Cover not available
Part of
Language and Social Interaction at Home and School
Edited by Letizia Caronia
[Dialogue Studies 32] 2021
► pp. 351–376

Chapter 10
Student-teacher e-mail interaction as asynchronous dialogue in an academic setting

| University of Bologna
This study analyses a corpus of e-mails exchanged between university students and their teachers, aiming to understand some similarities and differences between computer mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face dialogue. Methodologically, we combine corpus analysis with systemic functional linguistics to identify patterns of experiential meaning as expressed through verbs, or Processes (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004), looking at how students and teachers co-construct meaning and build rapport via e-mail. The results illustrate both similarities (informality, negotiation, near-synchronicity) and differences (personal disclosure, paralinguistic features) between e-mails and face-to-face dialogue. This seems to indicate that the two should be used in complementary ways to maximize the pragmatic effectiveness of student-teacher interaction, also harnessing the potential of other, more recent CMC technologies, like social networks.
Keywords: Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), corpus linguistics, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), academic dialogue
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Data and discussion
    • 4.1E-mail structure
    • 4.2Process types
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.32.10fus
References (75)
References
Akman, Varol and Carla Bazzanella. 2003. “The Complexity of Context.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (3): 321–329. Google Scholar
Amhag, Lisbeth and Anders Jakobsson. 2009. “Collaborative Learning as a Collective Competence when Students Use the Potential of Meaning in Asynchronous Dialogues.” Computers & Education 52 (3): 656–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2015. TagAnt (Version 1.2.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL]. Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi. 1984. “Computer Mediated Communication as a Force in Language Change.” Visible Language 18: 118–141. Google Scholar
. 1998. “Letters by Phone or Speech by Other Means: the Linguistics of Email.” Language and Communication 18 (2):133–170.Google Scholar
. 2000. Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading. London:Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Why Email Looks Like Speech.”In New Media Language, ed.by Jean Aitchison and Diana Lewis, 85–94. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Tom, andGerard O'Grady (eds.). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla (ed). 2002. Sul dialogo: contesti e forme di interazione verbale. Milano:Guerini.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Parlato dialogico e contesti di interazione.” In Aspetti dell'italiano parlato, ed.by Klaus Hölker and Christiane Maaß, 1–22.Münster: LIT. Google Scholar
.2010. “Contextual Constraints in CMC Narrative.” In Narrative Revisited: Telling a Story in the Age of New Media, ed.by Christian R. Hoffmann, 19–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Prospettiva pragmatica e complessità della dimensione diafasica.”In Les variations diasystématiques dans les langues romanes et leurs interdépendances, ed by Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Jan Lindschouw and, 323–338. Strasbourg: Eliphi. Google Scholar
Bennett, Susan and Karl Maton. 2010. “Beyond the Digital Natives’ Debate: towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Students’ Technology Experiences.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (5): 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. 2007. “Students Writing E-Mails to Faculty: an Examination of E-Politeness among Native and Non-Native Speakers of English.” Language Learning and Technology 11 (2): 59–81. Google Scholar
Bitonti, Alessandro.2016. “L’e-mail nella comunicazione accademica fra pragmatica e coesione testuale”. In Linguaggio e apprendimento linguistico. Metodi e strumenti tecnologici. Studi AItLA 4, ed.by Francesca Bianchi and Paola Leone, 51–65. Milano: Officinaventuno.Google Scholar
Bloch, Joel. 2002. “Student/Teacher Interaction Via E-Mail: the Social Context of Internet Discourse.” Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2): 117–134.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia. 2011. “Openings and Closings in Spanish Email Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (6): 1772–1785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Chi-Fen. 2006. “The Development of E-Mail Literacy: from Writing to Peers to Writing to Authority Figures.” Language Learning & Technology 10 (2): 35–55.Google Scholar
Chen, Yuan-Shan. 2015. “Chinese Learners’ Cognitive Processes in Writing Email Requests to Faculty.” System 52: 51–62 Google Scholar
Chejnová, Pavla. 2014. “Expressing Politeness in The Institutional E-Mail Communications of University Students in the Czech Republic.” Journal of Pragmatics 60 (1): 175–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, Thomas. 2010. “Linguistic Features of Electronic Mail in the Workplace: a Comparison with Memoranda.” Language@Internet 7: [URL].Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2017. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Companion Volume with New Descriptors. [URL]. Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Internet Linguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa and Carmen Frehner. 2013. “Email Communication.” In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, ed by Susan Herring, Dieter Stein, andTuija Virtanen, 35–54. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2011. “‘Please Answer me as Soon as Possible’: Pragmatic Failure in Non-Native Speakers’ E-Mail Requests to Faculty.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (13): 3193–3215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Mariag. 2016. “Variation in Evaluations of the (Im)politeness of Emails from L2 Learners and Perceptions of the Personality of their Senders.” Journal of Pragmatics 106: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foertsch, Julie. 1995. “The Impact of Electronic Networks on Scholarly Communication: Avenues to Research.” Discourse Processes 19: 301–328.Google Scholar
Fusari, Sabrina. 2016a. “Le guide dello studente in inglese: tra interazione e adempimento burocratico. ” In Parlare insieme. Studi per Daniela Zorzi, ed. by Francesca Gatta, 275–288. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
. 2016b. “The Role of Corpus Annotation in the SFL-CL Marriage: A Test Case on the EU Debt Crisis.” In Systemic Functional Linguistics in the Digital Age, ed. by Sheena Gardner and Siân Alsop, 246–259. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2016c. “A Blended E-Learning Course of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Interdisciplinarità e apprendimento linguistico nei nuovi contesti formativi. L’apprendente di lingue tra tradizione e innovazione, ed. by Cristiana Cervini, 86–101. Bologna: Alma DL, Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali (CeSLiC), Quaderni del CeSLiC. Atti di convegni.Google Scholar
