《Politeness in Intercultural Email CommunicationAustralian and Korean Perspectives.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Politeness in Intercultural Email CommunicationAustralian and Korean Perspectives.doc（17页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Politeness in Intercultural Email Communication:Australian and Korean PerspectivesMargaret MurphyMike LevyGriffith University, AustraliaAbstractThis paper presents initial results from analysis of data collected on the topic of politeness in intercultural email communication from a large cohort of A
2、ustralian academic and general staff at an established metropolitan university. We were interested in the language used by these staff members while they conducted their initial email communication with their contacts overseas. The contacts overseas were, for example, fellow professional colleagues,
3、 representatives from educational institutions and foreign students. The staff members did not know personally their overseas email partners in the sense that they had not previously met face-to-face. In particular, we were interested in if and how the staff members incorporated politeness indicator
4、s in their email language and how they interpreted politeness, or lack thereof, in their incoming emails. The paper also describes and analyses the politeness strategies in intercultural emails used by a smaller cohort of Korean academics at seven universities in Korea. Results show differences in p
5、oliteness, both in expectations and use, between Australian and Korean academics.Themes and conceptual developments were identified in the primary data-gathering instrument, the questionnaire, using qualitative data analysis. The software package Leximancer was used for text analysis (Smith 2002). T
6、he software analysis confirms and strengthens our own qualitative analysis. Results show aspects such as formality in language and use of correct titles are important politeness considerations in intercultural email communication. These politeness considerations however, vary according to culture an
7、d results show many discrepancies on these and other aspects between the Australian and Korean data. Figures showing ranked themes display these results visually.1. BACKGROUNDThere is initial research to suggest that there is an altering or reduction in the normal conventions of politeness in email
8、discourse compared with more established written forms of communication (Bunz & Cambell 2002; Ma 1996; Simmons 1994). Many factors may lead users to alter, reduce or omit certain politeness indicators in their email discourse. Such factors are the direct transactional nature of the message, the rela
9、tive anonymity of email discourse, the use of uninhibited or carefree language behaviour, a tendency for self-disclosure and self-orientation, as well as the brevity of some email texts (Baron 2001; Ma 1996; Moran & Hawisher 1998; Ross 2001; Walther 1992, 1997). A potential consequence of diminished
10、 politeness in email discourse may result in diminished regard for face risk management (Goffman 1967). Face may be defined as the positive social value a person claims for him/herself (Goffman 1967:5). Face risk management strategies are defensive and protective linguistic measures designed to save
11、 and support ones own face and the face of the other. Such linguistic measures include general politeness strategies used in any verbal interaction (Brown & Levinson 1987; Watts 2003). According to Brown and Levinson (1987), there are two types of politeness strategies, positive and negative. Positi
12、ve politeness strategies appeal to ones positive face or the desire to be liked, appreciated and understood. Some examples of positive politeness strategies include sharing similar opinions, showing approval and appreciation of other and so on. Negative politeness strategies, according to Brown and
13、Levinson (1987), appeal to ones negative face or the desire to be unimpeded and not to be imposed upon. Examples of negative politeness strategies include apologies for interfering, linguistic deference, hedges, being vague, understating, hinting, impersonalising mechanisms such as the passive voice
14、 and any other softening mechanisms that give the other person a face-saving line of escape (Brown & Levinson 1987). Negative politeness strategies may not suit the nature of email discourse due in part to the apparent direct style of communication and the lack of social context cues.The lack of soc
15、ial context cues such as certain body language messages, apparent in face-to-face communication, may pose a barrier in email communication (Garton & Wellman 1994; Holmes 1994). In face-to-face contact people have immediate feedback, through body language cues, word choice and voice intonation and so
16、 on, to adjust strategies for any necessary face-saving or face-building work during the course of the interaction. Via email however, the writer cannot adjust immediately to the necessary and expected politeness levels in the interaction, due to the lack of shared contexts of communication and a di
17、fficulty in clarifying or repairing breakdowns in communication (Baron 1998). The decontextualised nature of email moreover, may hinder the writer in knowing how to express politeness in the message, especially if the communicating partner is unknown and culturally different. It is often not apparen
18、t what forms of social etiquette are appropriate at any given time in intercultural email communication (Ma 1996).There is also evidence to suggest that, due to the decontextualised nature of email and the brevity of many email messages, politeness indicators are reduced or omitted (Bunz & Cambell 2
19、002; Ma 1996; Simmons 1994; Walther 1992, 1997). When this happens email may be seen as an information transaction medium, rather than an interaction based communication system supporting interpersonal relations. In other words, email may be used by some people to transmit information only to the re
20、ceiver rather than trying to establish social relationships, by the addition of politeness indicators. Our research is attempting to ascertain how people see the medium as contributing to interpersonal relations through the use of politeness indicators and how acceptable those levels of politeness a
21、re, to culturally different others.Politeness indicators have diverse and far-reaching implications when they are used for culturally different others. All cultures possess ways of conveying politeness both linguistically and non-linguistically (Brown & Levinson 1987). However, politeness strategies
22、 may vary between cultures. Linguistic strategies of politeness are influenced by three culturally bound factors namely, the power difference between sender/receiver, the social distance between sender/receiver and the weight of the request being asked (Brown & Levinson 1987; Ting-Toomey 1988, 1994,
23、 2005; Scollon & Scollon 1995). Each culture interprets these factors differently and therefore the language may be shaped differently (Holtgraves & Yang 1990). These three factors determine the type and level of politeness strategies to be used, if any are used at all (Scollon & Scollon 1995). The
24、sum of these three factors also assesses the level of threat to face (Brown & Levinson 1987). As cultures assess each factor differently, the assessments of face threat in any communication may also differ, requiring different politeness strategies sensitive to each cultural interpretation. Many cul
