The Instruction of Email Pragmatics to Second Language Learners

1
The Instruction of Email Pragmatics to Second
Language Learners

• Shawn Ford
• Department of Second Language Studies
• University of Hawaii at Manoa

2
Presentation Outline

• Initial motivation for study
• Student email messages
• Action research project
• Pilot study
• Current research project
• Theoretical framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Future research
• Conclusion/ questions

3
Sample Student Email Message
From  student_at_hawaii.edu Sent  Sunday, September
1, 2001 1250 am To sford_at_hawaii.edu
Subject Hello Professor I don't think, I can
turn the reports on next monday. I liked to delay
the time to turn the paper. Can you do it for me?
I have some reasons and excuses for it. I will
talk to you about it in class. so, please delay
the due date for me. Plz also reply me for its
answer on e-mail. Thank you.
4

• Action Research Project
• 1. Find existing teaching materials for
  electronic
• communication
• 2. Find any existing guidelines or rules for
  electronic
• communication
• 3. Adopt, adapt, or develop a lesson for
  electronic
• communication
• 4. Implement the lesson
• 5. See if there is any change in patterns of
  usage.

5

• Action Research Project Results
• Advanced-level ESL students need instruction in
• guidelines for writing formal email messages
• Teaching materials on this topic are not readily
• available
• There is an abundance of information about email
• pragmatics (netiquette)
• Email pragmatics is teachable
• Students showed gains in proper uses of formal
  email
• pragmatics from pre- to immediate post-test,
  which was
• maintained in the delayed post-test.

6
Pilot Study

• 8 non-native English-speakers (NNSs)
• students of ELI 100- undergraduate, advanced
  writing class
• researchers own students
• 5 native English-speakers (NSs)
• graduate students of the Second Language
  Studies
• Department at UH Manoa
• Study conducted in UH Manoa classrooms and
  computer
• labs, and via email

7

• Research Questions and Hypotheses
• 1. What are the differences between NNSs and NSs
  of
• English in the pragmatic features of email
  requests
• concerning academic topics sent to unfamiliar
  professors?
• 2. Do the differences found in the first research
  question
• effect the acceptability of the email
  requests?
• 3. What are the effects of instruction in the
  usage of
• appropriate pragmatic features when writing
  email
• requests?

8

• Results of Pilot Study
• NS email messages contain more acceptable formal
  
• features and more acceptable content features
  of email
• pragmatics.
• NS email messages appear more acceptable than
  those
• of NNSs.
• Data analysis shows gains in the use of
  acceptable formal
• features of pragmatic email requests from pre-
  to post-tests
• after treatment. Delayed post-test shows gains
  maintained
• but not at the level of the immediate
  post-test.
• Data analysis shows gains in the use of
  acceptable content
• features of pragmatic email requests from pre-
  to post-tests
• after treatment. However, delayed post-test
  shows that gains
• were maintained only slightly above the level
  of the pre-test.

9

• Research Study Theoretical Framework
• Pragmatic universals
• Pragmatic development and ESL
• Instruction of pragmatics and ESL
• Requests and ESL
• Email pragmatics
• Instruction of email pragmatics
• Measuring pragmatic development

10

• Pragmatic Universals
• Key Studies
• Brown Levinson (1978)
• varying degrees and realizations of politeness
  are
• fundamental to all languages
• Hill, Ide, Ikuta, Kawasaki, and Ogino (1986)
• - pragmatic systems operate on two basic
  principles-
• discernment and volition
• discernment "...a recognition of certain
  fundamental
• characteristics of addressee and
  situation" (p. 361)
• volition the speaker's true intentions in
  a given
• communicative event
• - discernment and volition operate at different
  levels across
• cultures

11

• Pragmatic Development and ESL
• Key Studies
• Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (1993)
• forwarded research agenda to study
  interlanguage
• pragmatics
• Schmidt, R. (1993) Kasper, G. Schmidt, R.
  (1996)
• studies of meta-awareness and development of
  inter-
• language pragmatics
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.S. (1993)
• investigated pragmatic change longitudinally in
  the
• academic environment