Fusari, Sabrina and Antonella Luporini. 2016. “La comunicazione tra studenti e docenti via forum e e-mail: strategie di cortesia”. In Linguaggio e apprendimento linguistico. Metodi e strumenti tecnologici. Studi AItLA 4, ed. by Francesca Bianchi and Paola Leone, 67–82. Milano: Officinaventuno.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Interpersonal Meaning in a Corpus of Students-Teachers Computer-Mediated Communication.” In Transnational Subjects. Linguistic Encounters. Selected Papers from XXVII AIA Conference. Volume II, ed. by Liliana Landolfi, Eleonora Federici, and Flavia Cavaliere, 223–234. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2004. “To Tell or Not to Tell? Email Stories between On- and Offline Interactions.” Language@Internet 1: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2011. “‘On for Drinkies?’: Email Cues of Participant Alignments.” Language@Internet 8: [URL].Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia and Melissa Luke. 2012. “Discursive Negotiation of Face Via Email: Professional Identity Development in School Counseling Supervision.” Linguistics and Education 23 (1): 112–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadlington, Lee. 2017. Cybercognition; Brain, Behaviour and the Digital World. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher, Jack Joyce, and Chris Robson. 2017. “Investigating the Lexico-Grammatical Resources of a Non-Native User of English: The Case of Can and Could in Email Requests.” Applied Linguistics Review 8 (1): 35–59.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Jim R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hartford, Beverly and Kathleen Bardovi Harlig. 1996. “‘At your Earliest Convenience’: a Study of Written Student Requests to Faculty.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, ed. by Lawrence Bouton, 55–69. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Berna. 2010. “An Experimental Study of Native Speaker Perceptions of Non-Native Request Modification in E-Mails in English.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (2): 221–255.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan (ed). 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse.” Language@internet 4: [URL].Google Scholar
Höflich, Joachim and Julia Gebhardt. 2005. “Changing Cultures of Written Communication: Letter-Email-SMS.” In The Inside Text: Social, Cultural, and Design Perspectives on SMS, ed. by Richard Harper, Leysia Palen and Alex Taylor, 9–30. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jerejian, Alisa, Carly Reid,and Clare Rees. 2013. “The Contribution of Email Volume, Email Management Strategies and Propensity to Worry in Predicting Email Stress Among Academics.” Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3): 991–996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Kathleen and Thomas Cox (eds). 2011. The Professor's Guide to Taming Technology. Leveraging Digital Media, Web 2.0 and More for Learning. Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2007. “The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge.” Current Anthropology 48 (3): 375–401.Google Scholar
Kumi-Yeboah, Alex and Herbert Blankson. 2014. “Social Media and the Use of Technology in Higher Education.” In Handbook of Research on Education and Technology in a Changing Society, ed. by Victor Wang, 217–234. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marques, Gorete. 2008. “Establishing a Continuum in Spoken and Written Language in Student Emails.” In Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, ed. by Nina Nørgaard, 564–576. Odense: University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim R. and Peter White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKeown, Jamie and Qilin Zhang. 2015. “Socio-Pragmatic Influence on Opening Salutation and Closing Valediction of British Workplace Email.” Journal of Pragmatics 85: 92–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merrison, Andrew, Jack Wilson, Bethan Davies, and Michael Haugh. 2012. “Getting Stuff Done: Comparing Email Requests from Students in Higher Education in Britain and Australia.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (9): 1077–1098.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Elena and Stefano Rastelli. 2009. “‘Didattica acquisizionale’ e cortesia linguistica in italiano L2.” Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 16: 13–30.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Michael. 2011. UAM Corpus Tool 2.8. [Computer Software]. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. [URL].Google Scholar
Partington, Alan S. 2017. “Varieties of Non-Obvious Meaning in CL and CADS: from ‘Hindsight Post-Dictability’ to Sweet Serendipity.” Corpora 12 (3): 339–367.Google Scholar
Partington, Alan S., Charlotte Taylor, and Alison Duguid. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pistolesi, Elena. 2011. “Frammenti di un discorso ordinario. Contributo all’analisi pragmatica degli SMS.” In Testi brevi. Teoria e pratica della testualità nell’era multimediale, ed. by Gudrun Held, and Sabine Schwarze, 113–125. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Aspetti diamesici.” In Manuale di linguistica italiana, ed. by Sergio Lubello, 442–458. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savin-Baden, Maggi. 2015. Rethinking Learning in an Age of Digital Fluency. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Helmut. 1994. “Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees.” Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Shim, Young-Sook. 2013. “International Faculty Perceptions of Requestive Emails by Korean University Students.” Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 16 (4): 111–131.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1983. “Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Discourse.” In Literacy for Life: the Demand for Reading and Writing, ed. by Richard Bailey and Robin Fosheim, 79–96. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Tognini Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Upton, Tom. 2002. “Understanding Direct Mail Letters as a Genre.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7 (1): 65–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun. 2007. “Comments   on   Context   and   Conversation.” In Discourse and Contemporary Social Change, ed. by Norman Fairclough and Patrizia Ardizzone, 281–316. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Violi, Patrizia and Patrick Coppock. 1999. “Conversazioni telematiche.” In La conversazione. Un’introduzione allo studio dell’interazione verbale, ed. by Renata Galatolo and Gabriele Pallotti, 319–364. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue. The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2008. “Alterations of Relevance in Cyber-Media.” Universitas Psychologica 7 (3): 629–642.Google Scholar
. 2011. Cyberpragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Contextual Constraints and Non-Propositional Effects in Whatsapp Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 114: 66–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar