The Instruction of Email Pragmatics to
Second Language Learners
Shawn Ford
Department of Second Language Studies
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Presentation Outline
I.
Initial motivation for study
A.
B.
C.
II.
Current research project
A.
B.
C.
III.
IV.
Student email messages
Action research project
Pilot study
Theoretical framework
Methodology
Results
Future research
Conclusion/ questions
Sample Student Email Message
From student@hawaii.edu
Sent Sunday, September 1, 2001 12:50 am
To sford@hawaii.edu
Subject
Hello Professor~
I don't think, I can turn the reports on next monday. I liked to
delay the time to turn the paper. Can you do it for me? I have
some reasons and excuses for it. I will talk to you about it in
class. so, please delay the due date for me.
Plz also reply me for its answer on e-mail.
Thank you.
Action Research Project
1. Find existing teaching materials for electronic
communication;
2. Find any existing guidelines or rules for electronic
communication;
3. Adopt, adapt, or develop a lesson for electronic
communication;
4. Implement the lesson;
5. See if there is any change in patterns of usage.
Action Research Project Results
• Advanced-level ESL students need instruction in
guidelines for writing formal email messages;
• Teaching materials on this topic are not readily
available;
• There is an abundance of information about email
pragmatics (netiquette);
• Email pragmatics is teachable;
• Students showed gains in proper uses of formal email
pragmatics from pre- to immediate post-test, which was
maintained in the delayed post-test.
Pilot Study
• 8 non-native English-speakers (NNSs)
students of ELI 100- undergraduate, advanced writing class
researcher’s own students
• 5 native English-speakers (NSs)
graduate students of the Second Language Studies
Department at UH Manoa
• Study conducted in UH Manoa classrooms and computer
labs, and via email
Research Questions and Hypotheses
1. What are the differences between NNSs and NSs of
English in the pragmatic features of email requests
concerning academic topics sent to unfamiliar professors?
2. Do the differences found in the first research question
effect the acceptability of the email requests?
3. What are the effects of instruction in the usage of
appropriate pragmatic features when writing email
requests?
Results of Pilot Study
• NS email messages contain more acceptable formal
features and more acceptable content features of email
pragmatics.
• NS email messages appear more acceptable than those
of NNSs.
• Data analysis shows gains in the use of acceptable formal
features of pragmatic email requests from pre- to post-tests
after treatment. Delayed post-test shows gains maintained
but not at the level of the immediate post-test.
• Data analysis shows gains in the use of acceptable content
features of pragmatic email requests from pre- to post-tests
after treatment. However, delayed post-test shows that gains
were maintained only slightly above the level of the pre-test.
Research Study Theoretical Framework
• Pragmatic universals
• Pragmatic development and ESL
• Instruction of pragmatics and ESL
• Requests and ESL
• Email pragmatics
• Instruction of email pragmatics
• Measuring pragmatic development
Pragmatic Universals
Key Studies:
• Brown & Levinson (1978)
varying degrees and realizations of politeness are
fundamental to all languages
• Hill, Ide, Ikuta, Kawasaki, and Ogino (1986)
- pragmatic systems operate on two basic principlesdiscernment and volition
discernment: "...a recognition of certain fundamental
characteristics of addressee and situation" (p. 361)
volition: the speaker's true intentions in a given
communicative event
- discernment and volition operate at different levels across
cultures
Pragmatic Development and ESL
Key Studies:
• Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993)
forwarded research agenda to study interlanguage
pragmatics
• Schmidt, R. (1993); Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. (1996)
studies of meta-awareness and development of interlanguage pragmatics
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1993)
investigated pragmatic change longitudinally in the
academic environment
Pragmatics should be taught because it does not appear
to be easily transferrable from L1 to L2;
Pragmatics should be taught because this will raise
awareness of appropriate language use, which in turn
has been shown to aid in language development;
Pragmatics can be taught, as is evidenced by a number
of early studies of classroom language learning and
instruction.
Instruction of Pragmatics and ESL
Key Studies:
• LoCastro, V. (1994)
lack of English pragmatics instruction in textbooks
• House, J. (1996); Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001)
examined developing awareness of pragmatics through
explicit classroom instruction
Pragmatic development in L2 learners can be
enhanced through explicit awareness-raising
techniques.
