研 究 生 毕 业 论 文（申请硕士学位）

论文题目 商务沟通：电子邮件中的请求策略研究 作者姓名 盛舒敏 学科、专业名称 英语语言文学

研究方向 语用学

指导教师 陈新仁 教授

2008 年 12 月 6 日

学 号： MG0609031

论文答辩日期： 2008 年 12 月 6 日指导教师： _______________（签字）

Getting Things Across: Request Strategies in English Business E-mails

by Sheng Shumin

Under the Supervision of Professor Chen Xinren

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the RequirementsFor the Degree of Master of Arts

English DepartmentSchool of Foreign Studies

Nanjing University 2008

 

 

 

 

 

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the

best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously

published or written by another person or material which has to a

substantial extent been accepted for the award of any other degree or

diploma at any university or other institute of higher learning, except

where due acknowledgment has been made in the text.

 

 

Signature:                                                        

Name:         Sheng Shumin          

Date:                            

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’m deeply indebted to many people for their help. Without their precious help, this

thesis would not have been finished.

First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Chen Xinren. From the

very beginning of this thesis, he has provided me with great inspiration and valuable

guidance in the thesis writing class given by him. In my process of writing this thesis, he

has carefully read and reread the draft and offered many well-informed comments.

Without his valuable suggestions, unfailing encouragement and great patience, the

completion of the present paper would have been impossible.

I’m grateful to my academic brother, Li Ming, who helped me a lot with the data

analysis on the questionnaire. Thanks also go to Associate Prof. Wang Wenyu, the

lecturer of research methods and thesis writing, whose class benefited me a lot in the

methodology part of this thesis.

Many thanks should go to my classmates in the thesis writing class who came up

with many helpful ideas for my thesis. I’m also grateful to my close friends, Cao Liang,

Cong Cong, Yang Hui, etc., who gave me many suggestions on how to deal with the

questionnaire.

I should also express my appreciation to the participants of the study, some of whom

are former classmates of mine. Without their help, there is no way that I could obtain

naturally occurring contexts as the main data of my thesis.

S.S.M

i

南 京 大 学 研 究 生 毕 业 论 文 英 文 摘 要 首 页 用 纸南 京 大 学 研 究 生 毕 业 论 文 英 文 摘 要 首 页 用 纸 THESIS: Getting Things Across : Request Strategies in English Business E-mails

SPECIALIZATION: English Language and Literature

POSTGRADUATE: Sheng Shumin

MENTOR: Professor Chen Xinren

ABSTRACT

In the field of speech act studies, most of the previous research related to politeness

focused on daily communication. However, as the studies on speech acts are developing

faster and broader, linguists have been paying more and more attention to specific fields

of communication, for instance, technical written communication and business

communication, to explore the features of speech acts in different registers.

The present study attempts to conduct a quantitative study on requests and request

strategies in business written communication concerning the degree of politeness and

directness. Inspired by the exiting studies on English request strategies, especially

Trosborg’s categorization, the present author develops a new categorization framework of

request strategies. Comparison between the requests made by Chinese and those by

native speakers of English is made to find out their differences and tendencies. To figure

out the correlation between the working experience and the pragmatic competence,

comparison between the requests made by novices and those by veterans is also

conducted.

Different from previous research, this study collected first-hand e-mails. In total 189

business e-mails were collected as the source of naturally occurring contexts from twelve

businessmen home and abroad. A questionnaire was also designed to investigate Chinese

businessmen’s opinion on the degree of politeness for each request strategy. It was

distributed to 39 businessmen from different international trade companies in China.

The data analysis in this study generated the following findings. First, expressing

requests explicitly is the most frequently used strategy in business written

ii

communication, which tells the difference between business communication and daily

communication. Second, with no significant differences in the degree of politeness,

Chinese and native English-speaking businessmen share the same favorite request

strategy (i.e. expressing requests explicitly). Last but not least, the pragmatic competence

of veterans is higher than that of novices, which suggests improvement can be made to

novices.

The present study has implications in many ways. To begin with, the modified

categorization of request strategies together with the suggested degrees of politeness

(DOP) for each strategy makes contributions to speech act studies. Besides, this study

contributes to cross-cultural communication as well as English for Business and

Economics (EBE) teaching and learning. The present study suggests that specific

registers be an important theme for cross-cultural communication research. The

differences between the data from e-mails and the data from the questionnaires imply that

in order to have credible results it is necessary to obtain data from naturally occurring

contexts. For the field of EBE, it is suggested that more efforts should be made to study

speech acts in this field, while further improvements should be made to improve the

pragmatic competence of Chinese English learners.

Key words: request strategy, business letters, politeness, pragmatic competence

iii

南京大学研究生毕业论文中文摘要首页用纸南京大学研究生毕业论文中文摘要首页用纸 毕业论文题目： 商务沟通：电子邮件中的请求策略研究

英语语言文学 专业 2006 级 硕 士生 姓名： 盛舒敏

指导教师（姓名、职称）： 陈新仁 教授

摘要沟通对于任何经济活动来说都十分重要，对于跨文化商务活动来说更是如此。

而成功的跨文化商务沟通不仅要求良好的语言（语法）能力，同时也需要相应的语用能力。请求是跨文化商务沟通当中最为常见的言语行为之一，能否用合适的语言进行表达对请求的效果起着不可忽视的作用。言语行为理论的相关研究一直以来都以日常交际为主题。然而随着该方面研究的不断深入和延伸，人们已经开始越来越关注专门领域的交际和沟通，例如科技写作、商务沟通等，以便探索言语行为在不同语域的特征。

