Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.142-164
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2019
Received 24 Dec 2018 Revised 10 Mar 2019 Accepted 19 Mar 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.1.201903.142

한국과 미국 직장인의 영어 요청 이메일 비교 연구

박상희 ; 전지현**
대학원생, 이화여자대학교 국제사무학과, 서울시 서대문구 이화여대길 52 sangheekarenpark@gmail.com
교수, 이화여자대학교 국제사무학과, 서울시 서대문구 이화여대길 52 dearjeon@ewha.ac.kr
A study on English request emails by Korean and American office professionals
Park, Sanghee ; Jihyeon Jeon**

Correspondence to: 전지현 교수, 이화여자대학교 국제사무학과, 서울시 서대문구 이화여대길 52 E-mail: dearjeon@ewha.ac.kr

Abstract

Park, Sanghee and Jihyeon, Jeon. 2019. A study on English request emails by Korean and American office professionals. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 19-1, 142-164. As the international exchange increases for business, people from different cultures write emails frequently using English as a common language. Even though they write emails using the same language, the way they write emails differ according to their language proficiency and cultural background. The purpose of this study is to see the difference between the request email, one of the most frequently used business email genre, written in English by native English speakers (American) and L2 English speakers (Korean). The majority research on request emails so far has been done in school contexts; and there are only very few studies done in business contexts. 30 American and 30 Korean office professionals participated in the study. The request emails collected through DCT (Discourse Completion Task) were coded using the Nvivo(Version 10). There were differences found in the use of head acts, internal modifications, external modifications, and request perspectives between American and Korean participants. The results and discussion will provide important information for our understanding of request emails and email writing education.

Keywords:

business e-mail, e-mail communication, request act, internal modification, external modification, request perspectives

Acknowledgments

이 논문은 2016학년도 이화여자대학교 대학원 장학금 지원에 의한 논문임

References

  • 문민정⋅전지현 (Moon, M. J. and J. H. Jeon). 2018. 법률비서 영문이메일 연구-코퍼스와 장르분석을 통하여(Corpus-based study on the English emails of legal assistants). ≪비서⋅사무경영연구≫(Journal of Secretarial Studies) 27-2, 77-102.
  • Achiba, M. 2003. Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics. Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596131]
  • Ädel, A. and B. Erman. 2012. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes 31(2), 81-92. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004]
  • Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Biesenbach-Lucas, S. 2007. Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning and Technology 11(2), 59-81.
  • Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olshtain. 1984. Request and apologies: a cross cultural study of speech act realization patterns, CCSARP. Applied Linguistics 5(3), 165-179. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196]
  • Bovee, C. L. and J. V. Thill. 2018. Business Communication Today (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085]
  • Burgucu-Tazegul, A., T. Han. and A. O. Engin. 2016. Pragmatic failure of Turkish EFL learners in request emails to their professors. International Education Studies 9(10), 105-115. [https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n10p105]
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. and R. Muñiz-Calderón. 2013. Variation of English business e-mails in Asian countries. Ibérica 26, 55-76.
  • Chang, H. C. and G. R. Holt. 1994. A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey ed., The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues, 95-132. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Chen, C. E. 2001. Making e-mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. St. Louis, MO.
  • Chen, C. E. 2006. The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology 10(2), 33-55.
  • Cho, H. Y. and H. S. Yoon. 2013. A corpus-assisted comparative genre analysis of corporate earnings calls between Korean and native-English speakers. English for Specific Purposes 32(3), 170-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.03.001]
  • Cook, V. J. 1992. Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42(4), 557-591. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x]
  • Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164771]
  • Devecia, T. and I. B. Hmidaa. 2017. The request speech act in emails by Arab university students in the UAE. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13(1), 194-214.
  • Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. 1989. Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, eds., Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 221-247. Norwood, NJ: Ables.
  • Fraser, B. 1978. Acquiring social competence in a second language. RELC Journal 9(2), 1-21. [https://doi.org/10.1177/003368827800900201]
  • Hartford, B. S. and K. Bardovi-Harlig. 1996. At your earliest convenience: A study of written student requests to faculty. In L. F. Bouton ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning Monographs Series, 7, 55-71. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
  • Holtgraves, T. and J. Yang. 1990. Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(4), 719-729. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.719]
  • Humphries, S. 2015. This little money to you is very huge and important to me: Move analysis of Japanese students’ e-mail negotiation with a British bank. 外國語學部紀要(Journal of Foreign Language Studies) 13, 1-21
  • Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? Network 6, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06
  • Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencery-Oatey ed., Culturally Speaking Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures, 316-341. London: Continuum.
  • Kim, M. H. 2013. How appropriately do Korean college students make Email requests in English?. Modern English Education 14(1), 1-21.
  • Larsson, T. 2017. A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes 48, 57-70. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001]
  • Lee, Y. R., and J. H. Jeon. 2018. English e-mails of administrative staff: The case of ‘A’ symphony orchestra. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 34(3), 239-265 [https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2018.9.34.3.239]
  • Lenassi, N. 2015. Some linguistic and pragmatic aspects of Italian business email. In E. Darics ed., Digital Business Discourse, 80-98. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313]
  • Murphy, M. and M. Levy. 2006. Politeness in intercultural email communication: Australian and Korean perspectives. Journal of Intercultural Communication 12. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural
  • Murphy, M. and C. P. Matas. 2009. Politeness in intercultural e-mail communication. In R. de Cássia Veiga Marriott and P. L. Torres eds., Handbook of Research on E-learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition, 253-270. Australia: Griffith University Press. [https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-994-6.ch016]
  • Nguyen H. and J. Miller. 2012. Exploring business request genres: Students’ rhetorical choices. Business Communication Quarterly 71(1), 5-28. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911430379]
  • Pan, P. C. 2012. Interlanguage requests in institutional e-mail discourse. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis and H. Woodfield eds., Interlanguage Request Modification, 119-162. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.217.05cat]
  • Ryoo, H. K. 2009. Korean EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatics realized in letters of request. Studies in British and American Language and Literature 92(1), 229-264.
  • Savic, M. 2018. Lecturer perceptions of im/politeness and in/appropriateness in student e-mail requests: A Norwegian perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 124, 52-72. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.005]
  • Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438]
  • Ting-Toomey, S. 2004. Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. Bennett and M. Bennett eds., Handbook of intercultural training, 3rd ed., 217-248. CA: Sage Publications. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231129.n9]
  • TingToomey, S. 2005. Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. B. Gudykunst ed., Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, 211-233. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
  • Yang, E. M. 2001. The use of downgraders by Korean English speakers and American English native speakers in requestive e-mail. English Language & Literature Teaching 7(1), 51-66.
  • Yates, L. 2010. Speech act performance in workplace settings. In A. M. Martinez Flor and E. U. Juan eds., Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, 109-126. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.07yat]
  • Zhu, Y., and C. White. 2009. Practitioners’ views about the use of business email within organizational settings: Implications for developing student generic competence. Business Communication Quarterly 72(3), 289-303. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909336934]