《GettingThingsAcrossRequestStrategiesinEnglishBusinessE-mails商务沟通：电子邮件中的请求策略》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《GettingThingsAcrossRequestStrategiesinEnglishBusinessE-mails商务沟通：电子邮件中的请求策略（50页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、研 究 生 毕 业 论 文（申请硕士学位）论文题目商务沟通：电子邮件中的请求策略研究作者姓名学科、专业名称英语语言文学研究方向语用学指导教师Getting Things Across: Request Strategies in English Business E-mails Under the Supervision of Professor Chen Xinren Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts English Department School o
2、f Foreign Studies Nanjing University I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person or material which has to a substantial extent been accepted for the award of any other
3、 degree or diploma at any university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been made in the text.Signature: Name: Date: iACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I?m de eply indebted to many people for their help. Without their precious help, this thesis would not have been finished. Fi
4、rst and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Chen Xinren. From the very beginning of this thesis, he has provided me with great inspiration and valuable guidance in the thesis writing class given by him. In my process of writing this thesis, he has carefully read and reread the draft
5、and offered many well-informed comments. Without his valuable suggestions, unfailing encouragement and great patience, the completion of the present paper would have been impossible. I?m grateful to my academic brother, Li Ming, who helped me a lot with the data analysis on the questionnaire. Thanks
6、 also go to Associate Prof. Wang Wenyu, the lecturer of research methods and thesis writing, whose class benefited me a lot in the methodology part of this thesis. Many thanks should go to my classmates in the thesis writing class who came up with many helpful ideas for my thesis. I?m also grateful
7、to m y close friends, Cao Liang, Cong Cong, Yang Hui, etc., who gave me many suggestions on how to deal with the questionnaire. I should also express my appreciation to the participants of the study, some of whom are former classmates of mine. Without their help, there is no way that I could obtain
8、naturally occurring contexts as the main data of my thesis. S.S.M iiABSTRACT In the field of speech act studies, most of the previous research related to politeness focused on daily communication. However, as the studies on speech acts are developing faster and broader, linguists have been paying mo
9、re and more attention to specific fields of communication, for instance, technical written communication and business communication, to explore the features of speech acts in different registers. The present study attempts to conduct a quantitative study on requests and request strategies in busines
10、s written communication concerning the degree of politeness and directness. Inspired by the exiting studies on English request strategies, especially Trosborg?s categorization, the present author develops a new categorization framework of request strategies. Comparison between the requests made by C
11、hinese and those by native speakers of English is made to find out their differences and tendencies. To figure out the correlation between the working experience and the pragmatic competence, comparison between the requests made by novices and those by veterans is also conducted. Different from prev
12、ious research, this study collected first-hand e-mails. In total 189 business e-mails were collected as the source of naturally occurring contexts from twelve businessmen home and abroad. A questionnaire was also designed to investigate Chinese businessmen?s opinion on the degree of politeness for e
13、ach request strategy. It was distributed to 39 businessmen from different international trade companies in China. The data analysis in this study generated the following findings. First, expressing requests explicitly is the most frequently used strategy in business written communication, which tell
14、s the difference between business communication and daily communication. Second, with no significant differences in the degree of politeness, Chinese and native English-speaking businessmen share the same favorite request strategy (i.e. expressing requests explicitly). Last but not least, the pragma
15、tic competence of veterans is higher than that of novices, which suggests improvement can be made to novices. The present study has implications in many ways. To begin with, the modified categorization of request strategies together with the suggested degrees of politeness iii(DOP) for each strategy
16、 makes contributions to speech act studies. Besides, this study contributes to cross-cultural communication as well as English for Business and Economics (EBE) teaching and learning. The present study suggests that specific registers be an important theme for cross-cultural communication research. T
17、he differences between the data from e-mails and the data from the questionnaires imply that in order to have credible results it is necessary to obtain data from naturally occurring contexts. For the field of EBE, it is suggested that more efforts should be made to study speech acts in this field,
18、while further improvements should be made to improve the pragmatic competence of Chinese English learners. Key words: request strategy, business letters, politeness, pragmatic competence iv摘要沟通对于任何经济活动来说都十分重要，对于跨文化商务活动来说更是如此。而成功的跨文化商务沟通不仅要求良好的语言（语法）能力，同时也需要相应的语用能力。请求是跨文化商务沟通当中最为常见的言语行为之一，能否用合适的语言进行表
19、达对请求的效果起着不可忽视的作用。言语行为理论的相关研究一直以来都以日常交际为主题。然而随着该方面研究的不断深入和延伸，人们已经开始越来越关注专门领域的交际和沟通，例如科技写作、商务沟通等，以便探索言语行为在不同语域的特征。本文从礼貌和直接程度角度对请求和请求策略进行定量分析。基于前人对英语请求策略的研究，特别是Trosborg的分类，本文提出了新的请求策略分类框架，同时对其中各个策略类别进行定义，用例句加以说明，并对其礼貌程度进行分析。本文着重比较了中国商务人员和英语本族语者在商务信函中使用请求策略的特点和趋势， 以及中国商务人员中老手和新手在商务信函中使用请求策略的不同情况和趋势。与以往研
20、究不同的是，本文收集了来自于十二家国内外不同外贸公司的一百八十九封电子信函，作为第一手语料，保证了其真实性和完整性。同时，作者设计了一份有关中国商务人员对请求策略礼貌程度的认识的问卷调查。三十九位来自不同外贸公司的中国商务人员认真填写了该问卷。本文数据分析的结果如下：首先，在商务信函中最为常用的请求策略是直接提出请求，表明商务英语和日常对话中言语行为的区别。其次，中国和英语本族语商务人员最常用的策略是一致的 （即直接提出请求），同时两者使用请求的礼貌程度相近，没有显著区别。此外，更重要的是，语料数据结果显示商务人员中老手的语用能力要高于新手，表明新手在此方面有待提高。通过对真实例句的分析，我们
21、可以看出请求策略作为商务沟通语用手段的一种可以有效地促进请求内容的达成，推动贸易双方进一步的交流。首先，本文中对请求策略的分类以及对各个策略礼貌程度的评分（DOP）对言语行为的研究作出了一v定的贡献。同时，本文对跨文化交际和商务英语等方面都有一定的指导意义。跨文化交际研究应该考虑到具体的语境。针对跨文化交际中的言语行为研究，本文中电子信函和调查问卷所得出的结果之间的差异表明为了得到更加真实全面的结论有必要获取真实自然的语料。此外，商务英语作为一种特定体裁，对其中言语行为的研究有助于我们更加全面的了解其特点。同时，商务英语教学中应该注重提高中国英语学习者的语用能力。关键词 ：请求策略商务信函礼貌
22、 语用能力viTABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. iABSTRACT. ii摘要 . ivLIST OF TABLES. viiiLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . ixChapter OneINTRODUCTION . 1 1.1 Object of the Study . 1 1.2 Need for the Study . 2 1.3 Significance of the Study . 3 1.4 Outline of the Thesis . 3 Chapter TwoLITERETURE REVIEW. 5 2.1 Defining
23、 Requests . 5 2.1.1 Previous definitions of requests . 5 2.1.2 Requests in the present study . 6 2.2 Existing Studies on Request and Request Strategies . 6 2.2.1 Request in cross-cultural speech act studies . 6 2.2.2 Existing categorization of request strategies . 7 2.3 Existing Studies on Business
24、E-mails . 9 2.3.1 Definition of business e-mail . 9 2.3.2 Related studies on EBE . 9 2.3.3 Related studies in China . 10 2.4 Summary . 11 Chapter ThreeTHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. 12 3.1 Theoretical Basis for the Present Study . 12 3.1.1 Speech Act Theory . 12 3.1.2 FTA and strategies for doing FTAs . 13
25、3.2 Categorization Framework for the Present Study . 14 Chapter FourMETHODOLOGY . 19 4.1 Research Questions . 19 4.2 Participants . 20 4.3 Data Collection . 21 4.3.1 Collecting business e-mail. 21 4.3.2 Politeness-of-request questionnaire . 22 vii4.4 Data Analysis . 23 4.4.1 Analysis of the e-mail d
26、ata . 23 4.4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire data . 27 Chapter FiveRESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 28 5.1 Request Strategies Commonly Used by Businessmen in E-mails . 28 5.2 Comparison of Request Strategies Used by Chinese and Native English-Speaking Businessmen. 30 5.3 Comparison of Request Strategies Use
27、d by Novices and Veterans . 32 5.4 Chinese Businessmen?s Perception on Request DOP . 34 Chapter SixCONCLUSION. 38 6.1 Major Findings . 38 6.2 Implications of the Study . 39 6.2.1 Implications for speech act studies . 39 6.2.2 Implications for EBE teaching and learning . 39 6.3 Limitations of the Stu
28、dy and Suggestions for Future Research . 40 REFERENCES. 42APPENDIX: POLITENESS-OF-REQUEST QUESTIONNAIRE. 45 viiiLIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Trosborg?s Categorization of Request Strategies . 8 Table 3.1: Categorization of Request Strategies . 14 Table 4.1: Basic Information about Each Participant . 20
29、Table 4.2: The Number of E-mails from Each Pair of Participants . 21 Table 4.3: Structure of the Politeness-of-Request Questionnaire . 22 Table 4.4: The Modified Categorization of Request Strategies . 25 Table 4.5: The Value of Alpha for Each Item in Part C . 27 Table 5.1: Frequency of Request Strat
30、egies Being Used . 29 Table 5.2: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Chinese and Natives . 30 Table 5.3: Comparison Between Chinese and Native Businessmen (standardized) . 31 Table 5.4: APDOP of Each Participant . 32 Table 5.5: T-tests Report for the Difference between Chinese and Natives . 32 Ta
31、ble 5.6: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Novices and Veterans . 33 Table 5.7: Comparison Between Novices and Veterans (standardized) . 34 Table 5.8: T-tests Report for the Difference between Novices and Veterans . 34 Table 5.9: DOP of Request Strategies in Chinese Businessmen?s Mind . 35 Tabl
32、e 5.10: Chinese Businessmen?s Belief about Making Requests . 36 Table 5.11: Chinese Businessmen?s Beliefs about Replying Requests. 36 Table 5.12: Chinese Businessmen?s Attitudes Concerning Different Favors . 36 Table 5.13: Frequency of Request Strategies in the Questionnaire . 37ixLIST OF ABBREVIATI
33、ONS 1. APDOP average point of degree of politeness 2. Cat. category 3. CCSARP Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project 4. DOP degree of politeness 5. EBE English for business and economics 6. ESP English for special purpose 7. FTA face-threatening act 8. PDOP point of degree of politeness 1Chap
34、ter One INTRODUCTION 1.1Object of the Study Many people think that using the politest way to make requests can make it most likely that desired act will be performed, which entails that using hinting may be the most effective requesting means. However, in the real world, especially in some fields, t