Requests and ESL
Key Studies:
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G., (Eds.). (1989)
edited volume devoted to studying the pragmatics of the
request and apology speech acts
• Schmidt, T.Y. (1994)
- compared actual request data to request lessons found in
popular ESL textbooks
- results showed that textbooks were deficient in the range of
real-world request types
- results also showed that textbooks were deficient in the
explanations of the request types given
• Kitao (1990); Kim (1995); Kasange (1998); Kim (2000)
- each study investigated the performance of English
requests by a different cultural group
- each study found evidence of negative transfer of L1
pragmatics
- each study concluded with the need for explicit instruction
in making English requests
Requests are one of the most frequently occurring
speech acts across languages;
There are major cross-cultural differences in realizations
of constructing and interpreting requests;
Forming pragmatically appropriate requests in an L2 is
problematic.
Email Pragmatics
Key Studies:
• Shea (1994)
principles of netiquette: basic rules for behaving and
interacting through electronic communication
• Gaines (1999)
discovered a new written genre with unique textual features
in academic email data: "...a pseudo-conversational form of
communication, conducted in extended time and with an
absent interlocutor" (81)
• Inglis (1998)
investigated cross-cultural miscommunications that arise in
office environments due to culturally different perceptions of
appropriateness in email and Internet communication
Studies Most Relevant to the Present Study:
• Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig (1996);
Weasenforth & Beisenbach-Lucas (2000); Chen (2001)
- each study analyzed email requests sent by university
students to their professors
- each study found that the email requests of NNSs
contained features that may negatively effect the
acceptability of the messages and the fulfillment of the
requests
Instruction of Email Pragmatics
Key Studies:
????????????????????????????????????
None to my knowledge. At least not yet...
Measuring Pragmatic Development
Key Studies:
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G., (Eds.). (1989)
Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP)
elaborate coding scheme for analyzing requests
• Norris (2001)
task-based language assessment: "...performance of
communication tasks that have some relationship to non-test
or ‘real-world’ activities, and these elicited task performances
are assessed according to explicit criteria" (164).
Task-based performance assessment measured with a
coding scheme combining CCSARP guidelines and
netiquette rules proposed by Shea (1994).
Subjects & Location
• 29 native English-speakers (NSs)
graduate students of the SLS Department
• 15 non-native English-speakers (NNSs)
students of ELI 100- undergraduate, advanced writing class
researcher’s own students
• Study conducted in UH Manoa classrooms and computer
labs, and via email
Research Questions and Hypotheses
1. What are the differences between NSs and NNSs of
English in the pragmatic features of email requests
concerning academic topics sent to unfamiliar
professors?
2. What are the effects of instruction in the usage of
appropriate pragmatic features when writing email
requests?
I eliminated the second question from the pilot study
concerned with discovering the pragmatic features that
effect the acceptability of the email messages.
Tests and Treatment
NNS Data:
• Pre-test: email request assignment as homework
• Treatment: Netiquette lesson delivered via Internet
• Immediate Post-test: email request assignment as homework
• Delayed post-test: email request assignment as homework
• Pre-test, treatment, and post-test at beginning of semester;
follow-up test at the end of the semester
NS Data:
The NS data for the study was elicited via email using the same
prompt given to the NNSs.
Data Elicitation
I used the following prompt to elicit email request data from
both NNSs and NSs:
For this short homework assignment, I want you to write a
hypothetical email message to a professor.
Here’s the situation:
Information about the setting and the ProfessorYou’re taking a 200-level History course from a professor
who you don’t know at all.
His name is Dr. Peterson, he is in his mid-40s, he is an
average-sized Caucasian man, and he has taught in the
History Department at UH for many years.
Other than this information, you don’t know anything else
about Dr. Peterson.
Information about your email messageIt’s within the first two weeks of the beginning of the
semester.
Your first major writing assignment is due next week,
which is a 3-page book report.
Everyone in the class had to read the same book and do
the same assignment.
You need more time to finish your book report, so you
must send Dr. Peterson an email message to request an
extension.
This is the first time that you have ever sent Dr. Peterson
an email message.
Write your email message to Dr. Peterson requesting an
extension to turn in your book report. When finished writing
it, send it directly to me by email <sford@hawaii.edu>.
