How L2 Speakers Use E-mail to Negotiate
Chi-Fen Emily Chen
TESOL 2003 Conference
Baltimore, US.
March 26, 2003
Purpose of the Study



To uncover how L2 speakers use email in English to carry out a variety of social
purposes
To explore what factors shape and constrain their language use in email
To find out what changes, if any, occur in their email practices over time
(A special focus is on asymmetrical email communication)
Research Questions
Q1:
How do L2 speakers use email to communicate in the target language
environment? How does their use of email constitute a particular discourse?
What factors shape and constrain their use of email as both a unique medium and
a discourse?
Q2:
What discourse strategies do L2 speakers employ in email for interpersonal
communication? How does their use of these strategies construct and reflect their
power relations and identities in communicative events? How is their use of
these strategies influenced by L1 and L2 cultural ideologies in politeness?
Q3:
What language problems do L2 speakers have in their email writing? Do they
improve their L2 use in email over time? What difficulties do they perceive in
their email writing? How is their L2 use in email in relation to their L2 user
identity?
Definition of “Critical” Approaches to Language Use

An epistemological perspective –
Critical approaches view language use as a sociocultural practice and as a two-way
socioculturally shaped and shaping process in relation to ideology, power, and identity.

A methodological perspective –
Critical approaches to language use move beyond descriptions (text) to interpretations
(at the local/situational level) and then to explanations (at the societal/cultural level).
Two Important Influences on Critical Discourse Analysis


Halliday’s (1978, 1994) socio-semiotic perspective on language:
Language simultaneously enacts ‘ideational’, ‘interpersonal’, and ‘textual’
macro-functions depending on the context of situation and the context of culture.
Foucault’s (1972, 1979) social theories:
Discourses are technologies: discourses not only reflect social entities and realities but
construct them, and discourses intertwined with ideology, power, and self-presentation.
1
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Theory (1992, 1995)
 Every instance of language use is simultaneously a text, a discourse practice, and a
sociocultural practice.
 Language use is always simultaneously constitutive of social identities, social relations,
and systems of knowledge and belief (i.e. ideologies).
 Language use is constitutive in both conventional, socially reproductive ways, and
creative, socially transformative ways.
Research Design
 A comparative two-case study, based on Yin’s “theoretical replication” logic (1994)
 A qualitative case study, interested in “process rather than outcomes, in context rather
than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation” (Merriam, 1998).
 A collaborative, “empowering” study in which the researcher works “on, for, and with”
the participants (Cameron et al., 1999).
 A critical discourse analysis examining the participants’ email practices from three
dimensions–text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice (Fairclough, 1992,
1995).
Selection of Participants
 The two participants served as “information-rich” cases (Patton, 1990).
 They shared important commonalities while showing a wide range of variations that are
“unique”, “revelatory”, and “critical” (Yin, 1994).
 They were also chosen for a logistical purpose; they kept most of the emails they had
written since they came to the US. as computer archives.
Data Collection
 The actual emails that the two participants wrote over two and a half years.
- Ling: Aug. 1999–Dec. 2001 (292 emails)
- Ben: Feb. 1999–Dec. 2001 (251 emails)
 Interviews
- Three in-depth interviews (focusing on life history, details of particular experience,
and reflections on the meaning)
- On-line interviews via email and on-line chat, served to supplement the in-depth
interviews (convenient for member checking)
Data Analysis
 Data Organization
- Email data organization
- Interview data organization, using ATLAS/ti for storing, retrieving, coding, and
displaying data
 Data Selection (for the email data only),
- based on both the researcher’s theoretical orientation and the participants’ judgments
 Critical Discourse Analysis, including description, interpretation, and explanation
2
Analysis in Three Areas
 Email Discourse Style
- openings and closing
- stylistic register of the message
- message length
- message structure
 Request Strategies
- request act
- lexical/phrasal/syntactic downgrader
- supportive move
 Language Problems
- lexico-grammatical problems
- organizational problems
Results and Discussions
A) Email Practice and Medium
Email as Medium
 Email is used as an institutional requirement and serves as a tool for higher-ups to
control means of communication.
