTs, which may result in
students’ productions not reflecting what they would say in natural
situations. In addition, the head act, internal and external modification a=
nd
the framing moves may be used differently if some other variables (for exam=
ple,
older students, gender of the sender and the recipient, level of proficienc=
y,
etc.) are the focus of further research. In addition, the analysis of emails
from higher-ups (i.e., CEOs, managers) to their employees may also provide
valuable insights into how requestive emails are
composed (Bartl, 2017). Finally, a wider sample would determine more robust
tendencies; however, the present study has contributed to further the resea=
rch
on production and perception of requests by Business and Administration
students as prospective professionals who need to be pragmatically competen=
t in
English. Our findings may contribute to ascertain the potential difference
between what students produce and real workplace communication, thus inform=
ing
business-oriented instructional materials on students’ pragmatic
shortcomings.
A=
CKNOWLEDGMENTS=
The second author would like to acknowledge that this study is part =
of
the research project PID2023-150279OB-I00 funded by
MICIU/AEI71013239/501100011033 and FEDER. Additional funding has been grant=
ed
by Projected d’Innovació Educativa de la Unitat de=
Suport Educatiu (UJI) 510=
20/24.
REFERENCES
Aldhulaee, M. T. K. (2017)=
. Linguistic behaviour in email interaction =
and
recipient attitudes: Request emails by Iraqi speakers of English=
. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Deakin University.
Bartl, R. (2017). Impact of Netiquette on email
communication. Journal of Applied
Leadership and Management, 5, 35-61. http://www.journal-alm.org/article=
/view/18129
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech Act
Performance: A Function of the Data Collection Procedure? Paper presented at the TESOL
Convention, New York, 5-14.
Beer, A. (2017). From business letters to email and
mobile communication. In Mautner, G, & Rainer, F. (eds). Handbook of
business communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (pp. 153-173).
Bella, S. (2021). In search of the missing grade.
Egalitarianism and deference in L1 and L2 students’ emails to faculty
members. In Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., Savi=
3;,
M., & Halenko, N. (eds). Email Pragmatics and Second Language Learners. Amste=
rdam:
John Benjamins (pp. 203-226).
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989).
The CCSARP coding manual. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and G. Kasper, G. (e=
ds).
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests=
and
Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex (pp. 273-294)=
.
Briz,
A. (2003). Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial. <=
i>Oralia:
Análisis del Discurso Oral, 6, 7-61. https://doi.org/10.25115=
/oralia.v1i6.8406
Brown,
P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). P=
oliteness:
Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Codina-Espurz, V. (202=
2).
Students’ perception of social contextual variables in mitigating ema=
il
requests. The Grove. Working Papers=
on
English Studies, 29, 57-79. https://doi.org/10.17561/grove.v29.6644=
Codina-Espurz,
V., & Salazar-Campillo, P. (2019). Student =
to
faculty email consultation in English, Spanish and Catalan in an academic
context. In Salazar-Campillo, P., & Codina-Espurz<=
/span>,
V. (eds). Investigati=
ng the
learning of pragmatics across ages and contexts. Leiden: Brill (pp.
196-217).
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to per=
form
speech acts. Studies in Second Lang=
uage
Acquisition, 18, 253-267.
Dakrouri, R. A. (2024). Request modifications in workplace emails in Egyptian
setting. Journal of Arts and Human
Sciences, 98, (2), 496-530. https://doi.org/10.21608/fjhj.2024.246020.1548
Economidou-Kogetsidis<=
/span>, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (i=
m)politeness
of e-mails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their
senders. Journal of Pragmatics,=
106,
1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.001
Economidou-Kogetsidis<=
/span>, M. (2018). “Mr Paul, please inform me accordingly”.
Address forms, directness and degree of imposition in L2 emails. Pragmat=
ics,
28(4): 489-515. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17025.eco
Freytag, V. (2019). Exploring politeness in business emails. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2011). Business communication: Process and pr=
oduct.
Mason, Ohio: South-Western/Cengage Learning.
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2019). Applied
linguistics faculty members’ perception of (im)politeness
and (in)appropriateness of L2 learners’ email requests. Journal of Teaching Language Skills,
38(1), 119-155. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2019.34578.2729
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2020). Pragmalinguistic variation in L2 learners’ e-re=
quests
to faculty: Looking at degree of imposition. Journal of Language Horizons, 4(1), 105-126. https://doi.org=
/10.22051/lghor.2020.30297.1256
Hassall, T. (2012). Request modification by Austra=
lian
learners of Indonesian. In Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.,
& Woodfield, H., (eds). Interla=
nguage
request modification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (pp. 203-242).
Hendriks, B. (2010). An experimental study of native speaker percept=
ions
of non-native request modification in e-mails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 221-255. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2010.011
Hendriks, B., van Meurs, F., & Kakisina,
B. (2023). The effects of L1 and L2 writers’ varying
politeness modification in English emails on L1 and L2 readers. Journal of Pragmatics, 204, 33-49.=
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.=
2022.12.006
Kankaanranta, A. (2006).