35、his generalization may not be true. According to Zhuang Lemei (2004, p.6), when making a request for remittance of a bill of exchange, words like “we will appreciate a lot if you can remit the draft ” are too polite to be appropriate. Therefore, we may wonder what request strategies are commonly use
36、d and how one can be polite enough in the business field. Trosborg defines a request as “an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act which is for the benefit of Speaker” (1995 , p.187). From the definition we ca
37、n infer that requests always do favors for the speaker. That is why requests belong to the five types of acts that threaten the hearer ?s negative face. Usually the speaker chooses either not to use FTAs or to employ various strategies in communication to effectively communicate the content of FTAs
38、to the hearer in order to minimize the threat to the hearer?s face. However, the employment of request strategies in the business field is not as straightforward as it is in daily communication. The study of English in the business field, known as EBE (English for Business and Economics), has been a
39、ttracting attention ever since Bhatia (1993, p.48) considers it to be one of the most important branches of ESP (English for Special Purposes). To study this specific genre, the researchers have to take the communicative purposes into account. Considering its complex purposes in communication, busin
40、ess letters tend to employ 2different strategies when dealing with different situations. Meanwhile, owing to the rapid speed of globalization, international business becomes more and more common, while more and more often business letter takes the forms of e-mails and faxes. Thus, this study focuses
41、 on the use of request strategies as well as their effects in business e-mails written by both native and non-native English-speaking businessmen. 1.2Need for the Study Theoretically, although plenty of studies on requests have been done, the previous studies mainly focus on defining speech acts and
42、 their categories with little detailed analysis of specific speech acts actually used, let alone in the specific field of business communication. Even for the request strategies only, previous categorizations are far from being satisfactory. Trosborg?s categorization (1995, p.205) is built on previo
43、us studies and seems well-organized, but it is still problematic. To begin with, its four categories are not paralleled. It is easy to find that Cat.and Cat. are paralleled as indirect vs. direct requests. However, Cat.and Cat. should be categorized beneath the main category of indirect requests ins
44、tead of being another two main items. There are other problems existing in Trosborg?s categorization , which will be discussed in detail in 2.2.2. Practically, since interactions between different countries have become more and more frequent, the significance of cross-cultural communication has rise
45、n to a much higher level. Thus, it is worth of great efforts to conceive and investigate the differences between cultures, including the study of requests. However, there are few studies on request strategies used in cross-cultural communication. Among existing studies, most of them have failed to d
46、raw data from naturally occurring contexts. For these reasons, hopefully this study can contribute some sound findings, at least some solid proofs to previous theories. Pedagogically, the calling for frequent cross-cultural communication has given rise to the need for language learners to improve th
47、eir pragmatic competence in cross-cultural communication. This study will take care of this need with specific reference to the performance of requests across cultures. 31.3Significance of the Study The literature concerning requesting as a specific speech act suggests that many linguists believe th
48、ere are certain pragmatic regularities underlying requestive behavior. Thus, requesting has been one of the most studied speech acts. This study participates in the research and aims to shed new light on the understanding of it. The present study presents a modified categorization of request strateg
49、ies. After defining eight subcategories of request strategies, the suggested classification can hopefully serve better as a standard for future research than previous ones. Besides, for the sake of statistical purpose, a scale of the politeness degree of each request strategy is to be designed and p
50、oints are to be given to each request strategy. Traditional research on politeness and face theory mainly focuses on three independent variables: the social distance (D) of the speaker and hearer, the relative power (P) between them, and the absolute ranking (R) of the imposition in the particular c
51、ulture, which was developed by Brown and Levinson (1987). A different variable is taken into consideration in this study. In the collected e-mails, the length of the speakers? working experience will also be considered as an independent variable. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), request strat
52、egies are employed to minimize the threat to the hearer?s face, in other words, to be polite. However, communication between companies from different countries involves different understandings of politeness from different cultural backgrounds. Just as every coin has two sides, the function of polit
53、eness in business letters also varies depending on how it is used. Being impolite will damage the relationship between the trade sides, while being too polite, which is usually realized as being too indirect, may cause confusion and thus hinder the communication. All these suggest that politeness in
54、 business e-mails and its realization in request strategies are important topics for studying, especially for the benefit of non-native businessmen. 1.4Outline of the Thesis 4The thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter One states the object, need, and significance of the study. Chapter Two defines
55、the concept of requests and reviews the related previous studies. Chapter Three introduces the theoretical basis for the present study and illustrates the suggested framework of categorization of request strategies. Chapter Four describes the methodology of the study, including research questions, p
56、articipants, and procedures of data collection and data analysis. Chapter Five presents and discusses the results of e-mails analysis and questionnaire analysis. Chapter Six, the conclusion part, summarizes the major findings, discusses the implications and limitations of the present study, and sugg
57、ests some directions for future studies. 5Chapter Two LITERETURE REVIEW As the gateway to our understanding of request strategies, previous studies on requests will be introduced in this chapter. At the beginning, various definitions as well as theories on requests are going to be introduced. Beside
58、s, business written communication will be depicted as a specific genre which still leaves much to be explored. Furthermore, the related few and limited studies in China are to be presented. 2.1Defining Requests 2.1.1 Previous definitions of requests As one typical speech act, requesting has gained m
59、uch attention from scholars in the fields of pragmatics and sociolinguistics. One of the very first steps in their studies is to define what a request is. Though the question seems to be simple, different researchers have come up with different answers. According to Trosborg (1995, p.187), “a reques
60、t is an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act which is for the benefit of the speaker. ” In his mind, as one typical speech act, requesting fits into the directive category of illocutionary acts. More importa
61、ntly, the ultimate purpose of making requests is defined to be for the requester?s benefit only ; in other words, when a speaker asks a hearer for a favor, the speaker is making a request. The benefit could be a favor or service, such as asking a requestee for something or to perform a certain act,
62、and could also be verbal, such as requiring for some information (Trosborg, 1995). Besides, the borderline between requests and orders seems fuzzy. Trosborg recognizes orders as one particular form of requests and put it into the last category “Imperatives”of his framework. However, while both order
63、s and requests 6belong to directive acts, they are two different speech acts. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish them. 2.1.2 Requests in the present study However, in the business field, requests are sometimes made for both sides? benefit, not necessarily only for the benefit of the requester. Fur
64、thermore, the speaker can use some strategic device to represent his/her own interest as for the interest of both the speaker and the hearer. Thus, requesting in business communication is defined as “a legitimate attempt by the writer to get the reader to perform an action required by the business c
65、ircumstances through evoking the readers need for compliance on the grounds of corporate and personal motivators such as necessity, duty and goodwill ” (Chiappini and Harris, 1996, p.638). To be more concise and accurate, requesting in this study is defined as an illocutionary act attempted by a req
66、uester to get a requestee to perform an act motivated by corporate and personal factors for either or both sides. Furthermore, since orders are given by speakers who possess absolute authority or higher rank over the hearer, to make a distinction, requests in the present study are confined to those
67、demands to which the requstee owns freedom to choose whether and how to respond. 2.2 Existing Studies on Request and Request Strategies 2.2.1 Request in cross-cultural speech act studies The mainstream of speech acts studies in the field of cross-cultural communication argues for the universality of
68、 speech acts. In the field of interlanguage pragmatics, researchers have compared and studied dozens of speech acts, including requests, refuses, apologies, complaints, and so on (e.g. Blum-Kulka and Kasper, 1989; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Candlin, 1987; Garcia, 1989; Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 199
69、3). Most of the studies were empirical ones based on Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP). This project was set up in 1984 by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain to investigate cross-cultural and interlingual variation in speech act performance. The main hypothesis of CCSARP project is that th
70、ere is certain general principal that can be applied to speech acts in all languages. CCSARP Project employs a discourse completion test to get at the 7strategies available to speakers to perform requests. This method is especially effective for the comparison of strategies from different languages.