本文从礼貌和直接程度角度对请求和请求策略进行定量分析。基于前人对英语请求策略的研究，特别是 Trosborg 的分类，本文提出了新的请求策略分类框架，同时对其中各个策略类别进行定义，用例句加以说明，并对其礼貌程度进行分析。本文着重比较了中国商务人员和英语本族语者在商务信函中使用请求策略的特点和趋势，以及中国商务人员中老手和新手在商务信函中使用请求策略的不同情况和趋势。

与以往研究不同的是，本文收集了来自于十二家国内外不同外贸公司的一百八十九封电子信函，作为第一手语料，保证了其真实性和完整性。同时，作者设计了一份有关中国商务人员对请求策略礼貌程度的认识的问卷调查。三十九位来自不同外贸公司的中国商务人员认真填写了该问卷。

iv

本文数据分析的结果如下：首先，在商务信函中最为常用的请求策略是直接提出请求，表明商务英语和日常对话中言语行为的区别。其次，中国和英语本族语商务人员最常用的策略是一致的（即直接提出请求），同时两者使用请求的礼貌程度相近，没有显著区别。此外，更重要的是，语料数据结果显示商务人员中老手的语用能力要高于新手，表明新手在此方面有待提高。

通过对真实例句的分析，我们可以看出请求策略作为商务沟通语用手段的一种可以有效地促进请求内容的达成，推动贸易双方进一步的交流。首先，本文中对请求策略的分类以及对各个策略礼貌程度的评分（DOP）对言语行为的研究作出了一定的贡献。同时，本文对跨文化交际和商务英语等方面都有一定的指导意义。跨文化交际研究应该考虑到具体的语境。 针对跨文化交际中的言语行为研究，本文中电子信函和调查问卷所得出的结果之间的差异表明为了得到更加真实全面的结论有必要获取真实自然的语料。此外，商务英语作为一种特定体裁，对其中言语行为的研究有助于我们更加全面的了解其特点。同时，商务英语教学中应该注重提高中国英语学习者的语用能力。

关键词：请求策略 商务信函 礼貌 语用能力

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................i

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................... ii

摘要...................................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................ix

Chapter One INTRODUCTION................................................................................................11.1 Object of the Study.....................................................................................................11.2 Need for the Study......................................................................................................21.3 Significance of the Study...........................................................................................31.4 Outline of the Thesis...................................................................................................3

Chapter Two LITERETURE REVIEW...................................................................................52.1 Defining Requests......................................................................................................5

2.1.1 Previous definitions of requests.........................................................................52.1.2 Requests in the present study...........................................................................6

2.2 Existing Studies on Request and Request Strategies...........................................62.2.1 Request in cross-cultural speech act studies..................................................62.2.2 Existing categorization of request strategies...................................................7

2.3 Existing Studies on Business E-mails......................................................................92.3.1 Definition of business e-mail..............................................................................92.3.2 Related studies on EBE......................................................................................92.3.3 Related studies in China...................................................................................10

2.4 Summary....................................................................................................................11

Chapter Three THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK..............................................................123.1 Theoretical Basis for the Present Study................................................................12

3.1.1 Speech Act Theory............................................................................................123.1.2 FTA and strategies for doing FTAs..................................................................13

3.2 Categorization Framework for the Present Study................................................14

Chapter Four METHODOLOGY............................................................................................19

vi

4.1 Research Questions.................................................................................................194.2 Participants................................................................................................................204.3 Data Collection..........................................................................................................21

4.3.1 Collecting business e-mail................................................................................214.3.2 Politeness-of-request questionnaire...............................................................22

4.4 Data Analysis.............................................................................................................234.4.1 Analysis of the e-mail data...............................................................................234.4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire data..................................................................27

Chapter Five RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................285.1 Request Strategies Commonly Used by Businessmen in E-mails....................285.2 Comparison of Request Strategies Used by Chinese and Native English-

Speaking Businessmen...........................................................................................305.3 Comparison of Request Strategies Used by Novices and Veterans.................325.4 Chinese Businessmen’s Perception on Request DOP.......................................34

Chapter Six CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................386.1 Major Findings...........................................................................................................386.2 Implications of the Study..........................................................................................39

6.2.1 Implications for speech act studies.................................................................396.2.2 Implications for EBE teaching and learning...................................................39

6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research.........................40

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................42

APPENDIX: POLITENESS-OF-REQUEST QUESTIONNAIRE..................................45

vii

  

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Trosborg’s Categorization of Request Strategies...................................8

Table 3.1: Categorization of Request Strategies....................................................14

Table 4.1: Basic Information about Each Participant...........................................20

Table 4.2: The Number of E-mails from Each Pair of Participants.....................21

Table 4.3: Structure of the Politeness-of-Request Questionnaire.........................22

Table 4.4: The Modified Categorization of Request Strategies............................25

Table 4.5: The Value of Alpha for Each Item in Part C........................................27

Table 5.1: Frequency of Request Strategies Being Used.......................................29

Table 5.2: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Chinese and Natives.....30

Table 5.3: Comparison Between Chinese and Native Businessmen

(standardized)...................................................................................................31

Table 5.4: APDOP of Each Participant...................................................................32

Table 5.5: T-tests Report for the Difference between Chinese and Natives.........32

Table 5.6: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Novices and Veterans...33

Table 5.7: Comparison Between Novices and Veterans (standardized)...............34

Table 5.8: T-tests Report for the Difference between Novices and Veterans.......34

Table 5.9: DOP of Request Strategies in Chinese Businessmen’s Mind..............35

Table 5.10: Chinese Businessmen’s Belief about Making Requests.....................36

Table 5.11: Chinese Businessmen’s Beliefs about Replying Requests..................36

Table 5.12: Chinese Businessmen’s Attitudes Concerning Different Favors......36

Table 5.13: Frequency of Request Strategies in the Questionnaire............................37

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. APDOP average point of degree of politeness

2. Cat. category

3. CCSARP Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project

4. DOP degree of politeness

5. EBE English for business and economics

6. ESP English for special purpose

7. FTA face-threatening act

8. PDOP point of degree of politeness

ix

Chapter OneINTRODUCTION

1.1 Object of the Study

Many people think that using the politest way to make requests can make it most

likely that desired act will be performed, which entails that using hinting may be the most

effective requesting means. However, in the real world, especially in some fields, this

generalization may not be true. According to Zhuang Lemei (2004, p.6), when making a

request for remittance of a bill of exchange, words like “we will appreciate a lot if you

can remit the draft” are too polite to be appropriate. Therefore, we may wonder what

request strategies are commonly used and how one can be polite enough in the business

field.