12
Pragmatics should be taught because it does not
appear to be easily transferrable from L1 to
L2 Pragmatics should be taught because this
will raise awareness of appropriate language use,
which in turn has been shown to aid in language
development Pragmatics can be taught, as is
evidenced by a number of early studies of
classroom language learning and instruction.
13

• Instruction of Pragmatics and ESL
• Key Studies
• LoCastro, V. (1994)
• lack of English pragmatics instruction in
  textbooks
• House, J. (1996) Kasper, G., Rose, K. (2001)
• examined developing awareness of pragmatics
  through
• explicit classroom instruction
• Pragmatic development in L2 learners can be
• enhanced through explicit awareness-raising
• techniques.

14

• Requests and ESL
• Key Studies
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G., (Eds.).
  (1989)
• edited volume devoted to studying the
  pragmatics of the
• request and apology speech acts
• Schmidt, T.Y. (1994)
• - compared actual request data to request lessons
  found in
• popular ESL textbooks
• - results showed that textbooks were deficient in
  the range of
• real-world request types
• - results also showed that textbooks were
  deficient in the
• explanations of the request types given

15

• Kitao (1990) Kim (1995) Kasange (1998) Kim
  (2000)
• each study investigated the performance of
  English
• requests by a different cultural group
• each study found evidence of negative transfer
  of L1
• pragmatics
• each study concluded with the need for explicit
  instruction
• in making English requests
• Requests are one of the most frequently occurring
  
• speech acts across languages
• There are major cross-cultural differences in
  realizations
• of constructing and interpreting requests
• Forming pragmatically appropriate requests in an
  L2 is
• problematic.

16

• Email Pragmatics
• Key Studies
• Shea (1994)
• principles of netiquette basic rules for
  behaving and
• interacting through electronic communication
• Gaines (1999)
• discovered a new written genre with unique
  textual features
• in academic email data "...a
  pseudo-conversational form of
• communication, conducted in extended time and
  with an
• absent interlocutor" (81)
• Inglis (1998)
• investigated cross-cultural miscommunications
  that arise in
• office environments due to culturally different
  perceptions of
• appropriateness in email and Internet
  communication

17

• Studies Most Relevant to the Present Study
• Hartford Bardovi-Harlig (1996)
• Weasenforth Beisenbach-Lucas (2000) Chen
  (2001)
• - each study analyzed email requests sent by
  university
• students to their professors
• - each study found that the email requests of
  NNSs
• contained features that may negatively effect
  the
• acceptability of the messages and the
  fulfillment of the
• requests

18
Instruction of Email Pragmatics Key
Studies ???????????????????????????????????? No
ne to my knowledge. At least not yet...
19

• Measuring Pragmatic Development
• Key Studies
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G.,
  (Eds.). (1989)
• Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project
  (CCSARP)
• elaborate coding scheme for analyzing requests
• Norris (2001)
• task-based language assessment "...performance
  of
• communication tasks that have some relationship
  to non-test
• or real-world activities, and these elicited
  task performances
• are assessed according to explicit criteria"
  (164).
• Task-based performance assessment measured with a
  
• coding scheme combining CCSARP guidelines and
• netiquette rules proposed by Shea (1994).

20

• Subjects Location
• 29 native English-speakers (NSs)
• graduate students of the SLS Department
• 15 non-native English-speakers (NNSs)
• students of ELI 100- undergraduate, advanced
  writing class
• researchers own students
• Study conducted in UH Manoa classrooms and
  computer
• labs, and via email

21
Research Questions and Hypotheses 1. What are
the differences between NSs and NNSs of
English in the pragmatic features of email
requests concerning academic topics sent to
unfamiliar professors? 2. What are the
effects of instruction in the usage of
appropriate pragmatic features when writing email
requests? I eliminated the second question
from the pilot study concerned with discovering
the pragmatic features that effect the
acceptability of the email messages.
22

• Tests and Treatment
• NNS Data
• Pre-test email request assignment as homework
• Treatment Netiquette lesson delivered via
  Internet
• Immediate Post-test email request assignment as
  homework
• Delayed post-test email request assignment as
  homework
• Pre-test, treatment, and post-test at beginning
  of semester
• follow-up test at the end of the semester
• NS Data
• The NS data for the study was elicited via email
  using the same prompt given to the NNSs.