71、 By carrying out empirical studies, Blum-Kulka compared the length of utterance and the range of linguistic strategies used by native speakers and learners as well as the differences in oral and written forms. CCSARP projects designed for request studies attempt to find out whether there are certain
72、 pragmatic regularities underlying requestive behavior in all languages with the proof from various empirical investigations. The concept that the strategies for realizing speech acts are essentially the same across cultures is also supported by Brown and Levinson (1987). One of the most significant
73、 findings of the CCSARP is that all languages studied overwhelmingly prefer conventionally indirect request strategies (e.g. Could I borrow your notes? / Would you mind moving your car?). However, many linguists have questioned this universality by presenting considerable variations they have found
74、in the realization of speech acts across cultures. Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) also note that some of the request strategies were not common between languages. Besides, most of the previous studies are from western cultural and linguistic perspectives. Thus, it is necessary to encourage more
75、 researchers to explore non-western languages like Chinese to draw a full picture of the realization of speech acts in different cultures. 2.2.2 Existing categorization of request strategies Requesting is much related to social backgrounds, interpersonal relationship, personalities, etc. As a result
76、, to explore the realization forms of requests, many studies have been done to define different request strategies in terms of their forms, content, directness, linguistic features, and so on. Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) presents three main levels of directness which can be used to divide re
77、quest strategies. The three levels are: direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and nonconventionally indirect strategies. However, most of those studies above only distinguish request strategies exclusively according to the level of directness by which the request is realized, and th
78、en make a list of request strategies without revealing any correlation among them, let alone presenting a systematic picture of all. 8In his book Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies, Trosborg studies three main speech acts in the context of cross-cultural communication. Bot
79、h its theoretical framework and experimental designs are discussed in detail, while realization patterns for each speech act strategies are presented as the chief content. Trosborg?s categorization of request strategies ( see Table 2.1) is also based on the three main levels of directness developed
80、by Blum-Kulka. In his categorization, request strategies are presented at levels of increasing directness. Conventionally indirect requests include all the indirect ways of realization except hints, and are divided into two big categories based on the criteria whether the requests refer to hearer-or
81、iented conditions or speaker-based conditions. Besides fully discussing each strategy with rich illustrations, Trosborg also considers different ways requests can be modified and the effects that justification can make. Table 2.1: Trosborg?s Categorization of Request Strategies Request strategies (p
82、resented at levels of increasing directness) Situation: Speaker requests to borrow Hearer?s car.Cat.Indirect request Str.1 Hints (mild) I have to be at the airport in half an hour. (strong) My car has broken down. Will you be using your car tonight? Cat.Conventionally indirect (hearer-oriented condi
83、tions) Str.2 Ability Could you lend me your car? Willingness Would you lend me your car? Permission May I borrow your car? Str.3 Suggestory formulae How about lending me your car? Cat.Conventionally indirect (speaker-based conditions) Str.4 Wishes I would like to borrow your car. Str.5 Desire/needs
84、I want/need to borrow your car. Cat.Direct requests Str.6 Obligation You must/have to lend me your car. Str.7 Performatives (hedged) I would like to ask you to lend me your car. (unhedged) I ask/require you to lend me your car. Str.8 Imperatives Lend me your car. Elliptical phrases Your car (please)
85、. However, his categorization still can not reach full perfection, leaving some space to be further improved. First, the four categories are not paralleled. Besides, some terms are vague, e.g. ability, willingness, etc. Since the categorization is based on the cognition that 9request is one of the m
86、ain speech acts, it would be better to describe different categories of request strategies with verbs instead of nouns to exactly express and distinguish the requests. The criterion of classification is not consistent. Furthermore, Trosborg divided the category of “Performatives” into “hedged” and “
87、unhedged, ” which caused confusion since the model sentence “I would like to ask you to l end me your car” surely sounded more polite than the previous saying “I ask/require you to lend me your car. ” However, according to Trosborg, the degree of directness is ascending while the degree of politenes
88、s is descending from the top to the bottom of the table. Thus, for the present study the researcher has developed a new categorization framework (refer to Table 3.2 in the next chapter ) on the basis of Trosborg?s work.2.3 Existing Studies on Business E-mails 2.3.1 Definition of business e-mail Sinc
89、e the main source of data in this study comes from business e-mails, it is necessary to clarify what business e-mail is referred to in advance. In the book of Collection of Practical Letters for International Trade English , Yang, Jiang and Ye (1997, p.32) defines business letter as “business letter
90、 is referred to all sorts of letters that between different economic parties with economy and trade as main content.” Nowadays, letters have gradually been replaced by e-mails, as the latter are faster and cheaper. Meanwhile, business e-mails inherit most features from business letters, which makes
91、the definition acceptable in this study. 2.3.2 Related studies on EBE As one of the main branches of ESP (a shortened form for English for Special Purposes) studies, EBE (a shortened form for English for Business and Economics) is an approach to language teaching in which all content and methods are
92、 based on the need of communication in the business field. The whole process of communication should be taken into consideration, which suggests teaching EBE in a broad approach as a communicative genre. In his book Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, Bhatia (1993) 10illustrates
93、how genre analysis can be applied to the business world. He provides a comprehensive introduction to product and self promotion as examples. In this section, the importance of communicative purpose is highlighted, as the author suggests that “the communicative purpose which the genre is intended to
94、serve is the most important factor in genre identification” (Bhatia, 1993, p.45). Huckin and Olsen (1991) write about business letter-writing in specific terms and point out several key notions in business letter-writing: format, form, forms of address, etc. The book also discusses the significance
95、of identifying communicative audience and purposes when doing professional writing. Also, Yli-Yokipii (1994) suggests that writers seem to want to avoid direct lexico-grammatical formulations in favor of more ambiguous request formats and that this behavior points to interpersonal and contextual inf
96、luences affecting, consciously or unconsciously, writers? rhetorical choices. As a specific genre, business letter-writing is not only regulated by general communicative norms, such as politeness, but also influenced by “ the specific corporate context which requires clarity, effectiveness, speed, e
97、tc” (Chiappini et al., 1996, p.645). Besides, considering that business communication is also related to interpersonal variables such as power, distance and status, it is complicated but still interesting to explore requests in this specific field. However, business letter-writing has seldom been th
98、e object of any systematic study by linguists (rare exceptions include Murray, 1987 and Yli-Yokipii, 1994). Some of the related studies are primarily concerned with spoken discourse. Nevertheless, the greatest limitation shared by most of the above studies is lack of adequate data. Many researches u
99、se questionnaires to collect data rather than drawing on natural occurring language. 2.3.3 Related studies in China Previous studies have mainly focused on defining speech acts and their categories with little detailed analysis of specific speech acts actually used, let lone in a specific field. Bes
100、ides, there are few studies on request strategies used in cross-cultural communication in China. In China, much attention has been paid to speech acts, requests, in particular. However, the previous studies on request strategies used by Chinese EFL learners mainly 11focus on SLA (Ren, Li and Zhang,
101、2008) and comparison between Chinese and English (Cao, 2005; Cheng, 2006; Lin, 2007; Ling, 2003; Yi, 2007). Many comparison studies are based on CCSARPs (Yao and Qiu, 2003). Others conduct surveys to collect data from both Chinese and English native speakers (Liao and Qu, 2007; Ren et al., 2008). Th
102、us, their data are drawn from language tests instead of naturally occurring contexts. As mentioned previously in Section 1.3, it is necessary to explore requests in the specific field of business communication. However, in China, there are not many studies done within business context, and even thos
103、e related mainly adopt pragmatics as a general perspective (Lu, 2007; Yang, 2007; Zeng, 2007). Many studies have focused on how to apply politeness strategies in business communication (He, 2001; Tan, 2008; Sun, 2002; Zeng, 2002). Others apply theories of Cooperative Principle (Ke, 2001; Xue, 2001),
104、 and Face Theory (Huang, 2003). Thus, how request strategies can affect business communication has not been studied yet. 2.4Summary In this chapter, previous definitions on requests were introduced, while a workable definition of requests for the present study was provided with regard to the context
105、 of business communication. Among the studies on cross-cultural communications and on the field of EBE, those related to requests and request strategies were introduced. Meanwhile, the categorization of requests strategies developed by Trobsborg was discussed in views of its pros and cons. The revie
106、w reveals that there are few studies on requests and requests strategies in business written communication. To fill the gaps between previous studies and the object of the present study, the following chapters will provide a modified categorization of requests strategies. Business e-mails and questi
107、onnaires will be collected for the quantitative investigation on requests strategies in terms of their politeness and directness. Comparison will be made between Chinese and native businessmen as well as between novices and veterans. 12Chapter Three THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Chapter Three aims to establ
108、ish the theoretical framework for the analysis of request strategies in business e-mails. The first section introduces Speech Act Theory and FTA studies briefly. The second section is devoted to the categorization of request strategies for the present study. Considering the defaults existing in Tros
109、borg?s categorization of request strategies, improvement is made to form a new category framework. The categorization of request strategies for the present study will be illustrated in detail. 3.1 Theoretical Basis for the Present Study 3.1.1 Speech Act Theory Speech acts studies are rooted in the s
110、peech act theory developed by Austin (1962) and Searle (2001). According to Austin, people can perform actions when talking. Based on Austin?s theory, Searle c omes up with further extension and division in his theoretical works. Searle (2001) divides speech acts into utterance act, propositional ac
111、t, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. According to four main felicity conditions, he further divides illocutionary acts into five main categories: assertives (e.g. “I predict he will come”), directives (e.g. “I order you to leave”), commissives (e.g. “I promise to pay you the money ”), expre
112、ssives (e.g. “I apologize for stepping on your toe ”), and declarations (e.g. “I declare the meeting open”). Of the five categories, directive is the speech act used by a speaker who wants the hearer to do something, e.g. “ Close the door, please. ”Searle (1979, p.44) presents the felicity condition
113、s on the directive class of illocutionary acts as follows: 13Preparatory condition H is able to perform A. Sincerity condition S wants H to do A. Propositional content condition S predicates a future act A of H. Essential condition Counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A. Since requesting is a ty
114、pical directive act, when Searle illustrates the felicity conditions of directives, he bears request in mind (Searle, 1979). Thus, these felicity conditions can be directly applied to the study of the requestive act. The definition of requests for the present study is based on those felicity conditi
115、ons. Although their theory is recognized as an important contribution to pragmatic studies, Austin and Searle have been confronted with much criticism at the same time. The generalization they draw for the way speech acts function in natural communication faces doubts for all the examples they use a
116、re from their native environment. Thus, the present study collects data from real communicative interaction to avoid some potential problems. 3.1.2 FTA and strategies for doing FTAs Brown and Levinson (1987) develop a framework to deal with the politeness issue when performing different speech acts.