Trosborg defines a request as “an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester)

conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act which is

for the benefit of Speaker” (1995, p.187). From the definition we can infer that requests

always do favors for the speaker. That is why requests belong to the five types of acts that

threaten the hearer’s negative face. Usually the speaker chooses either not to use FTAs or

to employ various strategies in communication to effectively communicate the content of

FTAs to the hearer in order to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face. However, the

employment of request strategies in the business field is not as straightforward as it is in

daily communication.

The study of English in the business field, known as EBE (English for Business and

Economics), has been attracting attention ever since Bhatia (1993, p.48) considers it to be

one of the most important branches of ESP (English for Special Purposes). To study this

specific genre, the researchers have to take the communicative purposes into account.

Considering its complex purposes in communication, business letters tend to employ

1

different strategies when dealing with different situations. Meanwhile, owing to the rapid

speed of globalization, international business becomes more and more common, while

more and more often business letter takes the forms of e-mails and faxes. Thus, this study

focuses on the use of request strategies as well as their effects in business e-mails written

by both native and non-native English-speaking businessmen.

1.2 Need for the Study

Theoretically, although plenty of studies on requests have been done, the previous

studies mainly focus on defining speech acts and their categories with little detailed

analysis of specific speech acts actually used, let alone in the specific field of business

communication. Even for the request strategies only, previous categorizations are far

from being satisfactory. Trosborg’s categorization (1995, p.205) is built on previous

studies and seems well-organized, but it is still problematic. To begin with, its four

categories are not paralleled. It is easy to find that Cat.Ⅰand Cat. Ⅳ are paralleled as

indirect vs. direct requests. However, Cat.Ⅱand Cat.Ⅲ should be categorized beneath the

main category of indirect requests instead of being another two main items. There are

other problems existing in Trosborg’s categorization, which will be discussed in detail in

2.2.2.

Practically, since interactions between different countries have become more and

more frequent, the significance of cross-cultural communication has risen to a much

higher level. Thus, it is worth of great efforts to conceive and investigate the differences

between cultures, including the study of requests. However, there are few studies on

request strategies used in cross-cultural communication. Among existing studies, most of

them have failed to draw data from naturally occurring contexts. For these reasons,

hopefully this study can contribute some sound findings, at least some solid proofs to

previous theories.

Pedagogically, the calling for frequent cross-cultural communication has given rise

to the need for language learners to improve their pragmatic competence in cross-cultural

communication. This study will take care of this need with specific reference to the

performance of requests across cultures.

2

1.3 Significance of the Study

The literature concerning requesting as a specific speech act suggests that many

linguists believe there are certain pragmatic regularities underlying requestive behavior.

Thus, requesting has been one of the most studied speech acts. This study participates in

the research and aims to shed new light on the understanding of it.

The present study presents a modified categorization of request strategies. After

defining eight subcategories of request strategies, the suggested classification can

hopefully serve better as a standard for future research than previous ones. Besides, for

the sake of statistical purpose, a scale of the politeness degree of each request strategy is

to be designed and points are to be given to each request strategy. Traditional research on

politeness and face theory mainly focuses on three independent variables: the social

distance (D) of the speaker and hearer, the relative power (P) between them, and the

absolute ranking (R) of the imposition in the particular culture, which was developed by

Brown and Levinson (1987). A different variable is taken into consideration in this study.

In the collected e-mails, the length of the speakers’ working experience will also be

considered as an independent variable.

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), request strategies are employed to

minimize the threat to the hearer’s face, in other words, to be polite. However,

communication between companies from different countries involves different

understandings of politeness from different cultural backgrounds. Just as every coin has

two sides, the function of politeness in business letters also varies depending on how it is

used. Being impolite will damage the relationship between the trade sides, while being

too polite, which is usually realized as being too indirect, may cause confusion and thus

hinder the communication. All these suggest that politeness in business e-mails and its

realization in request strategies are important topics for studying, especially for the

benefit of non-native businessmen.

1.4 Outline of the Thesis

3

The thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter One states the object, need, and

significance of the study. Chapter Two defines the concept of requests and reviews the

related previous studies. Chapter Three introduces the theoretical basis for the present

study and illustrates the suggested framework of categorization of request strategies.

Chapter Four describes the methodology of the study, including research questions,

participants, and procedures of data collection and data analysis. Chapter Five presents

and discusses the results of e-mails analysis and questionnaire analysis. Chapter Six, the

conclusion part, summarizes the major findings, discusses the implications and

limitations of the present study, and suggests some directions for future studies.

4

Chapter TwoLITERETURE REVIEW

As the gateway to our understanding of request strategies, previous studies on

requests will be introduced in this chapter. At the beginning, various definitions as well

as theories on requests are going to be introduced. Besides, business written

communication will be depicted as a specific genre which still leaves much to be

explored. Furthermore, the related few and limited studies in China are to be presented.

