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.
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.
Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel
2011 “Poring over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 288–297.
Allami Hamid and Haleh Serajfard
2012 “Engagement Markers: a Technique for Improving Writing Skills.” Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 1–1: 71–83.
Baron, Naomi S.
2000Alphabet to E-Mail. How Written English Evolved and Where It’s Heading. New York: Routledge.
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Gramatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9 (1): 93–124.
Biber, Douglas, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
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.
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz Calderón
2012 “Lexical Variations in Business E-mails Written by Non-Native Speakers of English.” LSP Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition 3: 4–13.
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz Calderón
2013 “Variation of English Business E-mails in Asian Countries.” Ibérica 26: 55–76.
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz Calderón
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.
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.
Cheung, Ming
2011 “Sales Promotion Communication in Chinese and English: A Thematic Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1061–1079.
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.
Darics, Erika
ed.2015Digital Business Discourse. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Evans, Stephen
2010 “Business as Usual: The Use of English in the Professional World in Hong Kong.” English for Specific Purposes 29: 153–167.
Gillaerts, Paul, and Freek Van de Velde
2010 “Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 128–139.
Giménez, Julio C.
2000 “Business E-mail Communication: Some Emerging Tendencies in Register.” English for Specific Purposes 19: 237–251.
Giménez, Julio C.
2001 “Ethnographic Observations in Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations Between Non-Native Speakers of English: An Exploratory Study.” English for Specific Purposes 20: 169–193.
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hunston, Susan
1993 “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by M. Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.
Hunston, Susan
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.
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson
eds.2000Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, Ken
1998 “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455.
Hyland, Ken
2000Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, Ken
2005 “Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse
2004 “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25: 156–177.
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.
Koutsantoni, Dimitra
2004 “Attitude, Certainty and Allusions to Common Knowledge in Scientific Research Articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 163–182.
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.
Marković, Jelena M.
2013 “Engagement Markers in Introductory Textbooks.” Komunikacija i kultura online, IV-4: 36–51.
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Morrison, Terry, Wayne A. Conaway, and George A. Borden
1994Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands. How to Do Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Mass.: Adams Media Corporation.
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.
Mur Dueñas, Pilar
2011 “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3068–3079.
Olsen, Leslie A., and Thomas N. Huckin
1991Technical Writing and Professional Communication. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogerson-Revell, Pamela
2007 “Using English for International Business: A European Case Study.” English for Specific Purposes 26: 103–120.
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.
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.
Thompson, Geoff
2001 “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader.” Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78.
White, Peter R. R.
2001 “Appraisal: An Overview.” The Appraisal Website. Accessed June 29, 2015. [URL].
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Albalat-Mascarell, Ana & María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
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.
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.
Bocanegra-Valle, Ana
2023. Engaging in predatory practices: How editors persuade prospective authors. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 93 ► pp. 117 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.