117、 Their major contribution is the development of the Face Threatening Acts (FTA?s)and the politeness strategies. FTA?sare acts that infringe on the hearers need to maintain their self esteem and to be respected. Besides, Brown and Levinson (1978) draw a distinction between acts that threaten negative
118、 face and those that threaten positive face. The two notions are defined as follows: Negative face: the want of every “competent adult member ” that his actions be unimpeded by others. Positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others. (He. ed. 2003:564) The
119、 negative face roots in human?s basic desire to be unimpeded in actions, to maintain their private space, to make free choices, and not to be distracted. Speech acts that threaten the hearer?s negative-face include orders and requests, suggestion and advice, reminding, threats, warnings, and dares.
120、To effectively communicate the content of FTAs to the hearer while minimizing the threat to the h earer?s Face, the speaker can choose not to do FTAs or to employ various strategies in communication. Brown and Levinson (1978) schematize the possible strategies for doing FTAs as follows: 141 without
121、redressive action, baldly on record 2 positive politeness Do the FTA with redressive action 3 negative politeness 4 off record 5 Don?t do the FTA(He. ed. 2003: 573)Note: the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 stand for the five strategies from the most direct to the most indirect. 3.2 Categorization Framework for th
122、e Present Study Built on previous research, Trosborg (1995) comes up with four major categories of request strategies (refer to Table 2.1), including eight strategies. Although his study is more systematic than previous research, there are still problems and further improvement is needed. As mention
123、ed before, there are many problems underlying his categorizing standard and some of the terms presenting the strategies. As discussed before, Trosborg?s categorization (refer to Table 2.1) has many problems. Thus, the present study introduces some modifications and works out a new framework, as show
124、n in Table 3.1: Table 3.1: Categorization of Request Strategies Directness Request strategies Illustrations Direct request A. Expressing requirement explicitly Send me your quotes. Indirect request Conventionally indirect B. Pointing out responsibilities /necessities You have to send us your quotes
125、first. C. Expressing the speaker?s needs Now we need your quotes. D. Expressing the speaker?s willingness We hope you can send us your quotes. E. Suggesting the hearer How about sending us your quotes first? F. Inquiring about the hearer?s ability /willingness /permission Can you send me your quotes
126、? Non-conventionally indirect G. Hinting the hearer We haven?t got your quotes yet. Table 3.1 is the categorization of request strategies that builds on previous studies, in particular on the categories of Trosborg (1995), which hereby serves as an instrument for 15classification of the data. Realiz
127、ations of the seven different levels of directness are formulated with regard to a situation in which the speaker asks for the quotes of the hearer?s products. There are seven major categorie s presented at levels of increasing directness (A being the most direct, and G being the most indirect). A.
128、Expressing requirement explicitly If the speaker expresses his/her requirement explicitly, on the one hand, he/she can efficiently express what he/she asks the hearer to perform; on the other hand, he/she can sound quite impolite. In the field of business, if the interlocutors are at the same or mos
129、t the same position, they usually try to soften their imperatives by please , like the following direct requests in Sentence (1) and (2): (1)At the meantime, please discuss with the factory and find an answer for it. (2)Please check the attached file first. However, there are exceptions where the sp
130、eaker makes requests baldly without any justification. In the following case (3), the requester who has found mistakes in the requestee?s last reply and is not happy with it sounds impolite or even severe when he asks the Chinese sales assistant to recheck the information. (3)Remember: double check
131、with your factory to make sure what we want and make sure no other problems will occur! B. Pointing out responsibilities/ necessities When pointing out that the request is due to the hearer?s responsibilities/necessities, the speaker exerts his/her authority or turns to some authority outside (like
132、objective conditions). By employing this strategy, the utterance can be modified with modal verbs, such as “need” and “should .” As a result, the speaker can express his/her demands explicitly but in a weaker form compared to using imperatives. In the following sentence (4) the writer, George, makes
133、 a request to inform Yang what to do and how to do when preparing the upcoming trade fair. As Yang is in charge of the display for his company, it is his duty to negotiate with George, his client. Thus, George chooses to point out Yang?s responsibilities so as to persuade Yang to accept his request.
134、 In fact, in this case George does not exert his authority, and instead he refers to Yang?s duty, which le aves Yang with more space to choose. (4)You need to palletize the display assortment for each store and the 16materials needed to set up the displays, base display, signs, etc. (5)The participa
135、ne “Team Member ” shall be replaced by all the participating Team Members. Different from the case in Sentence (4), the speaker in Sentence (5) chooses to use the passive voice so as to omit the agent. Although the speaker did not name the hearer as the person who should correct the words “Team Memb
136、er,” it is still explicit that the agent omitted here refers to the e-mail receiver (the hearer). In this case, by pointing out necessities as well as omitting the agent, the speaker modifies the illocutionary force of the speech act. C. Expressing the speakers needsBy focusing on speaker-related co
137、nditions, the speaker makes a sincere request and conveys his/her needs directly. Different from Strategy B, those Want-demands do not depend on external circumstances and only resort to the speaker?s own needs. In requests referring to the speaker?s needs, the hearer is assigned a role as the perfo
138、rmer of the desired act. As in Sentence (6) and (7), which come from the same e- mail, “we” and “I ” are used to emphasize the speaker?s interest. The hearer does not appear in the sentence, but it is implied as the act performer. (6)We need 600 pcs of these badges for immediate delivery. (7)Also, I
139、 want to know how you load the container? Here, in Sentence (6), the hearer is asked to deliver their goods immediately, while in Sentence (7) the hearer is asked for the way of the shipment for the goods. D. Expressing the speakers willingness Requests realized in the form of the speaker?s willingn
140、ess are not so blunt as requests expressing the speaker?s needs. By means of formulae like “I would like to” or “I hope that,” the speaker states that the following requests are his/her wishes rather than his/her demands, which leaves much room for the hearer to choose. Sometimes, requests derived f
141、rom the speaker?s needs are transferred into the form of expressing the speaker?s willingness or wishes so that the requests do not sound too imposing to the hearer. Besides, the speaker?s willingness or wish presented in the requests does not necessarily refer to substantial acts or things but to c
142、ertain abstract requirements. Consider the following examples: 17(8)Now I?d like to ask you what?s the minimum order quantity that you can keep the current price. (9)We hope you can give us the good news. In the e-mail where Sentence (8) is taken from, the hearer faces the pressure from the increasi
143、ng prices of raw materials, so that his company has to raise their products prices. In this sentence, the speaker asks for the proper order quantity, which is usually not an easy question to answer since it is much related to the price. From Sentence (9) it could be inferred that the speaker asks fo
144、r an order from the hearer, but he does not present it explicitly. Instead he chooses to transfer his demand into a mild wish, using “good news ” as a euphemism. E. Suggesting the hearer Suggestory formulae can be employed in making requests when the speaker states that the illocutionary act is good
145、 for the mutual benefits or goals of both parties (the speaker and the hearer). (10)It would be nice to include a tape in the deluxe fence set that we can show some features like the Lufkin and Stanley tapes. For instance, in Sentence (10), Serge makes a suggestion to Wu. Although the agent is not m
146、entioned explicitly, they both know it is Wu who can add “a tape in the deluxe fence ” since she represent s the party in charge of providing products and related materials. F. Inquiring about the hearer s ability /willingness/permission In requests questioning the hearer?s ability/willingness/permi
147、ssion, the desired act is imbedded in the proposition. By inquiring about the inherent capacity of the hearer or the external conditions for limitation, the speaker reduces the threat to the hearer?s face as well as the risk of losing his/her own face. In some cases, the speaker chooses to make requ
148、ests in terms of “Can you ” or “Are you able to” not to inquire about the hearer?s ability but to question the hearer?s willingness or permission. (11)Are you able to send me the prices in USD? Take Sentence (11) for example. The requester asks the requestee to exchange the prices from RMB into USD.