2.1 Defining Requests

2.1.1 Previous definitions of requests As one typical speech act, requesting has gained much attention from scholars in the

fields of pragmatics and sociolinguistics. One of the very first steps in their studies is to

define what a request is. Though the question seems to be simple, different researchers

have come up with different answers.

According to Trosborg (1995, p.187), “a request is an illocutionary act whereby a

speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to

perform an act which is for the benefit of the speaker.” In his mind, as one typical speech

act, requesting fits into the directive category of illocutionary acts. More importantly, the

ultimate purpose of making requests is defined to be for the requester’s benefit only; in

other words, when a speaker asks a hearer for a favor, the speaker is making a request.

The benefit could be a favor or service, such as asking a requestee for something or to

perform a certain act, and could also be verbal, such as requiring for some information

(Trosborg, 1995). Besides, the borderline between requests and orders seems fuzzy.

Trosborg recognizes orders as one particular form of requests and put it into the last

category “Imperatives” of his framework. However, while both orders and requests

5

belong to directive acts, they are two different speech acts. Thus, it is necessary to

distinguish them.

2.1.2 Requests in the present study However, in the business field, requests are sometimes made for both sides’ benefit,

not necessarily only for the benefit of the requester. Furthermore, the speaker can use

some strategic device to represent his/her own interest as for the interest of both the

speaker and the hearer. Thus, requesting in business communication is defined as “a

legitimate attempt by the writer to get the reader to perform an action required by the

business circumstances through evoking the reader's need for compliance on the grounds

of corporate and personal motivators such as necessity, duty and goodwill” (Chiappini

and Harris, 1996, p.638). To be more concise and accurate, requesting in this study is

defined as an illocutionary act attempted by a requester to get a requestee to perform an

act motivated by corporate and personal factors for either or both sides. Furthermore,

since orders are given by speakers who possess absolute authority or higher rank over the

hearer, to make a distinction, requests in the present study are confined to those demands

to which the requstee owns freedom to choose whether and how to respond.

2.2 Existing Studies on Request and Request Strategies

2.2.1 Request in cross-cultural speech act studies The mainstream of speech acts studies in the field of cross-cultural communication

argues for the universality of speech acts. In the field of interlanguage pragmatics,

researchers have compared and studied dozens of speech acts, including requests, refuses,

apologies, complaints, and so on (e.g. Blum-Kulka and Kasper, 1989; Blum-Kulka and

Olshtain, 1984; Candlin, 1987; Garcia, 1989; Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993). Most of

the studies were empirical ones based on Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project

(CCSARP). This project was set up in 1984 by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain to investigate

cross-cultural and interlingual variation in speech act performance. The main hypothesis

of CCSARP project is that there is certain general principal that can be applied to speech

acts in all languages. CCSARP Project employs a discourse completion test to get at the

6

strategies available to speakers to perform requests. This method is especially effective

for the comparison of strategies from different languages. By carrying out empirical

studies, Blum-Kulka compared the length of utterance and the range of linguistic

strategies used by native speakers and learners as well as the differences in oral and

written forms.

CCSARP projects designed for request studies attempt to find out whether there are

certain pragmatic regularities underlying requestive behavior in all languages with the

proof from various empirical investigations. The concept that the strategies for realizing

speech acts are essentially the same across cultures is also supported by Brown and

Levinson (1987). One of the most significant findings of the CCSARP is that all

languages studied overwhelmingly prefer conventionally indirect request strategies (e.g.

Could I borrow your notes? / Would you mind moving your car?).

However, many linguists have questioned this universality by presenting

considerable variations they have found in the realization of speech acts across cultures.

Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) also note that some of the request strategies were

not common between languages. Besides, most of the previous studies are from western

cultural and linguistic perspectives. Thus, it is necessary to encourage more researchers to

explore non-western languages like Chinese to draw a full picture of the realization of

speech acts in different cultures.

2.2.2 Existing categorization of request strategies Requesting is much related to social backgrounds, interpersonal relationship,

personalities, etc. As a result, to explore the realization forms of requests, many studies

have been done to define different request strategies in terms of their forms, content,

directness, linguistic features, and so on. Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) presents

three main levels of directness which can be used to divide request strategies. The three levels are: direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and nonconventionally indirect strategies.

However, most of those studies above only distinguish request strategies exclusively

according to the level of directness by which the request is realized, and then make a list

of request strategies without revealing any correlation among them, let alone presenting a

systematic picture of all.

7

In his book Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies,

Trosborg studies three main speech acts in the context of cross-cultural communication.

Both its theoretical framework and experimental designs are discussed in detail, while

realization patterns for each speech act strategies are presented as the chief content.

Trosborg’s categorization of request strategies (see Table 2.1) is also based on the three

main levels of directness developed by Blum-Kulka. In his categorization, request

strategies are presented at levels of increasing directness. Conventionally indirect

requests include all the indirect ways of realization except hints, and are divided into two

big categories based on the criteria whether the requests refer to hearer-oriented

conditions or speaker-based conditions. Besides fully discussing each strategy with rich

illustrations, Trosborg also considers different ways requests can be modified and the

effects that justification can make.

Table 2.1: Trosborg’s Categorization of Request Strategies Request strategies (presented at levels of increasing directness)

Situation: Speaker requests to borrow Hearer’s car.Cat.Ⅰ Indirect request Str.1 Hints (mild) I have to be at the airport in half an hour. (strong) My car has broken down.