Treatment
Data Coding
Once all NS and NNS data was received, I coded the
data using a form developed specifically for this purpose.
To develop the form, I drew from
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G., (Eds.) (1989)
for the content pragmatic features of the email messages
• Shea, V. (1994)
for the formal pragmatic features of the email messages
DATA:
#
A
B
C LENGTH OF MESSAGE:
REQUESTS PER MESSAGE:
NA
LA
A MA
HEAD ACT(S):
PrimarySecondaryEMAIL FEATURES
Subject heading
Salutation- greeting
PRAGMATIC FEATURES
Alerters
Freq. Upgraders
Freq. Dow ngraders:
title/role
expletive
recipient's title
surname
time intensifier
recipient's name
f irst name
lexical uptoner
punctuation
Intro- sender's name
nickname
determination
subjunctive
endearment
off ensive
repetition of req.
orthographic
conditional
aspect
pronoun
emphatic addition
tense
attention getter
pejorative determ.
conditional clause
aff iliation
Closing
Signature
Emoticons
Strategy
Freq.
interrogative
negation of prep.
Freq. Supportive MovesFreq. Dow ngraders:
Spelling
mood derivable
Grammar
explicit perform.
OVERALL RATING
Syntactic
hedged perform.
preparator
precommitment
grounder
disarmer
promise of rew ard
Lexical & PhrasalFreq.
politeness marker
understater
Politeness
1. Very impolite
Perlocution
1. Least acceptable
locution derivable
w ant statement
2. Slightly impolite
2. Less acceptable
suggest. formula
imposition minim.
3. Appropriate
3. Acceptable
preparatory
insult
cajoler
4. Too polite
4. More acceptable
strong hint
threat
appealer
5. Overly polite
5. Most acceptable
mild hint
moralizing
hedge
subjectivizer
dow ntoner
Representative Sample: NS Email Request
From Native Speaker <ns@mailmail.com>
Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003 11:25 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject History Article Critique
Dear Dr. Peterson,
I am currently working on the article critique for our history
class and have encountered some trouble. As a result, I do
not believe that I will be able to complete my paper by the
due date. I was wondering if I could have a one week
extension to complete the assignment. I am sorry for any
inconvenience that this might cause.
Sincerely,
Native Speaker
Email Formal Features
From Native Speaker <ns@mailmail.com>
Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003 11:25 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject History Article Critique
Dear Dr. Peterson,
I am currently working on the article critique for our history
class and have encountered some trouble. As a result, I do
not believe that I will be able to complete my paper by the
due date. I was wondering if I could have a one week
extension to complete the assignment. I am sorry for any
inconvenience that this might cause.
Sincerely,
Native Speaker
Request Head Act
From Native Speaker <ns@mailmail.com>
Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003 11:25 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject History Article Critique
Dear Dr. Peterson,
I am currently working on the article critique for our history
class and have encountered some trouble. As a result, I do
not believe that I will be able to complete my paper by the
due date. I was wondering if I could have a one week
extension to complete the assignment. I am sorry for any
inconvenience that this might cause.
Sincerely,
Native Speaker
Mitigating Supportive Moves
From Native Speaker <ns@mailmail.com>
Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003 11:25 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject History Article Critique
Dear Dr. Peterson,
I am currently working on the article critique for our
history class and have encountered some trouble. As a
result, I do not believe that I will be able to complete my
paper by the due date. I was wondering if I could have a
one week extension to complete the assignment. I am sorry
for any inconvenience that this might cause.
Sincerely,
Native Speaker
Representative Sample: NNS Email Request
From Nonnas Peaker <nns@hawaii.edu>
Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:56 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson!
Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of the time
because I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me. Please reply my
email ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
Email Formal Features
From Nonnas Peaker <nns@hawaii.edu>
Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:56 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson!
Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of the time
because I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me. Please reply my
email ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
Request Head Act
From Nonnas Peaker <nns@hawaii.edu>
Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:56 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson!
Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of the time
because I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me. Please reply my
email ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
Mitigating Supportive Moves
From Nonnas Peaker <nns@hawaii.edu>
Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:56 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson!
Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of the time
because I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me. Please reply my
email ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
Politeness Markers
From Nonnas Peaker <nns@hawaii.edu>
Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:56 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson!
Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of the time
because I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me. Please reply my
email ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
Upgraders
From Nonnas Peaker <nns@hawaii.edu>
Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:56 pm
To
sford@hawaii.edu
Subject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson!
Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of the time
because I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me. Please reply my
email ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
Data Analysis
To summarize findings from the NS data (N=29):
1. NS messages score slightly above average acceptance for perlocutionary
effect (3.14) and politeness (3.07);
2. NS messages contain on average 7.6 of the 9 required formal netiquette
features with above average acceptability (2.3);
3. NS messages contain on average 9 pragmatic features, the majority of
them being supporters and alerters;
4. Almost all NS messages contain a grounder, title, and surname, and use
the preparatory strategy to form requests;
5. 3 NS messages contain upgraders (Hi!, Aloha!, Thank you!);
6. NS messages score above acceptable for spelling (2.9) and grammar (2.5);
7. NS messages average 1 request per message; and
8. NS messages average 92 wpm in length.
To summarize findings from the NNS pre-test data (N=15):
1. NNS messages score less than average acceptance for perlocutionary
effect (2.20) and above average for politeness (3.33), although there is
extreme variability;
2. NNS messages contain on average 6.6 of the 9 required formal
netiquette features with below average acceptability (1.8);
3. NNS messages contain on average 8 acceptable pragmatic features;
however, no trends can be found in their use;
4. NNS data set contains 12 upgraders (interjections, time intensifiers,
request repetitions);
5. NNS messages score acceptable for spelling (2.0) and below acceptable
for grammar (1.5);
6. NNS messages average 2 request per message; and
7. NNS messages average 97 wpm in length.
Results of Research Study
Research Question #1:
What are the differences between NNSs and NSs of English in
the pragmatic features of email requests concerning academic
topics sent to unfamiliar professors?
• NS messages score higher than NNS messages for perlocutionary effect (3.14 : 2.20).
• NS messages score average for politeness, while NNS
messages score more overly polite (3.07 : 3.33).
• NS messages contain more acceptable formal features of
email pragmatics (subject, greeting, closing, no emoticons).
• NS email messages contain more acceptable and consistent
content features of email pragmatics (few upgraders).
Results of Research Study
Research Question #1:
What are the differences between NSs and NNSs of English in the pragmatic
features of email requests concerning academic topics sent to unfamiliar
professors?
• NS messages score higher than NNS messages for perlocutionary effect
(3.14 : 2.20).
• NS messages score average for politeness, while NNS messages score
more overly polite (3.07 : 3.33).
• NS messages contain more acceptable formal features of email pragmatics
(subject, greeting, closing, no emoticons) than those of NNSs.
• NS email messages contain more acceptable and consistent content
features of email pragmatics (few upgraders) than those of NNSs.
• NS email messages score most acceptable for grammar, while NNSs score
less than acceptable (2.5 : 1.5)
• NS email messages average 1 request, while NNSs average 2 requests.
Research Question #2:
What are the effects of instruction in the usage of appropriate
pragmatic features when writing email requests?
• Data analysis shows gains in the use of acceptable formal
features of pragmatic email requests from pre- to post-tests
after treatment. Delayed post-test shows gains maintained
but not at the level of the immediate post-test.
- Pre: 6.3/9, Immediate Post: 8.4/9, Delayed Post: 7.6/9
• Data analysis shows gradual improvement toward the use of
acceptable content features of pragmatic email requests from
pre- to post-tests after treatment.
- more acceptable content features of email pragmatics
- fewer upgraders used
- however, no trends can be found in the data set
Research Question #2:
What are the effects of instruction in the usage of appropriate
pragmatic features when writing email requests?
• Data analysis shows gradual improvement toward the use of
acceptable content features of pragmatic email requests from
pre- to immediate post- to delayed post-test.
- more acceptable content features of email pragmatics
- fewer upgraders used
- however, no trends can be found in the data set
- analysis of content features problematic
• No changes found in spelling or grammar from pre- to
immediate post- to delayed post-test.
- spelling and grammar discussed in treatment but not the focus
• No changes found in the number of requests per message, and
no significant differences found in wpm after treatment.