149、 In fact, the requester is not questioning the ability of the requestee for she knows for certain the requestee has such ability. It is just another way to 18inquiring for willingness or permission since the requester is asking for a favor from the requestee. G. Hinting the hearer According to Trosb
150、org (1995, p.192), “a speaker who does not want to state his/her impositive intent explicitly has resort to hinting strategies.” The most outstanding feature of hints is its intentional lack of transparency. The successful interpretation of hints largely depends on the shared background knowledge an
151、d the conversational routine of both parties (the speaker and the hearer). However, for business communication, especially for the cross-cultural communication, there is rare chance to meet the desired pre-conditions of understanding the hints. In the business field, if the speaker chooses to leave
152、out the desired action, and resorts to hinting strategy, he/she usually will supplement more information to indicate his/her wish or desire. (12)My mobile phone number is xxxx-xxxxxxxx. Normally, I go to bed at 12:00 pm at night. Note: Information is replaced by x for confidentiality. Take Sentence
153、(12) for example. T his sentence is taken from Mike?s e -mail to Wong. Before this sentence, Mike suggests that he and Wong can have a talk on phone that week. Then Mike provides his phone number as well as his bedding time. From those two pieces of information, Wong can infer that Mike wants him to
154、 make a call before Mike goes to bed that week. Although Mike does not express his intention in terms of explicit demands, Wong can easily interpret this hint. In this case, no intimacy or cultural background is required for the interpretation of the hinting. However, as the weakest form of making r
155、equests as well as the politest one, hinting faces a risk of being easily overlooked by the hearer. Still take Sentence (12) for example. If Wong would not comply with the potential request, he could choose not to call even without giving excuses. Thus, hinting strategy is probably not often used in
156、 business e-mail.19Chapter Four METHODOLOGY In this chapter, the researcher will introduce the methods used for the empirical study on the request strategies in business e-mails composed both by natives and non-natives. At the very beginning of this chapter the research questions will be stated, fol
157、lowed by the introduction of the instruments, subjects involved, as well as the ways of collecting and analyzing the data. 4.1Research Questions When carrying out this study, the researcher?s aim is to answer the following specific questions: 1. What strategies are most commonly used when businessme
158、n make requests in business e-mails? 2. What differences are there between request strategies used by native English speakers and those used by non-native English speakers in business e-mails? 1) Do non-native English speakers and native English speakers use different request strategies in business
159、e-mails? 2) What differences are there in the frequencies of different request strategies used by non-native English speakers and those used by native English speakers in business e-mails? 3) In what way are those differences related to politeness? 3. What differences are there between request strat
160、egies used by veterans and those used by novices in business e-mails? 1) Do veterans and novices use different request strategies in business e-mails? 2) How can the differences be explained in terms of politeness? 204.2 Participants At the first phase of data collection, there were six pairs of bus
161、inessmen, six Chinese and six native speakers, participating in this study, from whom the researcher collected a total of 189 e-mails. These e-mails were randomly chosen from their daily work from March to May in 2008. All the participants worked in different international trade companies. To keep t
162、heir personal information in confidentiality, only their first names would appear in the paper. Besides, to avoid the influence of the power of their positions, participants of each pair were at almost equal positions in their companies. Among the six pairs of participants, half of them were sales m
163、anagers: Wong and Mike, Yang and George, Kim and Philip; the other three pairs were assistants of sales manager: Wu and Serge, Li and Karl, Liza and Emma. Basic information of each participant is listed in Table 4.1, and the numbers of e-mails from each pair of participants are counted in Table 4.2.
164、 Table 4.1: Basic Information about Each Participant Name Nation Position Years of working experience Company information Kim China department manager about five years an international company in Hong Kong Wong China deputy sales manager more than four years one of the biggest international trade gr
165、oup in China Yang China deputy sales manager about four years an international company in Nanjing Wu China assistant of Wong two years one of the biggest international trade group in China Li China assistant no more than two years a trade company Liza China sales assistant two years an international
166、 trade company Philip Britain sales manager more than eight years an international trade company Mike Canada executive vice president more than four years a company in Canada George America manager at least ten years an international trade company Serge Canada assistant of sales manager Less than a
167、year an international company Karl America stuff new in the business an international trade company Emma America purchasing assistant about two years an international trade company 21Table 4.2: The Number of E-mails from Each Pair of ParticipantsKim-Philip Wong-Mike Yang-George Wu-Serge Li-Karl Liza
168、-Emma Total E-mails 15 14 15 17 16 17 14 14 18 15 18 16 189 Since the sales managers were all skillful businessmen working for more than four years, while those assistants were novices with working experiences for no more than two years, they clearly fell into two groups: veterans and novices. The n
169、otions of veterans and novices in this study were operationally defined as follows: Veterans: sales assistants with no less than 4 years experience in international company. Novices: sales assistants with no more than 2 year experience in international company. At the second phase, 50 copies of the
170、questionnaire were sent out to staff in sales department from four different international trade companies, and 39 of them cooperated and completed the questionnaire. 4.3Data Collection Since the data of the present study came from two sources: business e-mails and the questionnaire of request strat
171、egies, the following part will describe the process of the data collection accordingly. 4.3.1 Collecting business e-mail To answer the research questions above, the study resorted to applying a quantitative approach to analyze the naturally occurring language in business e-mail. E-mails between Chin
172、ese and native businessmen were collected as the main source of the data. A total of 189 e-mails were collected in this study, written by 12 employees from 11 different international companies, among which six were assistants and the other half were managers. The researcher was grateful to have six
173、friends who were very helpful in the study. They not only sent their e-mails with their foreign customers to me, but also asked their bosses and other colleagues for e-mails as well as required them to fill the 22questionnaires. Before collecting the e-mails, they were informed of the quantity for e
174、ach person and the requirement that the foreign customers they wrote to must be native speakers. The categorization (Table 3.1) designed by the researcher was used to distinguish and count the request strategies that had been actually applied. Thus, their usage frequency could be figured out. Beside
175、s, to explore the effectiveness and define the exact degree of politeness for each strategy, the researcher surveyed all the participants involved in this study with a questionnaire (See Appendix). 4.3.2 Politeness-of-request questionnaire In the following section, the purpose and the structure of t
176、he questionnaire will be described first. It is followed by brief descriptions of the content of each questionnaire items. At last, the reliability of each item is tested. Although e-mails were collected and analyzed in terms of requests usage and comparisons were made to find out the tendencies of
177、requests used by novices and veterans, it is still not clear that why those differences and tendencies exist. The author attempts to find out the answer by inquiring into the Chinese businessmen?s opinion on the request DOP. A questionnaire was designed to investigate the pragmatic knowledge of Chin
178、ese businessmen. 1) Descriptions of the structure of the questionnaire Table 4.3: Structure of the Politeness-of-Request Questionnaire Content No. of items Part A Personal details: sex, company, nationality, education background, positions in the companies, the years of working experience Part B Req
179、uest making 1 Part C (1) Beliefs about making requests (2) Beliefs about replying requests (3) Attitudes concerning different favors 2(a, d, h) 2(b, e, g, i) 2(c, f, j) Part D Politeness degree of requests 3 The questionnaire designed for the present study had four main parts. Table 4.2 presents the
180、 structure of the questionnaire together with the number of items for each part. Part A contains personal details (i.e., sex, company, nationality, education background, positions in the companies, and the years of working experience). Part B requires the 23participants to write down the exact words
181、 they would use when asking their clients for an immediate reply. Part C consists of statements of beliefs about making requests, beliefs about replying requests, and attitudes concerning different favors. The participants responded on a five-point scale: from “ This statement is never or almost nev
182、er true of me (1)”to “ This statement is completely or almost completely true of me (5)”(See Appendix). Part D contains seven realization forms of different request strategies, and the participants are asked to put them into order from the most polite one to the least polite one. 2) Source of the da
183、ta In all 39 copies of the questionnaire were collected with the help of my former and present classmates who had been working or had ever worked in international trade companies. Questionnaire samples were sent to my friends in advance in case they had any problem with them. After getting their con
184、firmation that the questionnaire was totally clear to them, the researcher sent out 50 copies of the questionnaire (according to the different sizes of their departments). For practical reasons, like business trips, 39 copies of the questionnaire were filled properly. 4.4Data Analysis The data analy
185、sis went through two steps: analysis of the e-mails and analysis of the questionnaire data. 4.4.1 Analysis of the e-mail data 4.4.1.1 The degree of politeness for each strategy For the statistical analysis, it is necessary to evaluate the degree of politeness (DOP) for each strategy with exact numbe
186、rs. If the speaker chooses to make requests baldly on record, which means he/she uses imperatives directly, he/she can communicate his/her demands with maximum efficiency but also impose maximum threat to the hearer?s positive face. Although people usually add the word “please ” in daily life when m
187、aking requests bluntly, this realization form of requests is definitely less polite than any other request strategies. Thus, in the table, Strategy A wa s marked with point “1” which stood 24for the lowest degree of politeness. According to Trosborg (1995), by intentionally omitting the speaker?s de