 Email is used as a self-presentation and a psychological buffer, particularly beneficial
to communicators who are shy and reticent.
 Email is not suitable to convey complex, serious, or urgent information. In addition, it is
not as effective as face-to-face interaction in building interpersonal relationships.
Email as Discourse
 Openings and closings
Ling–shifting from an epistolary style to a conversational one over time (institutional
emails).
Ben–mixed use of epistolary and conversational openings (e.g., Dear Judy + This is
Ben, how are you?), and closings chosen based on familiarity with addressees.
 Address forms
Ling–formal address forms to professors; informal forms to others.
Ben–forms chosen depending on familiarity with addressees.
 Conversationalization – in both Ling’s and Ben’s institutional emails.
- enhancing personally-oriented interaction, yet status/power difference is preserved
- advantageous to L2 speakers who are not familiar with formal institutional discourse
 Simplification and Symbolization–seldom in their institutional emails, but occurred
more in Ling’s personal emails than Ben’s.
- style convergence to show in-group identity
- personal preference due to the age difference
3
 Message length: shifting from lengthiness to brevity in institutional emails
Ling – politeness and informativeness
Ben–explicitness and linguistic insecurity
Two areas remained unchanged:
1) incorporating social talk: influenced by power relations in communicative events
2) “verbosity” (or wordiness): L2 linguistic and pragmatic competence
 Message structure: using an inductive pattern, particularly in long request emails.
Ling – demonstrating her “indirectness” (a conscious, strategic choice)
Ben – accustomed to a story-telling style (an unconscious choice)
Their use of this inductive structure is consistent with the literature on Chinese speakers’
request making; therefore, it is a manifestation of L1 cultural practice, but not affected
by medium use and on-line interaction
B) Email Practice and Interpersonal Communication
Ling’s Student-to-Professor Communication
• During her master’s studies
• During her doctoral studies
- A needy, unconfident,
self-centered student
- A more independent, competent,
thoughtful student
- Heavy use of Want Statements
along with the word “help” (e.g.,
“I need your help”, “I hope you
can help me.”).
- More frequent use of Query
Preparatory along with
mitigated forms (e.g., “If
possible, could you …?”)
- Student-oriented perspective in
explaining her requests (ex.1.1)
- Institutionally-oriented
perspective in explaining her
requests (ex.1.2)
- Lack of evidence in showing her
competence (ex.1.3)
- Showing initiative and her
competence (ex.1.4)
 The Target Culture’s Perspective
- Inappropriate student identity constructed through the use of the words “ help” and
“need”
Gee (2002): The word “help” indicates a situated meaning of “charitable assistance”,
and “need” implies students’ “neediness” and “inadequate” ability. He points out that a
graduate student should demonstrate a self-motivated, advanced, well-prepared identity.
4
- Inappropriate evaluation of students’ rights and faculty’s obligations
Gee (2002): faculty members are not “morally obligated” to assist students; rather, their
assistance is based on their willingness to do so, which depends on whether students can
“produce good work” and “become a credit to the faculty member”.
 Ling’s Perspective:
“I think writing in this way [using a help-needed tone] could let my professors give
more attention to my requests, so they would help me and reply to me more quickly.”
 Chinese Culture’s Perspective:
- Teachers assume socially-ratified authoritative and parent-like roles, and students
take on inferior, help- needed roles.
- Chinese politeness: denigrating self and respecting other
Therefore, Ling’s construction of “help-needed” identity is a reproduction of the L1
socioculturally-ratified student role, and serves as a strategic means to further heighten
her professors’ authoritative role.
Ben’s Student-to-Professor Communication
 Ben’s perspective:
“You can’t force people to help you, including your professors, and they don’t have any
obligation to say yes to you. They decide whether they want to help you or not.”