23
Data Elicitation I used
the following prompt to elicit email request data
from both NNSs and NSs For this short homework
assignment, I want you to write a hypothetical
email message to a professor. Heres the
situation Information about the setting and the
Professor- ??Youre taking a 200-level History
course from a professor who you dont know at
all. ??His name is Dr. Peterson, he is in his
mid-40s, he is an average-sized Caucasian man,
and he has taught in the History Department
at UH for many years. ??Other than this
information, you dont know anything else
about Dr. Peterson.
24
Information about your email message- ??Its
within the first two weeks of the beginning of
the semester. ??Your first major writing
assignment is due next week, which is a
3-page book report. ??Everyone in the class had
to read the same book and do the same
assignment. ??You need more time to finish your
book report, so you must send Dr. Peterson an
email message to request an extension. ??This
is the first time that you have ever sent Dr.
Peterson an email message. Write your email
message to Dr. Peterson requesting an extension
to turn in your book report. When finished
writing it, send it directly to me by email
ltsford_at_hawaii.edugt.
25
Treatment
26

• Data Coding
• Once all NS and NNS data was received, I coded
  the
• data using a form developed specifically for this
  purpose.
• To develop the form, I drew from
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G., (Eds.)
  (1989)
• for the content pragmatic features of the email
  messages
• Shea, V. (1994)
• for the formal pragmatic features of the email
  messages

27
(No Transcript)
28
Representative Sample NS Email Request From
Native Speaker ltns_at_mailmail.comgt Sent Sunday,
March 9, 2003 1125 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subjec
t History Article Critique Dear Dr. Peterson, I
am currently working on the article critique for
our history class and have encountered some
trouble. As a result, I do not believe that I
will be able to complete my paper by the due
date. I was wondering if I could have a one week
extension to complete the assignment. I am sorry
for any inconvenience that this might
cause. Sincerely, Native Speaker
29
Email Formal Features From Native Speaker
ltns_at_mailmail.comgt Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003
1125 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject History
Article Critique Dear Dr. Peterson, I am
currently working on the article critique for our
history class and have encountered some trouble.
As a result, I do not believe that I will be able
to complete my paper by the due date. I was
wondering if I could have a one week extension to
complete the assignment. I am sorry for any
inconvenience that this might cause. Sincerely, N
ative Speaker
30
Request Head Act From Native Speaker
ltns_at_mailmail.comgt Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003
1125 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject History
Article Critique Dear Dr. Peterson, I am
currently working on the article critique for our
history class and have encountered some trouble.
As a result, I do not believe that I will be able
to complete my paper by the due date. I was
wondering if I could have a one week extension to
complete the assignment. I am sorry for any
inconvenience that this might cause. Sincerely, N
ative Speaker
31
Mitigating Supportive Moves From Native Speaker
ltns_at_mailmail.comgt Sent Sunday, March 9, 2003
1125 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject History
Article Critique Dear Dr. Peterson, I am
currently working on the article critique for our
history class and have encountered some trouble.
As a result, I do not believe that I will be able
to complete my paper by the due date. I was
wondering if I could have a one week extension to
complete the assignment. I am sorry for any
inconvenience that this might cause. Sincerely, N
ative Speaker
32
Representative Sample NNS Email Request From
Nonnas Peaker ltnns_at_hawaii.edugt Sent Sunday,
January 19, 2003 1256 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Sub
ject Emergency!! Dr. Peterson! Hello, Dr.
Peterson, I am a student from your History 251
class. My name is Nonnas Peaker. I know we have
a writing assignment due next week, I am kinda
run out of the time because I got work and
sports. Could you give me some extension period,
therefore I can finish the assignment well. I
think two more days are good enough for me.
Please reply my email ASAP, and thank you for
taking your time.
33
Email Formal Features From Nonnas Peaker
ltnns_at_hawaii.edugt Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003
1256 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject Emergency!!
Dr. Peterson! Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a
student from your History 251 class. My name is
Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of
the time because I got work and sports. Could you
give me some extension period, therefore I can
finish the assignment well. I think two more days
are good enough for me. Please reply my email
ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
34
Request Head Act From Nonnas Peaker
ltnns_at_hawaii.edugt Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003
1256 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject Emergency!!
Dr. Peterson! Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a
student from your History 251 class. My name is
Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of
the time because I got work and sports. Could you
give me some extension period, therefore I can
finish the assignment well. I think two more days
are good enough for me. Please reply my email
ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
35
Mitigating Supportive Moves From Nonnas Peaker
ltnns_at_hawaii.edugt Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003
1256 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject Emergency!!
Dr. Peterson! Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a
student from your History 251 class. My name is
Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of
the time because I got work and sports. Could you
give me some extension period, therefore I can
finish the assignment well. I think two more days
are good enough for me. Please reply my email
ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
36
Politeness Markers From Nonnas Peaker
ltnns_at_hawaii.edugt Sent Sunday, January 19, 2003
1256 pm To sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject Emergency!!
Dr. Peterson! Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a
student from your History 251 class. My name is
Nonnas Peaker. I know we have a writing
assignment due next week, I am kinda run out of
the time because I got work and sports. Could you
give me some extension period, therefore I can
finish the assignment well. I think two more days
are good enough for me. Please reply my email
ASAP, and thank you for taking your time.
37
Upgraders From Nonnas Peaker ltnns_at_hawaii.edugt Se
nt Sunday, January 19, 2003 1256 pm To
sford_at_hawaii.edu Subject Emergency!! Dr.
Peterson! Hello, Dr. Peterson, I am a student
from your History 251 class. My name is Nonnas
Peaker. I know we have a writing assignment due
next week, I am kinda run out of the time because
I got work and sports. Could you give me some
extension period, therefore I can finish the
assignment well. I think two more days are good
enough for me. Please reply my email ASAP, and
thank you for taking your time.
38