188、sire or the hearer?s role as an act performer, hinting gives the hearer maximum freedom and thus saves the hearer?s positive and negative face maximally. Thus, hinting was regarded as the politest way to make requests and was given the highest point “4 .” Although, according to Trosborg (1995, p.197
189、), “,hearer -oriented? requests are generally more polite than requests formulated on ,speaker -based? conditions,” there was no evidence showing differences in the degree of politeness between Strategies B, C and D. As a result, the differences of the DOP between Strategies B, C and D were hard to
190、measure, so that they were given the same point “2” for the convenience of data analysis. Besides, although making requests by inquiring the hearer?s ability/permission took hearer-related conditions into consideration and thus could reduce the threat to the hearer?s negative face, suggestory formul
191、ae usually took the form that sounded also for the hearer?s interest. Thus, there was lack of evidence to decide the relative degree of politeness of the strategies, in particular the strategies E and F. Therefore, similar to the situation in speaker-oriented requests, Strategies E and F were given
192、the same point “3” for their DOP were close. Besides, since almost all the strategies could be modified by adding the word “please ” so as to soften the mood, the effects of “please ” were eliminated in the study. 4.4.1.2 Defining Strategy H Based on the categorization shown in Table 3.1, requests w
193、ere divided into different categories. However, when analyzing the data, the researcher found there was another category of requests strategies new to the existing categorization, and was marked as “ Strategy H. ” Before or after making those requests, the speakers gave reasons or appreciations for
194、the requests they demanded. As the speaker explained why it was necessary for the hearer to perform the act required by the speaker, on the one hand, the hearer felt obligatory to respond to the request which was the ultimate goal of the speaker; one the other hand, since the reasons were rooted in
195、objective conditions, which stated that the speaker did not mean to impede the hearer?s action or his/her freedom to choose, the threat to the hearer?s negative face could be weakened. When the speaker expressed his/her appreciation before or after making requests, to save the speaker?s face the hea
196、rer might 25feel hard to refuse him/her for if the hearer refused the speaker?s request, the speaker?s efforts for request and thankfulness were in vain. Since Strategy H was also speaker-related, its DOP wa s given point “3.”Although this reason-given or appreciation-given strategy sounded quite po
197、werful in theory, most of the time it was used together with other strategies, like Strategies A, D and F. The combinations of strategies were regarded as two separate strategies for the convenience of statistical analysis. Illustrations were given in the following analysis for each request strategy
198、. With the strategies in mind, the modified categorization of request strategies was presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: The Modified Categorization of Request Strategies Directness Request strategies Illustrations DOP Direct request A. Expressing requirement explicitly Send me your quotes. 1 Indirec
199、t request Conventionally indirect B. Pointing out responsibilities /necessities You have to send us your quotes first. 2 C. Expressing the speaker?s needs Now we need your quotes. D. Expressing the speaker?s willingness We hope you can send us your quotes. E. Suggesting the hearer How about sending
200、us your quotes first? 3 F. Inquiring about th e hearer?s ability /willingness /permission Can you send me your quotes? H. Giving reasons or appreciations Thank you if you can send me your quotes. Non-conventionally indirect G. Hinting the hearer We haven?t got your quotes yet. 4 Note: DOP means degr
201、ee of politeness 4.4.1.3 Combinations of strategies a. Combination of Strategy A and H As discussed before, making requests directly was probably the most impolite way of all the requests strategies. Sometimes, direct requests were softened by adding explanations or expressing appreciations, as in E
202、xample (13). (13) Also, please try to provide some data about the success of your program in North American market. This would be more convincing to the CTC tool 26buyer. In this case, the requester represented the producer of CTC tool in China, while the requestee was the agent for the requester?s
203、company in Canada. The requester first used imperatives to ask for more information, and then he explained the reason. Since the data could be helpful to convince the buyer, in other words, the request was made for both of the two parties? commercial benefit, so the requestee was pleasant to provide
204、 the data to the requester. Thus, in this case, Strategies A and Hwere combined and functioned well. b. Combination of Strategies D and H It was found that Strategies D and H could be combined in requests, which could achieve a higher degree of politeness. When expressing the speaker?s willingn ess,
205、 the speaker can make further explanation for the request or express appreciation for the desired act that the hearer may perform in the future. (14) Hope you can understand and thank you for your understanding. Take Sentence (14) for instance. The speaker asked for the hearer?s understanding, and t
206、hen thanked her for her understanding. When there was some trouble with the business due to certain objective or even irresistible forces, this sentence was quite often used. c. Combination of Strategies F and H When inquiring the hearer?s ability/willingness/permission, sometimes the speaker employ
207、ed Strategy H to further lower the threat to the hearer?s face. (15)Please can you be so kind as to forward me invitation letters (on a company letterhead and individually) as soon as possible? Take Sentence (15) as an example. The requester emphasized that he would appreciate the requester?s help i
208、f she could perform the desired act. 4.4.1.4 Calculating the points of DOP To answer the research questions, request strategies used in those e-mails are investigated in terms of their frequencies and means of PDOP (points of degree of politeness). The researcher first highlighted all the requests f
209、ound in the e-mails based on the definition of “request ” (see 2.1.2). Besides studying the frequency of each request strategy used in the e-mails, the researcher also figured out the average PDOP of each subjects. Then with the help of SPSS, the independent t-tests were used to find out 27whether t
210、he difference of request strategies used by Chinese and natives was significant. The same calculation was done to find out whether the difference of request strategies used by novices and veterans was significant. SA x 1+SB x 2+ SC x 2+ SD x 2+SE x 3+SF x 3+SH x 3+SG x 4 Average PDOP= Number of Requ
211、ests Note: SA stands for the number that Strategy A is used. 4.4.2Analysis of the questionnaire data Among the four parts of the questionnaire, obviously Part C is the main section providing key data for the study. The item numbers and value of Alpha for each item in Part C are presented in Table 4.
212、4. Table 4.5: The Value of Alpha for Each Item in Part C Variable Name Items No. of Items Alpha Years of working experience 1 Beliefs about making requests a, d, h 3 .501 Beliefs about replying requests b, e, g 3 .614 Attitudes concerning different favors c, f, j 3 .585 Item i was removed from the c
213、ategory of “ beliefs when replying to the requests ”since it was not valid according to the result of reliability test. According to Qin (2003, p.77), if the number of items for each category is limited, a low value of Alpha is also acceptable. In fact, it is not hard to find research papers on prag
214、matic journals home and aboard that even have a value of Alpha lower than .5 for limited items. Besides, the internal reliability within items also depends on their content. Since the questionnaire for the present study measured the participants? opinions on politeness in requests,it was much relate
215、d to the personality of the participants which was difficult to measure or control. Thus, though the Alpha values in Table 4.4 were lower than .65, they were still reliable for further statistical analysis. However, it is for sure that further improvement can be made to the present questionnaire to
216、increase the Alpha values. 28Chapter Five RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, the results of the current study are presented. The first part states both the results from the e-mails colleted and the questionnaire. The frequency of request strategies used in e-mails will be studied and comparison
217、s will be made between the e-mails written by Chinese and natives as well as between novices and veterans. The second part will discuss the differences drawn from the results, and explain the reasons for both the differences and the commonalities in terms of directness, politeness, and other correla
218、tional factors. 5.1Request Strategies Commonly Used by Businessmen in E-mails Among the 189 e-mails collected, a total of 239 requests are made. According to the suggested categorization in Table 3.1, 250 request strategies are found and sorted into eight sub-categories. To answer the sub-question c
219、oncerning the tendency that request strategies are used in business e-mails written by both Chinese and natives, the frequency of each strategy is listed below in Table 5.1. Besides, the frequency of the combination of strategies is studied and sampled. Table 5.1 shows that in business e-mails the r
220、equest strategy most frequently used is Strategy A. Among 250 request strategies used, 57.2% of them were classified as Strategy A. Being the most direct strategy, expressing requirements baldly can fulfill the function of business e-mails well, because the requirement is so clarified as to leave no
221、 room for misunderstanding. Although it may threaten the requestee?s face to a large degree, the damage it may make to the ,face? is not as serious as in face-to-face communication since 29e-mail business communication includes a long physical distance between the speaker and hearer. Thus, being the
222、 most effective way to make requests, Strategy A is used most often. Table 5.1: Frequency of Request Strategies Being Used Strategies SASBSCSDSESFSGSHTotal SA+SHSF+SHSD+SHTotal 143 10 21 14 5 42 2 13 250 7 2 4 Percentage 57.2 4.0 8.4 5.6 2.0 16.8 0.8 5.2 100 2.8 0.8 1.6 Note: SA stands for Strategy
223、A. Besides Strategy A, Strategy F is also commonly used. The total percentage of Strategy A and Strategy F was 74%, which means most of the requests are realized by explicit requirements or inquiring about the hearer?s ability /willingness /permission.Unlike Strategy A, Strategy F is less direct for
224、 its concerns of the hearer. By inquiring about the hearer?s ability/willingness/permission, the speaker considers both subjective and objective conditions which may prevent the hearer from performing the desired action. Being noticed in the data collected from the e-mails, participants intended to
225、choose Strategy F when asking the hearers for a big favor. Politeness is paid attention to at the price of benefits. Thus, it is the most frequently used one among the indirect request strategies. Strategies E and G are the least commonly used in business e-mails, with Strategy G being rarely used.