 Ben’s student identity:
An independent, competent one right from the beginning as he was admitted to his
graduate program
 Ben’s request strategies:
- constant use of Query Preparatory forms (Can you/ Could you…?) to show deference
- small talk to build rapport
Ben’s Client-to-Lawyer Communication
 Power relationships between Ben and his lawyer:
Ben–a contract-based client right
His lawyer–institutional knowledge-based authority
 Ben’s requester identity:
“When you’re asking people to do things for you, you’re bothering them. You become
lower in the communication position, so you need to be nice and polite to them.”
 Ben’s request acts
- did not always use Query Preparatory
5
 Ben’s use of supportive moves: (ex. 2.1)
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
(to build rapport)
(to show deference)
- making small talk
- indicating reluctance
- expressing admiration
- giving options
- expressing appreciation
- giving hints
- showing understanding of
his lawyer’ situation
- apologizing
- using humor
C) Email Practice and Second Language Use
 Language Problems and Improvement
Accuracy (not improved over time)
Ling:
occasion typos and several misused word
(e.g., “I’m sorry to notice you that I need to drop this course.”)
Ben:
a) frequent morpho-grammatical errors
(e.g., “Hopely it woun’t cause you too much unconvenience.”)
b) tense problems
(e.g., “I haven’t received my Canadian citizenship when I started my job two years
ago. But once I have it, I want to use it to stay in the U.S. for the rest of time in the
future.”)
c) misused words
(e.g., “They always have accuses to explain their situations.”)
Appropriateness (some improved over time)
Fairclough (1995), “appropriateness is an ‘ideological’ category, which is linked to
particular partisan positions within a politics of language.”
1) Appropriateness in relation to medium
- message length (in both Ling’s and Ben’s cases)
- presentation of information (only in Ben’s case)
(e.g., “all-in-one-paragraph” format)
2) Appropriateness in relation to culture
- information sequencing (message structure)
- use of some politeness strategies
6
 Why did they maintain their “problematic” styles?
- nothing they could emulate (email is private)
- no feedback on form from their interlocutors
- lack of pragmatic knowledge about the interlocutor’s expectation and specific cultural
or institutional rules
 L2 User Identity in Email Communication
- L1 cultural identity:
(e.g., Ling’s use of self-humbling and indirect request strategies, and Ben’s use of small
talk to build relations).
- Nonnative speaker identity:
Ling explicitly displayed this identity only at the beginning of her studies, while Ben
never displayed this identity in his communication with professors.
Ben: “I believe that most professors set the same standards for every student. It’s
impossible that you get a special treatment because you’re a nonnative speaker. So, why
do I need to tell them I’m a nonnative speaker? What I need to do is to show my
academic ability as a competent, well-prepared doctoral student.”
Implications for Language Learning and Teaching
 Developing critical language awareness
 Appropriating “appropriateness” of language use
 Making agentive choices for identity construction
L2 learners need to learn a range of discourse resources (e.g., ideologies, values,
conventions, discourse styles, and organizational structures) existing in their native culture
and the target culture, then to learn strategic ways of using these resources for the effective
negotiation of power and identity, and finally to be able to draw on appropriate discourse
resource to meet their communicative goals and construct their desirable situated identities
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
 Issues on research design
- aimed to illustrate the complexity of L2 speakers’ email practices, but not to make
generalization for other L2 speakers’ use of email.
- limited by the collection of one-sided email data
 Issues on discourse analysis
- the analyst’s sensitivity to language use and context
- lack email readers’ (e.g. professors) perspectives
- only focused on student-to-professor and client-to-lawyer email communication
Further research can study L2 speakers’ email practices from both writers’ and readers’
perspectives, and expand the inquiry scope of L2 speakers’ email practices involving
other kinds of power relations and identity construction.
7
Email Examples
Example 1.1
Date: August 23, 1999
Subject: from Ling Wang
Dear Professor M,
This is Ling Wang from Taiwan. Because you are my initial academic advisor, I
need you to help me about the questions of my required credits.
