Cover not available
Part of
Engagement in Professional Genres
Edited by Carmen Sancho Guinda
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 301] 2019
► pp. 47–66

Chapter 3
Authorial engagement in business emails

A cross-cultural analysis of attitude and engagement markers

| Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
The objectives of this chapter are to contrast the ways in which businesspeople communicate according to their linguistic background and to analyse how writers with different cultural environments transmit information to readers. The specific focus will be on whether writers in a business context use strategies originating from their cultural/linguistic background or they try to adapt to their readers in order to engage and persuade them. To this end, I compiled a corpus of a hundred and fourteen emails written in English by two groups of business managers, one Spanish and the other Chinese. After the analysis of the data, I found that the Spanish writers of English used more attitude and engagement markers in business emails than the Chinese writers. It may be concluded that authors with different mother tongues use different attitudinal and engagement strategies in English as a lingua franca.
Keywords: business emails, English, non-native speakers, attitude markers, engagement markers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus
  • 3.The study
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Quantitative results
    • 4.2Qualitative results
      • 4.2.1Attitude markers
      • 4.2.2Engagement markers
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 24 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.03car
References (42)
References
Abdi, Reza, Manoochehr T. Rizi, and Mansoor Tavakoli. 2010. “The Cooperative Principle in Discourse Communities and Genres: A Framework for the Use of Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1669–1679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel. 2011. “Poring over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 288–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allami Hamid and Haleh Serajfard. 2012. “Engagement Markers: a Technique for Improving Writing Skills.” Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 1–1: 71–83.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 2000. Alphabet to E-Mail. How Written English Evolved and Where It’s Heading. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1989. “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Gramatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9 (1): 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz Calderón. 2010. “Variations in Business English Letters Written by Spanish Learners.” Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 15–16: 39–56.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Lexical Variations in Business E-mails Written by Non-Native Speakers of English.” LSP Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition 3: 4–13.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Variation of English Business E-mails in Asian Countries.” Ibérica 26: 55–76.Google Scholar
. 2015. “A Contrastive Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Business E-mails Written by Non-Native Speakers of English.” Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 173: 214–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa. 2015. “Identification of Rhetorical Moves in Business Emails Written by Indian Speakers of English.” In Digital Business Discourse, ed. by Erika Darics, 226–242. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cheung, Ming. 2011. “Sales Promotion Communication in Chinese and English: A Thematic Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1061–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dafouz, Emma. 2008. “The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 95–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darics, Erika, ed. 2015. Digital Business Discourse. London: Palgrave-MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Stephen. 2010. “Business as Usual: The Use of English in the Professional World in Hong Kong.” English for Specific Purposes 29: 153–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillaerts, Paul, and Freek Van de Velde. 2010. “Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 128–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giménez, Julio C. 2000. “Business E-mail Communication: Some Emerging Tendencies in Register.” English for Specific Purposes 19: 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. “Ethnographic Observations in Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations Between Non-Native Speakers of English: An Exploratory Study.” English for Specific Purposes 20: 169–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan 1993. “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by M. Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse.” In Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by M. Coulthard, 191–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson, eds. 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken 1998. “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25: 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kankaraanta, Anne. 2005. “Hej Seppo, Could Pou Pls Comment on This!” Internal Email Communication in Lingua Franca English in a Multinational Company. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Printing House.Google Scholar
Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2004. “Attitude, Certainty and Allusions to Common Knowledge in Scientific Research Articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafuente-Millán, Enrique. 2014. “Reader Engagement across Cultures, Languages and Contexts of Publication in Business Research Articles.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24 (2): 201–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marković, Jelena M. 2013. “Engagement Markers in Introductory Textbooks.” Komunikacija i kultura online, IV-4: 36–51.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mei, Wu Siew. 2007. “The Use of Engagement Resources in High and Low-Rated Undergraduate Geography Essays.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Terry, Wayne A. Conaway, and George A. Borden. 1994. Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands. How to Do Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Mass.: Adams Media Corporation.Google Scholar
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2010. “Attitude Markers in Business Management Research Articles: A Cross-Cultural Corpus-Driven Approach.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19: 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3068–3079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Leslie A., and Thomas N. Huckin. 1991. Technical Writing and Professional Communication. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, Pamela. 2007. “Using English for International Business: A European Case Study.” English for Specific Purposes 26: 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mick. 2009. WordSmith Tools. Birmingham: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Elena. 2011. “Rhetorical Differences in RA Introductions Written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 Writers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10: 238–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M., and Amy Burke. 2003. “ ‘It’s Really Fascinating Work’: Differences in the Evaluative Adjectives across Academic Registers.” In Corpus Analysis, Language Structure and Language Use, ed. by P. Leistyna, and C. F. Meyer, 1–18. New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2001. “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader.” Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 2001. “Appraisal: An Overview.” The Appraisal Website. Accessed June 29, 2015. [URL].
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Bocanegra-Valle, Ana
2023. Engaging in predatory practices: How editors persuade prospective authors. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 93 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Albalat-Mascarell, Ana & María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
2022. Marcadores de implicación en los discursos de campaña para las elecciones generales de 2016 en España. Spanish in Context 19:3 ► pp. 537 ff. DOI logo
Alonso Almeida, Francisco & Francisco J. Álvarez-Gil
2021. The discourse markers indeed, in fact, really and actually and their Spanish equivalents in economy. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 16:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Alonso Almeida, Francisco & Francisco J. Álvarez-Gil
2021. The discourse markers indeed, in fact, really and actually and their Spanish equivalents in economy. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 16 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.