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

[email protected]

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


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


3/21



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).


4/21



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


5/21



(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


6/21



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.


7/21



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


8/21



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


9/21



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


10/21



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.


11/21



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


12/21



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


13/21



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)


14/21



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


15/21



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%)


16/21



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%)


17/21



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


18/21



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


19/21



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


20/21



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


21/21



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.

Documents

Lee Cynthia