226、As the most indirect way of all, Strategy G may fail to achieve the goal of getting things across for its implied meaning can be easily ignored or misunderstood by the hearer. Thus, the strategy is inappropriate for making requests in business e-mails, which directly leads to its low frequency. As f
227、or the combination of request strategies, although their frequencies are low, it is obvious that the combination of Strategies A and H is comparatively more commonly used than the other two groups. It is partly due to the consideration that the combination of Strategies A and H can redress the threa
228、t to the hearer?s face caused by explicit requests. To sum up, the data above reveal that businessmen intend to express requirements explicitly more often than to use other request strategies. They prefer making direct requests to making indirect ones despite the fact that indirect requests are more
229、 polite. Meanwhile, it was found that hinting rarely appeared in business e-mails for making 30requests. 5.2Comparison of Request Strategies Used by Chinese and Native English-Speaking Businessmen To find out whether there are significant differences between request strategies used by Chinese and th
230、ose used by natives in business e-mails, the present study first investigates the usage of each request strategy by Chinese and natives separately (see Table 5.2). From the Table 5.2, it is obvious that Chinese businessmen prefer to express requirement explicitly. Strategies C, D and F demonstrate a
231、 similar level of frequency, while Strategies B and G share the same low frequency. Strategy E is not frequently used. The combination of Strategies A and H is more frequently used than the combination of Strategies D and H. There is no use of the combination of Strategies F and H. More than half th
232、e request strategies used by native English-speaking businessmen belong to the category of Strategy A. Second to Strategy A, Strategy F is also frequently used. The total percentage of Strategies A and F is 77.3%, which means native English-speaking businessmen tend to choose these two ways to make
233、requests for most of the time. Strategies B, C and H are not frequently used, while Strategies D and E are hardly used. Besides, based on the data collected there is no evidence showing native English-speaking businessmen choose to hint the requestee (Strategy G) when making requests in business e-m
234、ails. The combination of Strategy A and H shares the same frequency with the combination of Strategies F and H, while there is no use of the combination of Strategies D and H. Table 5.2: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Chinese and Natives SASBSCSDSESFSGSHSA+SHSF+SHSD+SHChinese 62.4 1.8 8.3 9.
235、2 3.7 7.3 1.8 5.5 3.7 0 1.8 Natives 53.2 5.7 8.5 2.8 0.7 24.1 0 5.0 2.1 2.8 0 Total 57.2 4.0 8.4 5.6 2.0 16.8 0.8 5.2 2.8 1.6 0.8 To sum up, the data in Table 5.2 indicate that Chinese businessmen prefer to make direct requests, while English-speaking natives tend to use both Strategies A and F ofte
236、n. Using Strategy F, the speaker inquires the hearer?s ability/willingness/ permission, which 31not only shows concerns for the hearer but also leaves the hearer enough options to choose. From this aspect, the native businessmen made more efforts in order not to give the requestees a feeling of bein
237、g forced to fulfill the requests. In fact, this explains the necessity of using conventional indirect request formulae in daily communication. Besides comparing the percentage of each request strategy, the present study also compares the standardized number of request strategies used by Chinese and
238、those used by native businessmen (see Table 5.3). To testify whether significant differences exist between request strategies used by Chinese and natives, Person Chi-Squre and Asymp. Sig. were processed with the help of SPSS. As clearly shown in Table 5.3, the differences in the use of Strategies A
239、,C and H between Chinese and native businessmen are not significant (P.05). The results also show that the differences in the use of Strategies B, D, E, and F between Chinese and native businessmen are significant (P.05). Since the data for Strategy G is far from enough for statistical analysis, its
240、 number is not regarded as a key element in the discussion. Therefore, we can conclude that native businessmen apparently use Strategies B and F more often than Chinese businessmen, while the frequency of Strategies D and E used by Chinese outnumbers that used by natives. Table 5.3: Comparison Betwe
241、en Chinese and Native Businessmen (standardized) SASBSCSDSESFSGSHTotal Chinese 47.6 20 42.9 71.4 80 19.0 100 46.2 43.6 Natives 52.4 80 57.1 28.6 20 81.0 0 53.8 56.4 X20.160 36.000 1.960 17.640 36.000 38.440 - 0.640 1.440 (P) 0.689 0.000 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.424 0.230 Note: X2 stands for the v
242、alue of Person Chi-Square; (P) stands for the value of Asymp.Sig. The results from the two tables above can be summarized as follows. Strategies A and C are among the top three request strategies most frequently used by both Chinese and native businessmen with no significant differences, which revea
243、ls the fact that these two comparatively direct strategies are preferred in business written communication. Part of the reason is that the two strategies can best achieve the goal of business communication. Just as Trosborg states, pointing out necessity /responsibility (Strategy B) is usually used
244、when the speaker has superiority over the hearer. However, the study in this case only investigated the e-mail between participants with equal position. As a result, 32though it is more direct than Strategy C, Strategy B is not often used in business e-mails. Besides, the significant difference in t
245、he use of Strategy F that exists between Chinese and native businessmen can be caused by the relatively low pragmatic competence of Chinese businessmen. Since English is their second language, the reason of the difference can be that they are not familiar with the sentence structure of Strategy F. T
246、his possible explanation will be testified by the result of the questionnaire (See Appendix). Table 5.4: APDOP of Each Participant Kim-Philip Wong-Mike Yang-George Wu-Serge Li-Karl Liza-Emma APDOP 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.1 Note: APDOP stands for average points of degree of poli
247、tenessTable 5.5: T-tests Report for the Difference between Chinese and Natives Variables Mean SD T-value P Chinese 1.700 .2449 -.809 .084 Natives 1.867 .4412 To further analyze the difference in the use of request strategies between Chinese and natives in business e-mails, the average points of degr
248、ee of politeness (APDOP) for each participant are counted out based on the arithmetic mentioned above in Table 5.4. The table displays the APDOP of each participant. It can be found that the participants are divided into two groups (Chinese and natives). Then SPSS was operated to get the t-tests rep
249、ort in Table 5.5. As is shown in Table 5.5, the mean APDOP of request strategies used by Chinese is a little bit lower than that used by natives. However, the statistics indicate there is no significant difference in the APDOP of request strategies used by Chinese and natives ( p= .084.050). In gene
250、ral, the native English-speaking businessmen are more polite than the Chinese businessmen when making requests in business e-mails but the difference is not significant. This conclusion will be supported by the results of the questionnaire and further explanation will be provided. 5.3Comparison of R
251、equest Strategies Used by Novices and VeteransTo find out whether there are significant differences in the use of request strategies between novices and veterans in business e-mails, the present study first investigates the 33usage of each request strategy by novices and veterans separately. Table 5
252、.6 indicates that novices use explicit requirements most frequently. Most of the time they choose to use Strategies A and F to make requests (nearly 80% of all). Strategies D and H are not frequently used, while other strategies are rarely used (including Strategies B, C and E). Besides, there is no
253、 evidence showing novices choose to hint the requestee (Strategy G) when making requests in business e-mails. The frequencies for each combination of strategies are relatively low, but also indicate that novices combine different strategies together sometimes when making requests in business e-mails
254、. To some degree, the situation with the veterans is similar to that of the novices. They also use explicit requirements most frequently. Besides Strategies A and F, Strategy C is also frequently used. The total percentage of the three strategies is more than 80%, which means the other strategies ar
255、e rarely used. Furthermore, only the combination of Strategies A and H is used by the veterans when making requests in business e-mails. In general, when making requests, businessmen, novices and veterans alike, use Strategies A and F most frequently. Besides, veterans also often express their needs
256、 in requests, which means they share the common top three request strategies as native-speakers. This seems to show that the veterans have already achieved a higher level of pragmatic competence. Table 5.6: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Novices and Veterans SASBSCSDSESFSGSHSA+SHSF+SHSD+SHNo
257、vices 63.7 3.0 2.3 6.8 1.5 15.9 0 6.8 2.3 3.0 1.5 Veterans 50.0 5.1 15.3 4.2 2.5 17.8 1.7 3.4 3.4 0 0 Natives 53.2 5.7 8.5 2.8 0.7 24.1 0 5.0 2.1 2.8 0 Besides comparing the percentage of each request strategy, the present study also compared the standardized number of request strategies used by the
258、 novices and the veterans (see Table 5.7). To testify whether significant differences exist in the use of request strategies between the novices and the veterans, the values of Person Chi-Squre and the values of Asymp. Sig. were processed with SPSS. Since the data for Strategy G is far from enough f