• Data Analysis
• To summarize findings from the NS data (N29)
• 1. NS messages score slightly above average
  acceptance for perlocutionary
• effect (3.14) and politeness (3.07)
• 2. NS messages contain on average 7.6 of the 9
  required formal netiquette
• features with above average acceptability
  (2.3)
• 3. NS messages contain on average 9 pragmatic
  features, the majority of
• them being supporters and alerters
• 4. Almost all NS messages contain a grounder,
  title, and surname, and use
• the preparatory strategy to form requests
• 5. 3 NS messages contain upgraders (Hi!, Aloha!,
  Thank you!)
• 6. NS messages score above acceptable for
  spelling (2.9) and grammar (2.5)

39

• To summarize findings from the NNS pre-test data
  (N15)
• 1. NNS messages score less than average
  acceptance for perlocutionary
• effect (2.20) and above average for
  politeness (3.33), although there is
• extreme variability
• 2. NNS messages contain on average 6.6 of the 9
  required formal
• netiquette features with below average
  acceptability (1.8)
• 3. NNS messages contain on average 8 acceptable
  pragmatic features
• however, no trends can be found in their use
• 4. NNS data set contains 12 upgraders
  (interjections, time intensifiers,
• request repetitions)
• 5. NNS messages score acceptable for spelling
  (2.0) and below acceptable
• for grammar (1.5)
• 6. NNS messages average 2 request per message
  and

40

• Results of Research Study
• Research Question 1
• What are the differences between NNSs and NSs of
  English in
• the pragmatic features of email requests
  concerning academic
• topics sent to unfamiliar professors?
• NS messages score higher than NNS messages for
  per-
• locutionary effect (3.14 2.20).
• NS messages score average for politeness, while
  NNS
• messages score more overly polite (3.07
  3.33).
• NS messages contain more acceptable formal
  features of
• email pragmatics (subject, greeting, closing,
  no emoticons).
• NS email messages contain more acceptable and
  consistent
• content features of email pragmatics (few
  upgraders).