• Data analysis shows significant gains in the use of acceptable
formal features of pragmatic email requests from pre- to posttests after treatment.
Test
Pre
Im mediate post
Delayed post
Total
N
15
15
15
45
Mean
6.60
8.33
8.07
7.67
ANOVA for Formal F eatures
Source of variation
SS
Between Groups
26.13
Within G roups
75.87
Total
102.00
* p < .05
SD
1.88
.98
.96
1.52
df
2
42
44
Low
3.00
6.00
6.00
3.00
MS
13.07
1.81
High
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
F
7.23 *
Post-Hoc Test for Formal Feature s: Scheffe
(I) TEST
(J) TEST
Mean Difference
Pre
Im mediate post -1.73 *
Delayed post
-1.47 *
Im mediate post
Pre
1.73 *
Delayed post
. 27
Delayed post
Pre
1.47 *
Im mediate post
-.27
* The mean difference is significant at t he .05 level
SE
.49
.49
.49
.49
.49
.49
Sig.
.004
.017
.004
.863
.017
.863
•Additionally, data analysis shows significant gains in the
acceptability of the formal features used from pre- to immediate
post-test, which were not maintained in the delayed post-test.
Test
Pre
Im mediate post
Delayed post
Total
N
15
15
15
45
Mean
1.76
2.35
2.16
2.09
SD
.64
.43
.35
.54
Low
.67
1.11
1.56
.67
ANOVA for Formal F eatures Acceptability
SS
df
MS
Between Groups
2.75 2
1.38
Within G roups
10.01 42
.24
Total
12.77 44
* p < .05
High
2.67
2.89
2.89
2.89
F
5.77 *
Post-Hoc T est for Formal Feature s Acceptability: Scheffe
(I) TEST
(J) TEST
Mean Difference SE
Pre
Im mediate post -.59 *
.18
Delayed post
-.41
.18
Im mediate post
Pre
.59 *
.18
Delayed post
.19
.18
Delayed post
Pre
.41
.18
Im mediate post -.19
.18
* Th e mean difference is significant at the .0 5 level.
Sig.
.007
.086
.007
.587
.086
.587
 Additionally, data analysis shows significant gains in the
perlocution of the email messages from pre- to immediate
post-test, which were not maintained in the delayed post-test.
Descriptive Statistics for Perlocution
Test
N
Mean
SD
Pre
15
2.20
.68
Im mediate post 15
2.73
.46
Delayed post
15
2.60
.51
Total
45
2.51
.59
ANOVA for Perlocution
Source of variation
SS
Between Groups
2.31
Within G roups
12.93
Total
15.24
* p < .05
df
2
42
44
Low
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
MS
1.16
.308
High
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
F
3.75 *
Post-Hoc T est for Perlocution: Scheffe
(I) TEST
(J) TEST
Mean Difference
Pre
Im mediate post -.53 *
Delayed post
-.40
Im mediate post
Pre
.53 *
Delayed post
.13
Delayed post
Pre
.40
Im mediate post -.13
* Th e mean difference is significant at the .0 5 level.
SE
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
Sig.
.04
.16
.04
.81
.16
.81
• Graph of perlocution gains from pre- to immediate post- to
delayed post-tests.
• Although perlocution showed improvement after treatment,
there was very little change in politeness.
Implications of Research Study Results
• ESL students need explicit instruction on the proper use of
email pragmatics;
• Guidelines for email pragmatics can and should be taught;
• Ready-to-use materials on this topic are both useful and
necessary;
• Email pragmatics should be addressed periodically instead of
just in one treatment;
• Instruction in email pragmatics can improve the perlocution of
NNS requests, can improve the use of formal email features,
and may improve the use of content pragmatic features
• Instruction in email pragmatics may help students create email
messages that achieve desired results.
Future Research
• Continue data analysis to determine what makes email
messages more perlocutionarily acceptable.
• Continue data analysis to determine if there are certain formal
and content pragmatic features that make email messages
more perlocutionarily acceptable.
• Continue to gather more data from undergraduate ESL
students to add to this corpus.
• Study treatment design on NSs to determine if gains are
similar to NNSs.
• Elicit help of additional raters to code a portion of the data to
determine the reliability of the coding scheme and rating.
Conclusion
Thank you for attending!