FACEWORK IN NON-FACE-THREATENING EMAILS BY NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS (80,00 руб.)

FACEWORK IN NONFACETHREATENING EMAILS BY NATIVE AND NONNATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS Zohreh R. Eslami and Wei-Hong Ko College of Education Texas A&M University Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture College Station, TX 77843 United States The aim of this research is to investigate the speech act of assignment submission and presence of facework in submission emails sent to faculty members by native and nonnative English speaking graduate students. <...> Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) and Spencer-Oatey’s (2002, 2008) rapport management framework were utilized to analyze the emails. <...> The corpus consisted of 105 emails from 40 NES and NNES students. <...> Drawing on speech event analysis approach (Merrison, Wilson, Davies, & Haugh, 2012), we analyze both submission head act as well as optional elements like openings, small talk and closings in an email. <...> Our exploratory study revealed that, contrary to the argument that CMC is a lean medium (Duthler, 2006) in which it is difficult to achieve interpersonal communication, through the employment of opening, small talk and closing strategies, students attended to relational goals in their email communication. <...> I. INTRODUCTION Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has opened new venues for studentfaculty communication. <...> However, because emails similar to other forms of asynchronous CMC lack contextual cues and immediate feedback typical of face-to-face communication or synchronous CMC, it is more difficult for senders to ascertain what kinds of impression their messages exert on the recipient(s). <...> Linguistic cues such as openings, small talk, and closings can be strategically implemented with more forethought and less cognitive load in email communication than synchronous or face-to-face communication (Bou-Franch, 2006; Eslami, 2013; Herring, 1996). <...> Previous research on politeness in email communication between students and faculty has mainly focused on face threatening speech acts such as requests and apologies. <...> It is, therefore, insightful to examine if and to what extent facework is used in submission emails, which are basically a response to faculty members’ request to submit assignments/papers and thus are not face-threatening speech acts as proposed by Brown and Levinson <...>