[description of her questions… ]
Thanks a lot for your help.
Best wishes,
Ling Wang
Example 1.2
Date: December 6, 2001
Subject: new admitted student
Hi Professor J,
I was informed by the graduate admission office that I am admitted to the PhD
program of Anthropology. For the information they gave me, I am supposed to contact
you for advisement. I’d like to know what is good time for me to go to your office to talk
with you? Thank you.
Ling Wang
Example 1.3
Date: Aug 19, 1999
Subject: Need your help!
Dear Professor H,
This is Ling Wang from Taiwan, I am a new international graduate student in
SUNY-Albany, I am right in General Education program, but I really want to transfer my
major into TESOL program. I need your help to tell me if this is possible and what I can
do for this plan.
The reason why I didn’t apply to TESOL program when I was in Taiwan is
because my TOEFL score was not high enough to get into TESOL program, so I
applied to General Education instead. I hope you can give me a chance to get into
your program. I promise I will try my best to reach all the required standards of your
program. Thanks a lot for your help.
Sincerely,
Ling Wang
8
Example 1.4
Date: Sep 1, 2001
Subject: Independent study
Hi Professor T,
Here is something I’d like to ask for your opinion.
After the first week at school, I decided to take two courses for this semester, but
then I found I needed one more course (4 credits) to fulfill my full time student status.
I’d really like to continue the study on the Mayan languages because I’m strongly
interested in it, so what do you think if I take an independent study with you? The study
could be directed toward the overall linguistic structure of Mayan, or we can also focus
on one specific language.
If possible, could you please give me your response as soon as possible? I may
need some time to figure out other possibilities if you cannot let me take this course with
you. Thanks for your concern.
Sincerely,
Ling
Examples 1.5 a-b (Self-Humbling)
a) I need to ask you a favor. [explanation of her interest in studying in another Ph.D. program…].
I know I’m not an outstanding student, and probably my assistance toward your research project
is limited; but if possible, could you please write a recommendation letter for me? Thousands of
thanks if you can help.
b) I am thinking about doing my paper about xxx. [description of her paper proposal…]. Anyway,
it’s just a rough idea and it may not be good enough. I still need to read more for this topic. But,
do you think this topic is doable for my final paper?
9
Example 2.1
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999
Subject: Urgent message from Ben
Dear Judy,
[1]
How are you recently? [2] It has been almost two weeks since we talked by e-mail
last time. [3] You promised me that you will give all letters back to me last week and there
will be no delay any more. [4] Unfortunately, I still don't see the reversion of my letters
from you. [5] I receive an e-mail from Dr. K from NYC this morning that he is going to
start his job in our lab on June 1st. [6] His letter is very important in my case because he
is from outside of HRI as we discussed before. [7] Based on this criteria, his letter will
become useless once he start his job after June 1st. [8] If you cann't finish the reversions
of all my letters at once, please (and please twice) finish Dr. K’s letter first and give it
back to me as soon as possible. [9] I am very upset and worried about it because I cann't
find any other person from outside of HRI as my referee at least now. [10] I even don't
know when we can finish all these paper works needed for my application. [11] It seems
like there is no ending day for it. [12] I don't want to let you feel I'm pushing you but I get
no choice. [13] Again, if you cann't finish them all, please at least try your best to finish Dr.
K's letter first. [14] I appreciate for your help and hopely I can receive the letter(s) from
you very, very soon.
Best regards
Ben
The schematic structure of this email can be represented as follows:
Moves
Sentences
1. Greeting
2. Giving background information
3. Describing the first problem – a complaint
(Judy did not complete the task in time as she promised)
4. Describing the second problem – an urgent case
(Dr. K’s letter needs to be taken care of immediately)
5. Stating a request
6. Showing negative emotions (worry and upset)
7. Indicating reluctance to coerce
8. Repeating the request
9. Expressing appreciation and expectation
10
(1)
(2)
(3) – (4)
(5) – (7)
(8)
(9) – (11)
(12)
(13)
(14)