‘Hej Seppo, could you pls comment on this!’: Internal email
communication in lingua franca English in a multinational company. Business Communication Quarterly, =
69(2),
216-225. https://doi.org/
Kozík, T., & Slivová, J. (2014). Netiquette in Electronic
Communication. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 4(3),
67-70. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i3.3570<=
/span>
Leopold, L. (2015). Request strategies in professional e-mail
correspondence: Insights from the United States workplace. TESL Canada Journal<=
/span>, 32(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1205=
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999). From busin=
ess
correspondence to message exchange: What is left? In H=
ewings,
M., & Nickerson, C., (eds). Business English: Research into Practice=
.
Harlow: Longman (pp. 101-113).
Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta<=
/span>,
A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case
companies. English for Specific Pur=
poses,
24(4), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.003<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-GB'>
Nickerson, C. (2000). Playing the corporate language game. An investigation of the genres
and discourse strategies in English used by Dutch writers in multinational
corporations. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Pan, P. C. (2012). Interlanguage requests in
institutional email discourse: A study in Hong Kong. In Economidou-Kogetsidis,
M., & Woodfield, H., (eds). Int=
erlanguage
request modification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (pp. 119-161).
Park, S., Jeon, J., & Shim, E. (2021). Explori=
ng
request emails in English for business purposes: A move analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 63:
137-150.
Pérez-Sabater, C., Turney, E., & Monter=
o,
B. (2008). Orality and literacy, formality and informality in email
communication. Ibérica,
15, 71-88.
Peterson, K, Hohensee, M., & Xia, F. (2011). <=
/span>Email formality in the workplace: A case study on the Enron corpus. =
In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languag=
es in
the Social Media, 86-95. Portland: Association for Computational Lingui=
stics.
Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and
international communicative competence. Journal
of Business Communication, 47, 4, 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377307
Radicati Group (2023). Email market, 2023-2027 (Executive Summary). Retrieved
from https://www.radicati.com/?p=3D17936
Salazar-Campillo,
P., & Codina-Espurz, V. (2018). Politene=
ss
in first and follow-up emails to faculty: Openings and closings. In
Sánchez, A., & Herráiz, A. (e=
ds). Learning second language pragmatics be=
yond
traditional contexts. Bern: Peter Lang (pp. 87-108).
Savić, M., & Đorđević, M.
(2021). “You are the best!” Relational practices in emails in
English at a Norwegian university. In Economidou-Koget=
sidis,
M., Savić, M., & Halenko, N. (eds). Email pragmatics and second language
learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (pp. 227-254).
Schauer, G. A. (2021). Email communication in Engl=
ish
and in German. In Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.,
Savić, M., & Halenko, N. (eds). Email pragmatics and second language
learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (pp. 179-200).
Sillars, A., & Zorn, T. (2021). Hypernegati=
ve
interpretation of negatively perceived email at work. Management Communication Quarter=
ly, 35(2), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920979828
Tassabehji, R., & Vakola, M. (2005). Business email: The killer impact. Communications
of the ACM, 48, 1, 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1145/1096000.1096006
Tho=
ngtong, T. (2022). Complaint responses in Busine=
ss
emails: An interlanguage pragmatic study of Thai EFL learners. Education
Quarterly Reviews, 5(3), 309-324. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3D4204117
Trang, N. M. (2019). Exploring university
students’ politeness via Vietnamese students’ emails of request=
. International Journal of Research in E=
nglish
Education, 4(3), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.4.3.84
Velilla, M. A. (2015). International business email
communication: A matter of structure and communicative competence in BELF. =
STUDIUM. Revista de Humanidades, 21, 303-324. https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/145519
Xie, J. (2009). Requests in international business emails. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hamburg.
Appendix 1. DCTs used in the study
SITUATION 1
You have been working on a project of a few months in which you have
been asked to digitalise a local company due to its poor digital resources =
to
enhance its visibility online and on social media. The deadline is next Mon=
day.
You have worded hard but you have realised that =
you
still need more time to complete the project appropriately and meet the
deadline.
Ask your Project Manager to grant you two more weeks in
order to finish the project properly.
SITUATION 2
You have been contacted for a job interview, a job which you applied=
for
six months ago, as a digital marketing designer. You were not expecting
Ask your current Manager to provide some references.
SITUATION 3
It is the evening before Black Friday. Your client is trying a new t=
ype
of digital device on their website to increase their sales on that weekend and you have been assigned to be on call for t=
he
whole weekend. You agreed to this arrangement, but you have just remembered
that you were invited to a family event and you =
booked
your flight two months ago.
Ask one of your colleagues to swap your shift for theirs so you can
attend the family event.
SITUATION 4
Your manager has assigned you to lead a very important meeting with =
your
clients on your own. You feel very sick on the day of the meeting that you =
need
help to lead the meeting. Even though you have informed your managers about
this issue, they still want the meeting to be continued.
Ask one of your colleagues to co-lead the meeting.