Will you be using your car tonight?Cat.Ⅱ Conventionally indirect (hearer-oriented conditions) Str.2 Ability Could you lend me your car? Willingness Would you lend me your car? Permission May I borrow your car? Str.3 Suggestory formulae How about lending me your car?Cat.Ⅲ Conventionally indirect (speaker-based conditions) Str.4 Wishes I would like to borrow your car. Str.5 Desire/needs I want/need to borrow your car.Cat.Ⅳ Direct requests Str.6 Obligation You must/have to lend me your car. Str.7 Performatives (hedged) I would like to ask you to lend me your car. (unhedged) I ask/require you to lend me your car. Str.8 Imperatives Lend me your car. Elliptical phrases Your car (please).

However, his categorization still can not reach full perfection, leaving some space to

be further improved. First, the four categories are not paralleled. Besides, some terms are

vague, e.g. ability, willingness, etc. Since the categorization is based on the cognition that

request is one of the main speech acts, it would be better to describe different categories

8

of request strategies with verbs instead of nouns to exactly express and distinguish the

requests. The criterion of classification is not consistent. Furthermore, Trosborg divided

the category of “Performatives” into “hedged” and “unhedged,” which caused confusion

since the model sentence “I would like to ask you to lend me your car” surely sounded

more polite than the previous saying “I ask/require you to lend me your car.” However,

according to Trosborg, the degree of directness is ascending while the degree of

politeness is descending from the top to the bottom of the table. Thus, for the present

study the researcher has developed a new categorization framework (refer to Table 3.2 in

the next chapter) on the basis of Trosborg’s work.

2.3 Existing Studies on Business E-mails

2.3.1 Definition of business e-mail Since the main source of data in this study comes from business e-mails, it is

necessary to clarify what business e-mail is referred to in advance. In the book of

Collection of Practical Letters for International Trade English, Yang, Jiang and Ye (1997,

p.32) defines business letter as “business letter is referred to all sorts of letters that

between different economic parties with economy and trade as main content.” Nowadays,

letters have gradually been replaced by e-mails, as the latter are faster and cheaper.

Meanwhile, business e-mails inherit most features from business letters, which makes the

definition acceptable in this study.

2.3.2 Related studies on EBE As one of the main branches of ESP (a shortened form for English for Special

Purposes) studies, EBE (a shortened form for English for Business and Economics) is an

approach to language teaching in which all content and methods are based on the need of

communication in the business field. The whole process of communication should be

taken into consideration, which suggests teaching EBE in a broad approach as a

communicative genre.

In his book Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, Bhatia (1993)

illustrates how genre analysis can be applied to the business world. He provides a

9

comprehensive introduction to product and self promotion as examples. In this section,

the importance of communicative purpose is highlighted, as the author suggests that “the

communicative purpose which the genre is intended to serve is the most important factor

in genre identification” (Bhatia, 1993, p.45).

Huckin and Olsen (1991) write about business letter-writing in specific terms and

point out several key notions in business letter-writing: format, form, forms of address,

etc. The book also discusses the significance of identifying communicative audience and

purposes when doing professional writing.

Also, Yli-Yokipii (1994) suggests that writers seem to want to avoid direct lexico-

grammatical formulations in favor of more ambiguous request formats and that this

behavior points to interpersonal and contextual influences affecting, consciously or

unconsciously, writers’ rhetorical choices.

As a specific genre, business letter-writing is not only regulated by general

communicative norms, such as politeness, but also influenced by “ the specific corporate

context which requires clarity, effectiveness, speed, etc” (Chiappini et al., 1996, p.645).

Besides, considering that business communication is also related to interpersonal

variables such as power, distance and status, it is complicated but still interesting to

explore requests in this specific field.

However, business letter-writing has seldom been the object of any systematic study

by linguists (rare exceptions include Murray, 1987 and Yli-Yokipii, 1994). Some of the

related studies are primarily concerned with spoken discourse. Nevertheless, the greatest

limitation shared by most of the above studies is lack of adequate data. Many researches

use questionnaires to collect data rather than drawing on natural occurring language.

2.3.3 Related studies in ChinaPrevious studies have mainly focused on defining speech acts and their categories

with little detailed analysis of specific speech acts actually used, let lone in a specific

field. Besides, there are few studies on request strategies used in cross-cultural

communication in China.

In China, much attention has been paid to speech acts, requests, in particular.

However, the previous studies on request strategies used by Chinese EFL learners mainly

focus on SLA (Ren, Li and Zhang, 2008) and comparison between Chinese and English

10

(Cao, 2005; Cheng, 2006; Lin, 2007; Ling, 2003; Yi, 2007). Many comparison studies are

based on CCSARPs (Yao and Qiu, 2003). Others conduct surveys to collect data from

both Chinese and English native speakers (Liao and Qu, 2007; Ren et al., 2008). Thus,

their data are drawn from language tests instead of naturally occurring contexts.

As mentioned previously in Section 1.3, it is necessary to explore requests in the

specific field of business communication. However, in China, there are not many studies

done within business context, and even those related mainly adopt pragmatics as a

general perspective (Lu, 2007; Yang, 2007; Zeng, 2007). Many studies have focused on

how to apply politeness strategies in business communication (He, 2001; Tan, 2008; Sun,

2002; Zeng, 2002). Others apply theories of Cooperative Principle (Ke, 2001; Xue,

2001), and Face Theory (Huang, 2003). Thus, how request strategies can affect business

communication has not been studied yet.

2.4 Summary

In this chapter, previous definitions on requests were introduced, while a workable

definition of requests for the present study was provided with regard to the context of

business communication. Among the studies on cross-cultural communications and on

the field of EBE, those related to requests and request strategies were introduced.

Meanwhile, the categorization of requests strategies developed by Trobsborg was

discussed in views of its pros and cons. The review reveals that there are few studies on

requests and requests strategies in business written communication. To fill the gaps

between previous studies and the object of the present study, the following chapters will

provide a modified categorization of requests strategies. Business e-mails and

questionnaires will be collected for the quantitative investigation on requests strategies in

terms of their politeness and directness. Comparison will be made between Chinese and

native businessmen as well as between novices and veterans.