25、tures, for example, differ in the way they perceive power imbalances amongst and between individuals and this will have a corresponding affect on the face strategies used within the interactions. Moreover, in many cultures in Asia deferential strategies are common (Saville-Troike 2003:176). In other
26、 cultures where an individual orientation is evident, as in Australia for example, much emphasis is given to tact (Hofstede 1997; Leech 1983). Tact, which has been described as the most important kind of politeness in English speaking cultures, is evidence of the importance of individual rights and
27、wants in these cultures (Leech 1983:107). Other cultures consider the use of indirectness in speech strategies as offering greater politeness, such as in the use of passive voice, impersonal pronouns and metaphors (Fraser 1990:221; Saville-Troike 2003:29). It is in misunderstanding cultural assessme
28、nts of social distance, impositions and relative power rights that lead to differences in assessments of face. These differences, in turn, lead to the use of corresponding politeness strategies which may be at odds with personal and cultural expectations. Intercultural miscommunications, or worse, o
29、ffences may result (Thomas 1983). Unless the sender has an understanding of such factors, successful intercultural email communication cannot be assured. The aim of this research is to throw light on such issues as face and politeness within email communication. Greater knowledge and understanding o
30、f these complex issues can only assist email writers in developing better strategies for more successful intercultural email communication.2. METHOD The first set of data was gathered from a total of 122 full time academic and general staff at a large Australian metropolitan university. These partic
31、ipants responded to a questionnaire entitled Intercultural Email Communication. The sample was random and taken from the university as a whole, across all campuses and faculties. This larger study used three instruments (questionnaire, interview and email text analysis) for data triangulation in ord
32、er to give breadth and depth to the overall analyses (Denzin 1997; Murphy 2006). For the purposes of this paper, only the section on Politeness from the primary data-gathering instrument, the questionnaire, is included. A second set of data was collected from a smaller cohort of 16 Korean academics
33、working at seven universities in South Korea. All had a good command of the English language in that they had near-native proficiency. Most of the Korean academics taught at least part of their academic courses in English. They all used email to communicate for work purposes with English speakers ov
34、erseas. The original questionnaire, used for the Australian participants, was altered slightly to provide clearer instructions for use for the Korean participants. Though the actual content of the questionnaire remained the same, simpler language was used for the instructions to assist the Korean pa
35、rticipants whose first language was not English. These minor changes were implemented by the principal researcher with the help of two native speaking Korean academics, one working in Seoul and the other currently working at the Australian university.The Australian and Korean questionnaires elicited
36、 both quantitative and qualitative data from each section. In the Politeness section, the participants were asked to comment on their perceptions of politeness and how it affected the way they went about writing their emails to overseas people whom they did not know. The three questions in this sect
37、ion were:1: In general, do you think you express politeness differently in your email communications with unknown receivers overseas compared to your email communications with people you know in Australia? (Korea)? Yes/NoIf YES, how do you express politeness differently?2: In your opinion, do you ev
38、er perceive a lack of politeness in the emails you receive from overseas? Yes/NoIf YES, in what way?3: In general, how do you show politeness in your overseas email communications?As researchers, we were interested in looking at how the participants used politeness with unknown overseas receivers co
39、mpared to the way they used politeness with known colleagues in Australia (Korea). The participants were also asked to comment on how politeness perceptions influenced the way they interpreted their incoming emails from overseas. In particular, we were interested in obtaining insight into how the co
40、ncepts of face and politeness were embedded within the email language.3. RESULTS3.1 The Australian resultsThe demographic results show that the mean age of the Australian participants was 45 years. The participants have worked at their university for an average of 10 years and 83.6% of them were nat
41、ive speakers of English. 80.3% received part or all of their education in Australia. Most of the participants have been using email as part of their work practices for 8 years or less. 63.6% said that they had communicated with people overseas by email in the last 12 months for such things as confer
42、ence participation, joint writing of academic papers, forging professional links, expanding foreign student intake and so on. In the following results for the three questions, the figures given for each question are the valid percentages. These percentages are calculated from the number of those par
43、ticipants who answered the question only. The non-responding percentages for the three questions were generally low, varying between 0% and 10% and thus were not considered for comment.In Q1, there was a roughly equal division of people who expressed politeness differently with known receivers in Au
44、stralia to unknown receivers overseas. 53.8% of participants said that they did express politeness differently while 46.2% said that they did not. From the data it appeared that as far as the sender of an email was concerned, whether the receiver was known or unknown did not affect politeness. There
45、 was no data to suggest, however, that the receiver agreed that the email sent was, in fact, polite. There remained the possibility that even though the sender may have thought he/she was sending a polite email, the receiver might not have agreed.The overwhelming response to how participants express
46、ed politeness differently was in the formality of their writing. In other words, participants said that they expressed politeness in their overseas communications through the level of formality. Other ways of expressing politeness included using proper titles, showing more attention to clarity, usin
47、g formal greetings and goodbyes, avoiding colloquialisms and giving attention to please and thank-you.In Q2, 72.5% of participants replied that they did not perceive a lack of politeness in the emails that they received from overseas while 27.5% said that they did. Those who indicated that they did
48、perceive a lack of politeness cited reasons such as short and abrupt language, direct and assertive language, poor English, arrogant tone, lack of formality, incorrect use of titles and inappropriate register.In Q3, the answers to the question seemed to compound the personal and subjective nature of
49、 linguistic politeness. What one person considers polite does not necessarily mean that others share that opinion. There was a widespread range of responses and many themes were identified (52 themes) with 22 of the themes identified having only one response. This indicated a definite lack of consensus among the Australian participants. Email writers, it seems, have personal ways of expressing and interpreting politeness which would make formulating potential standardised protocols diffic