259、or statistical analysis, its number is not regarded as a key element in the results discussion. As clearly shown in Table 5.7, except Strategies A and F, the differences in the use of all the request strategies between novices and veterans are significant (P.05). Therefore, 34we might conclude that
260、the veterans apparently use Strategies B, C and E more often than the novices, while Strategies D and H used by Chinese largely outnumber those used by the natives. Besides, the results show that the novices tend to use more sorts of combinations of request strategies than the veterans do. Table 5.7
261、: Comparison Between Novices and Veterans (standardized) SASBSCSDSESFSGSHTotal SA+SHSF+SHSD+SHNovices 58.7 40.0 16.7 64.3 40.0 50.0 0 69.2 52.8 42.9 100 100 Veterans 41.3 60.0 83.3 35.7 60.0 50.0 100 30.8 47.2 57.1 0 0 X2 3.240 4.000 43.560 7.840 4.000 0.000 - 14.440 0.360 - - - (P) 0.072 0.046 0.00
262、0 0.005 0.046 1.000 - 0.000 0.549 - - - Note: X2 stands for the value of Person Chi-Square; (P) stands for the value of Asymp.Sig. Table 5.8: T-tests Report for the Difference between Novices and Veterans Variables Mean SD T-value P Novices 1.733 .4633 -.476 .066 Veterans 1.833 .2251 To further anal
263、yze the difference of request strategies used by novices and veterans in business e-mails, we ran t-tests to find out whether the difference was significant or not. The average points of degree of politeness (APDOP) for each participant were listed in Table 5.4, where the participants were divided i
264、nto two groups (novices and veterans). Then SPSS was operated to get the t-tests report in Table 5.8. As it is shown in Table 5.8, the mean APDOP of request strategies used by novices is a little bit lower than that used by veterans. However, the result indicates there is no significant difference i
265、n the APDOP of request strategies used by novices and veterans ( p=.066.050). Thus, it can also be concluded that veterans are more polite than novices when making requests in business e-mails although the difference is not significant. 5.4Chinese Businessmen s Perception on Request DOP In the previ
266、ous parts of this chapter, the tendencies and differences shown in the use of request strategies by Chinese and natives as well as by novices and veterans were revealed with tentative interpretations. Since the usage of request strategies is much related to personal perception of the politeness of d
267、ifferent requests, to further interpret 35the tendencies and differences obtained above, we also explored the thoughts of businessmen when they making requests. Table 5.9 describes the results of the questionnaire of the study, with the frequencies of each realization form of requesting. Then the or
268、der of request strategies from the most polite to the least polite was figured out according to the largest percentage of each realization form. For instance, 84.6% participants thought that d (using Strategy B) was the least polite request of all, so Strategy B was listed in the last position. Acco
269、rding to the order chosen in the questionnaire, Chinese businessmen consider Strategy F as the most polite when making requests, even much more polite than hinting. That explains the results of analyzing the data of e-mails which states that Chinese businessmen lack the related pragmatic knowledge o
270、n hinting. Although hinting the hearer is rarely used for requesting in business e-mails, its usage and degree of politeness should be paid attention to for it is an important way of communication. Table 5.9: DOP of Request Strategies in Chinese Businessmen?s Mind DOP a (SA) b(SC) c(SG) d(SB) e(SE)
271、f(SF) g(SD) 7 0 0 2.6 0 33.3 38.5 25.6 6 5.1 0 0 0 38.5 43.6 12.8 5 2.6 7.7 2.6 0 17.9 17.9 51.3 4 10.3 38.5 43.6 0 5.1 0 2.6 3 33.3 28.2 17.9 10.3 2.6 0 7.7 2 38.5 23.1 30.8 5.1 2.6 0 0 1 10.3 2.6 2.6 84.6 0 0 0 Most polite Least polite (SF) (SE) (SD) (SG) (SC) (SA) (SB) From Table 5.9, we can also
272、 conclude that the participants only reached general agreements on the DOP of SB and SF. Others spread over most of the position that are given, which shows that the participants had some confusion about the DOP of those request strategies. Furthermore, since the participants wronged the order of SA
273、and SB, they probably thought making direct requests was not too impolite, which explains why Chinese businessmen used explicit requests more often than natives in e-mail writing. Therefore, improvements can be made in EBE teaching, particularly, in the fields of pragmatic knowledge. The following t
274、ables illustrate Chinese businessmen?s perception of request DOP, while comparisons between novices and veterans are made. The data in Table 5.10 36presents that both novices and veterans think about being as polite as possible when making requests (Mean is close to 5). Since the mean value got by t
275、he novices is higher than that by the veterans, novices consider politeness more often than veterans, although the difference is not significant ( P=.322.05). Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that though businessmen value benefits most, they still think much of politeness. Table 5.10: Chinese Busin
276、essmen?s Belief about Making Requests Items Experience N Mean Sig. (2-tailed) Beliefs about making requests Novice 22 4.5455 .322 Veteran 17 4.3725 When replying requests, Chinese businessmen show low recognition of the degree of politeness. Table 5.11 shows that both of the mean values got by the n
277、ovices and the veterans are close to 2.5, which suggests that they thought being polite enough or not had not much influence on whether they would perform the required action or not. Their attitude is like “ business is business, nothing personal. ” In contrast to their beliefs about making requests
278、, the participants showed general tolerance to the matter of politeness, which is necessary for cross-cultural communication. In other words, experienced businessmen tend to try their best to be polite as well as to be tolerant to the other party. Table 5.11: Chinese Businessmen?s Beliefs about Repl
279、ying RequestsItems Experience N Mean Sig. (2-tailed) Beliefs about replying requests Novice 22 2.6515 .519 Veteran 17 2.5098 The results of items in Table 5.12 about the participants? attitudes concerning different favors they ask for show that Chinese businessmen sometimes try to be polite when ask
280、ing for a big favor, like bargaining for a higher price for their products, but they do not think it is necessary to do so. Comparatively, veterans tend to make more efforts on politeness when it concerns their benefits. From this perspective, veterans have a higher awareness of the importance of po
281、liteness in business communication than novices, with a difference close to the level of significance ( P=.064). Table 5.12: Chinese Businessmen?s Attitudes Concerning Different Favors Items Experience N Mean Sig. (2-tailed) Attitudes concerning different favors Novice 22 2.3788 .064 Veteran 17 2.76
282、47 37Table 5.13: Frequency of Request Strategies in the Questionnaire SASDSFSGSHSA + SHSD + SGSF + SHTotal Frequency 12 10 4 1 7 3 1 1 39 Percentage 30.8 25.6 10.3 2.6 17.9 7.7 2.6 2.6 100.0 The above results of the questionnaire can further support the conclusions drawn from the previous e-mails an
283、alysis. However, the results of Part B in the questionnaire lead to a totally different picture from the e-mails analysis. Table 5.13 presents the frequency and percentage of each request strategy that was used in the requests participants wrote in the blanks. Apparently, the participants used more
284、indirect request strategies than direct ones, which is the opposite of the results in the e-mails. They tended to use phrases like “We hope you can ” or “I?m looking forward to” quite often. Besides, appreciations were expressed frequently when making requests. Of all eight strategies, only five of
285、them were used. Those differences from the results of the previous e-mails analysis are partly due to the small sample of the questionnaire. There may be other reasons; for instance, the participants would have chosen more than one formulae if more space was given. The questionnaire could be further
286、 modified. However, it is likely that the differences reveal that there is a gap between the data from the questionnaire and the data from naturally occurring discourse. The shortage of direct requests may be a result of trying to be more polite when filling the questionnaire. This intervening varia
287、ble may unavoidably influence the final result of the questionnaire. Thus, choosing a questionnaire as the instrument faces the risk of its defaulted weakness. 38Chapter Six CONCLUSION This chapter summarizes the major findings of the study and the implications of the findings, and finally, indicate
288、s the limitations of the study as well as points out suggestive directions for future research. 6.1M ajor Findings In the present study, request strategies used in business e-mails were investigated in terms of politeness and directness. After quantitative analysis, the study yielded the following f
289、indings: 1. Expressing requirements explicitly is used most frequently in business writing communication. Besides, requests sometimes take the forms of inquiring about the hearer?s ability/willingness/permission and expressing the speaker? s needs. This conclusion indicates the differences between d
290、aily communication and business communication. As the most important result of the present study, the conclusion proves the significance of communicative register in politeness studies. 2. With no significant differences in the degree of politeness communicated, Chinese and native businessmen both h
291、ave a favorite request strategy (i.e. expressing requests explicitly). Among the other request strategies, natives have an inclination of inquiring about the hearer?s ability/willingness/permission, while Chinese show no inclination of this kind. 3. In general, the pragmatic competence of veterans is higher than that of novices. According to the data analysis, veterans apparently use Strategies B, C and E more often than novices. Besides, the results show that novices tend to use more combinations of request strategies than veterans do. Thus, it seems that veterans are