11

Chapter ThreeTHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Chapter Three aims to establish the theoretical framework for the analysis of request

strategies in business e-mails. The first section introduces Speech Act Theory and FTA

studies briefly. The second section is devoted to the categorization of request strategies

for the present study. Considering the defaults existing in Trosborg’s categorization of

request strategies, improvement is made to form a new category framework. The

categorization of request strategies for the present study will be illustrated in detail.

3.1 Theoretical Basis for the Present Study

3.1.1 Speech Act Theory Speech acts studies are rooted in the speech act theory developed by Austin (1962)

and Searle (2001). According to Austin, people can perform actions when talking. Based

on Austin’s theory, Searle comes up with further extension and division in his theoretical

works. Searle (2001) divides speech acts into utterance act, propositional act,

illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. According to four main felicity conditions, he

further divides illocutionary acts into five main categories: assertives (e.g. “I predict he

will come”), directives (e.g. “I order you to leave”), commissives (e.g. “I promise to pay

you the money”), expressives (e.g. “I apologize for stepping on your toe”), and

declarations (e.g. “I declare the meeting open”). Of the five categories, directive is the

speech act used by a speaker who wants the hearer to do something, e.g. “Close the door,

please.” Searle (1979, p.44) presents the felicity conditions on the directive class of

illocutionary acts as follows:

12

Preparatory condition H is able to perform A.Sincerity condition S wants H to do A.Propositional content condition S predicates a future act A of H.Essential condition Counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A.

Since requesting is a typical directive act, when Searle illustrates the felicity

conditions of directives, he bears request in mind (Searle, 1979). Thus, these felicity

conditions can be directly applied to the study of the requestive act. The definition of

requests for the present study is based on those felicity conditions.

Although their theory is recognized as an important contribution to pragmatic

studies, Austin and Searle have been confronted with much criticism at the same time.

The generalization they draw for the way speech acts function in natural communication

faces doubts for all the examples they use are from their native environment. Thus, the

present study collects data from real communicative interaction to avoid some potential

problems.

3.1.2 FTA and strategies for doing FTAsBrown and Levinson (1987) develop a framework to deal with the politeness issue

when performing different speech acts. Their major contribution is the development of

the Face Threatening Acts (FTA’s) and the politeness strategies. FTA’s are acts that

infringe on the hearers' need to maintain their self esteem and to be respected. Besides,

Brown and Levinson (1978) draw a distinction between acts that threaten negative face

and those that threaten positive face. The two notions are defined as follows:

Negative face: the want of every “competent adult member” that his actions be unimpeded by others.

Positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others.

(He. ed. 2003:564)

The negative face roots in human’s basic desire to be unimpeded in actions, to

maintain their private space, to make free choices, and not to be distracted. Speech acts

that threaten the hearer’s negative-face include orders and requests, suggestion and

advice, reminding, threats, warnings, and dares. To effectively communicate the content

of FTAs to the hearer while minimizing the threat to the hearer’s Face, the speaker can

choose not to do FTAs or to employ various strategies in communication. Brown and

13

Levinson (1978) schematize the possible strategies for doing FTAs as follows:

1 without redressive action, baldly on record 2 positive politeness

Do the FTA with redressive action 3 negative politeness

4 off record5 Don’t do the FTA

(He. ed. 2003: 573)Note: the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 stand for the five strategies from the most direct to the most indirect.

3.2 Categorization Framework for the Present Study

Built on previous research, Trosborg (1995) comes up with four major categories of

request strategies (refer to Table 2.1), including eight strategies. Although his study is

more systematic than previous research, there are still problems and further improvement

is needed. As mentioned before, there are many problems underlying his categorizing

standard and some of the terms presenting the strategies. As discussed before, Trosborg’s

categorization (refer to Table 2.1) has many problems. Thus, the present study introduces

some modifications and works out a new framework, as shown in Table 3.1:

Table 3.1: Categorization of Request Strategies Directness Request strategies Illustrations

Direct request A. Expressing requirement explicitly Send me your quotes.

Indirect request

Conventionally indirect

B. Pointing out responsibilities/necessities

You have to send us your quotes first.

C. Expressing the speaker’s needs Now we need your quotes.

D. Expressing the speaker’s willingness

We hope you can send us your quotes.

E. Suggesting the hearer How about sending us your quotes first?

F. Inquiring about the hearer’s ability /willingness /permission

Can you send me your quotes?

Non-conventionally

indirectG. Hinting the hearer We haven’t got your quotes

yet.

Table 3.1 is the categorization of request strategies that builds on previous studies, in

14

particular on the categories of Trosborg (1995), which hereby serves as an instrument for

classification of the data. Realizations of the seven different levels of directness are

formulated with regard to a situation in which the speaker asks for the quotes of the

hearer’s products. There are seven major categories presented at levels of increasing

directness (A being the most direct, and G being the most indirect).

A. Expressing requirement explicitlyIf the speaker expresses his/her requirement explicitly, on the one hand, he/she can

efficiently express what he/she asks the hearer to perform; on the other hand, he/she can

sound quite impolite. In the field of business, if the interlocutors are at the same or most

the same position, they usually try to soften their imperatives by please, like the

following direct requests in Sentence (1) and (2):

(1) At the meantime, please discuss with the factory and find an answer for it.(2) Please check the attached file first.

However, there are exceptions where the speaker makes requests baldly without any

justification. In the following case (3), the requester who has found mistakes in the

requestee’s last reply and is not happy with it sounds impolite or even severe when he

asks the Chinese sales assistant to recheck the information.