41

• Results of Research Study
• Research Question 1
• What are the differences between NSs and NNSs of
  English in the pragmatic
• features of email requests concerning academic
  topics sent to unfamiliar
• professors?
• NS messages score higher than NNS messages for
  perlocutionary effect
• (3.14 2.20).
• NS messages score average for politeness, while
  NNS messages score
• more overly polite (3.07 3.33).
• NS messages contain more acceptable formal
  features of email pragmatics
• (subject, greeting, closing, no emoticons) than
  those of NNSs.
• NS email messages contain more acceptable and
  consistent content
• features of email pragmatics (few upgraders)
  than those of NNSs.

42

• Research Question 2
• What are the effects of instruction in the usage
  of appropriate
• pragmatic features when writing email requests?
• Data analysis shows gains in the use of
  acceptable formal
• features of pragmatic email requests from pre-
  to post-tests
• after treatment. Delayed post-test shows gains
  maintained
• but not at the level of the immediate
  post-test.
• - Pre 6.3/9, Immediate Post 8.4/9, Delayed
  Post 7.6/9
• Data analysis shows gradual improvement toward
  the use of
• acceptable content features of pragmatic email
  requests from
• pre- to post-tests after treatment.
• - more acceptable content features of email
  pragmatics
• - fewer upgraders used
• - however, no trends can be found in the data
  set

43

• Research Question 2
• What are the effects of instruction in the usage
  of appropriate
• pragmatic features when writing email requests?
• Data analysis shows gradual improvement toward
  the use of
• acceptable content features of pragmatic email
  requests from
• pre- to immediate post- to delayed post-test.
• - more acceptable content features of email
  pragmatics
• - fewer upgraders used
• - however, no trends can be found in the data
  set
• - analysis of content features problematic
• No changes found in spelling or grammar from
  pre- to
• immediate post- to delayed post-test.
• - spelling and grammar discussed in treatment
  but not the focus
• No changes found in the number of requests per
  message, and
• no significant differences found in wpm after
  treatment.

44

• Data analysis shows significant gains in the use
  of acceptable
• formal features of pragmatic email requests
  from pre- to post-
• tests after treatment.

45

• Additionally, data analysis shows significant
  gains in the
• acceptability of the formal features used from
  pre- to immediate
• post-test, which were not maintained in the
  delayed post-test.

46

• Additionally, data analysis shows significant
  gains in the
• perlocution of the email messages from pre- to
  immediate
• post-test, which were not maintained in the
  delayed post-test.

47

• Graph of perlocution gains from pre- to
  immediate post- to
• delayed post-tests.

• Although perlocution showed improvement after
  treatment,
• there was very little change in politeness.

48

• Implications of Research Study Results
• ESL students need explicit instruction on the
  proper use of
• email pragmatics
• Guidelines for email pragmatics can and should
  be taught
• Ready-to-use materials on this topic are both
  useful and
• necessary
• Email pragmatics should be addressed
  periodically instead of
• just in one treatment
• Instruction in email pragmatics can improve the
  perlocution of
• NNS requests, can improve the use of formal
  email features,
• and may improve the use of content pragmatic
  features
• Instruction in email pragmatics may help
  students create email
• messages that achieve desired results.

49

• Future Research
• Continue data analysis to determine what makes
  email
• messages more perlocutionarily acceptable.
• Continue data analysis to determine if there are
  certain formal
• and content pragmatic features that make email
  messages
• more perlocutionarily acceptable.
• Continue to gather more data from undergraduate
  ESL
• students to add to this corpus.
• Study treatment design on NSs to determine if
  gains are
• similar to NNSs.
• Elicit help of additional raters to code a
  portion of the data to
• determine the reliability of the coding scheme
  and rating.

50
Conclusion Thank you for attending!