(3) Remember: double check with your factory to make sure what we want and make sure no other problems will occur!

B. Pointing out responsibilities/ necessitiesWhen pointing out that the request is due to the hearer’s responsibilities/necessities,

the speaker exerts his/her authority or turns to some authority outside (like objective

conditions). By employing this strategy, the utterance can be modified with modal verbs,

such as “need” and “should.” As a result, the speaker can express his/her demands

explicitly but in a weaker form compared to using imperatives. In the following sentence

(4) the writer, George, makes a request to inform Yang what to do and how to do when

preparing the upcoming trade fair. As Yang is in charge of the display for his company, it

is his duty to negotiate with George, his client. Thus, George chooses to point out Yang’s

responsibilities so as to persuade Yang to accept his request. In fact, in this case George

does not exert his authority, and instead he refers to Yang’s duty, which leaves Yang with

more space to choose.

15

(4) You need to palletize the display assortment for each store and the materials needed to set up the displays, base display, signs, etc.

(5) The participane “Team Member” shall be replaced by all the participating Team Members.

Different from the case in Sentence (4), the speaker in Sentence (5) chooses to use

the passive voice so as to omit the agent. Although the speaker did not name the hearer as

the person who should correct the words “Team Member,” it is still explicit that the agent

omitted here refers to the e-mail receiver (the hearer). In this case, by pointing out

necessities as well as omitting the agent, the speaker modifies the illocutionary force of

the speech act.

C. Expressing the speaker’s needsBy focusing on speaker-related conditions, the speaker makes a sincere request and

conveys his/her needs directly. Different from Strategy B, those Want-demands do not

depend on external circumstances and only resort to the speaker’s own needs. In requests

referring to the speaker’s needs, the hearer is assigned a role as the performer of the

desired act. As in Sentence (6) and (7), which come from the same e-mail, “we” and “I”

are used to emphasize the speaker’s interest. The hearer does not appear in the sentence,

but it is implied as the act performer.

(6) We need 600 pcs of these badges for immediate delivery.(7) Also, I want to know how you load the container?

Here, in Sentence (6), the hearer is asked to deliver their goods immediately, while in

Sentence (7) the hearer is asked for the way of the shipment for the goods.

D. Expressing the speaker’s willingness Requests realized in the form of the speaker’s willingness are not so blunt as requests

expressing the speaker’s needs. By means of formulae like “I would like to” or “I hope

that,” the speaker states that the following requests are his/her wishes rather than his/her

demands, which leaves much room for the hearer to choose. Sometimes, requests derived

from the speaker’s needs are transferred into the form of expressing the speaker’s

willingness or wishes so that the requests do not sound too imposing to the hearer.

Besides, the speaker’s willingness or wish presented in the requests does not necessarily

refer to substantial acts or things but to certain abstract requirements. Consider the

following examples:

16

(8) Now I’d like to ask you what’s the minimum order quantity that you can keep the current price.

(9) We hope you can give us the good news.

In the e-mail where Sentence (8) is taken from, the hearer faces the pressure from the

increasing prices of raw materials, so that his company has to raise their products prices.

In this sentence, the speaker asks for the proper order quantity, which is usually not an

easy question to answer since it is much related to the price. From Sentence (9) it could

be inferred that the speaker asks for an order from the hearer, but he does not present it

explicitly. Instead he chooses to transfer his demand into a mild wish, using “good news”

as a euphemism.

E. Suggesting the hearerSuggestory formulae can be employed in making requests when the speaker states

that the illocutionary act is good for the mutual benefits or goals of both parties (the

speaker and the hearer).

(10) It would be nice to include a tape in the deluxe fence set that we can show some features like the Lufkin and Stanley tapes.

For instance, in Sentence (10), Serge makes a suggestion to Wu. Although the agent is

not mentioned explicitly, they both know it is Wu who can add “a tape in the deluxe

fence” since she represents the party in charge of providing products and related

materials.

F. Inquiring about the hearer’s ability /willingness/permissionIn requests questioning the hearer’s ability/willingness/permission, the desired act is

imbedded in the proposition. By inquiring about the inherent capacity of the hearer or the

external conditions for limitation, the speaker reduces the threat to the hearer’s face as

well as the risk of losing his/her own face. In some cases, the speaker chooses to make

requests in terms of “Can you…” or “Are you able to…” not to inquire about the hearer’s

ability but to question the hearer’s willingness or permission.

(11) Are you able to send me the prices in USD?

Take Sentence (11) for example. The requester asks the requestee to exchange the

prices from RMB into USD. In fact, the requester is not questioning the ability of the

requestee for she knows for certain the requestee has such ability. It is just another way to

17

inquiring for willingness or permission since the requester is asking for a favor from the

requestee.

G. Hinting the hearerAccording to Trosborg (1995, p.192), “a speaker who does not want to state his/her

impositive intent explicitly has resort to hinting strategies.” The most outstanding feature

of hints is its intentional lack of transparency. The successful interpretation of hints

largely depends on the shared background knowledge and the conversational routine of

both parties (the speaker and the hearer). However, for business communication,

especially for the cross-cultural communication, there is rare chance to meet the desired

pre-conditions of understanding the hints. In the business field, if the speaker chooses to

leave out the desired action, and resorts to hinting strategy, he/she usually will

supplement more information to indicate his/her wish or desire.

(12) My mobile phone number is xxxx-xxxxxxxx. Normally, I go to bed at 12:00 pm at night.

Note: Information is replaced by x for confidentiality.

Take Sentence (12) for example. This sentence is taken from Mike’s e-mail to Wong.

Before this sentence, Mike suggests that he and Wong can have a talk on phone that

week. Then Mike provides his phone number as well as his bedding time. From those two

pieces of information, Wong can infer that Mike wants him to make a call before Mike

goes to bed that week. Although Mike does not express his intention in terms of explicit

demands, Wong can easily interpret this hint. In this case, no intimacy or cultural

background is required for the interpretation of the hinting. However, as the weakest form

of making requests as well as the politest one, hinting faces a risk of being easily

overlooked by the hearer. Still take Sentence (12) for example. If Wong would not

comply with the potential request, he could choose not to call even without giving

excuses. Thus, hinting strategy is probably not often used in business e-mail.

18

Chapter FourMETHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher will introduce the methods used for the empirical study

on the request strategies in business e-mails composed both by natives and non-natives.

At the very beginning of this chapter the research questions will be stated, followed by

the introduction of the instruments, subjects involved, as well as the ways of collecting

and analyzing the data.

4.1 Research Questions

When carrying out this study, the researcher’s aim is to answer the following specific

questions:

1. What strategies are most commonly used when businessmen make requests in

business e-mails?

2. What differences are there between request strategies used by native English

speakers and those used by non-native English speakers in business e-mails?

1) Do non-native English speakers and native English speakers use different

request strategies in business e-mails?

2) What differences are there in the frequencies of different request strategies

used by non-native English speakers and those used by native English

speakers in business e-mails?

3) In what way are those differences related to politeness?

3. What differences are there between request strategies used by veterans and those

used by novices in business e-mails?

1) Do veterans and novices use different request strategies in business e-mails?

2) How can the differences be explained in terms of politeness?

19

4.2 Participants

At the first phase of data collection, there were six pairs of businessmen, six Chinese

and six native speakers, participating in this study, from whom the researcher collected a

total of 189 e-mails. These e-mails were randomly chosen from their daily work from

March to May in 2008. All the participants worked in different international trade

companies. To keep their personal information in confidentiality, only their first names

would appear in the paper. Besides, to avoid the influence of the power of their positions,

participants of each pair were at almost equal positions in their companies. Among the

six pairs of participants, half of them were sales managers: Wong and Mike, Yang and

George, Kim and Philip; the other three pairs were assistants of sales manager: Wu and

Serge, Li and Karl, Liza and Emma. Basic information of each participant is listed in

Table 4.1, and the numbers of e-mails from each pair of participants are counted in Table

4.2.

Table 4.1: Basic Information about Each Participant

Name Nation PositionYears of working experience

Company information

Kim Chinadepartment manager

about five yearsan international company in Hong Kong

Wong Chinadeputy sales manager

more than four yearsone of the biggest international trade group in China

Yang Chinadeputy sales manager

about four yearsan international company in Nanjing

Wu Chinaassistant of Wong

two yearsone of the biggest international trade group in China

Li China assistant no more than two years a trade companyLiza China sales assistant two years an international trade companyPhilip Britain sales manager more than eight years an international trade company

Mike Canadaexecutive vice president

more than four years a company in Canada

George America manager at least ten years an international trade company

Serge Canadaassistant of sales manager

Less than a year an international company

Karl America stuff new in the business an international trade company

Emma Americapurchasing assistant

about two years an international trade company

20

Table 4.2: The Number of E-mails from Each Pair of ParticipantsKim--

Philip

Wong--

Mike

Yang--

George

Wu--

Serge

Li--

Karl

Liza--

Emma

Tota

l

E-

mails15 14 15 17 16 17 14 14 18 15 18 16 189

Since the sales managers were all skillful businessmen working for more than four

years, while those assistants were novices with working experiences for no more than two

years, they clearly fell into two groups: veterans and novices. The notions of veterans and

novices in this study were operationally defined as follows:

Veterans: sales assistants with no less than 4 years experience in international

company.

Novices: sales assistants with no more than 2 year experience in international

company.

At the second phase, 50 copies of the questionnaire were sent out to staff in sales

department from four different international trade companies, and 39 of them cooperated

and completed the questionnaire.

4.3 Data Collection

Since the data of the present study came from two sources: business e-mails and the

questionnaire of request strategies, the following part will describe the process of the data

collection accordingly.

4.3.1 Collecting business e-mailTo answer the research questions above, the study resorted to applying a quantitative

approach to analyze the naturally occurring language in business e-mail. E-mails between

Chinese and native businessmen were collected as the main source of the data. A total of

189 e-mails were collected in this study, written by 12 employees from 11 different

international companies, among which six were assistants and the other half were

managers. The researcher was grateful to have six friends who were very helpful in the

study. They not only sent their e-mails with their foreign customers to me, but also asked

21

their bosses and other colleagues for e-mails as well as required them to fill the

questionnaires. Before collecting the e-mails, they were informed of the quantity for each

person and the requirement that the foreign customers they wrote to must be native

speakers.

The categorization (Table 3.1) designed by the researcher was used to distinguish and

count the request strategies that had been actually applied. Thus, their usage frequency

could be figured out.

Besides, to explore the effectiveness and define the exact degree of politeness for

each strategy, the researcher surveyed all the participants involved in this study with a

questionnaire (See Appendix).

4.3.2 Politeness-of-request questionnaire In the following section, the purpose and the structure of the questionnaire will be

described first. It is followed by brief descriptions of the content of each questionnaire

items. At last, the reliability of each item is tested.

Although e-mails were collected and analyzed in terms of requests usage and

comparisons were made to find out the tendencies of requests used by novices and

veterans, it is still not clear that why those differences and tendencies exist. The author

attempts to find out the answer by inquiring into the Chinese businessmen’s opinion on

the request DOP. A questionnaire was designed to investigate the pragmatic knowledge

of Chinese businessmen.

1) Descriptions of the structure of the questionnaire

Table 4.3: Structure of the Politeness-of-Request Questionnaire Content No. of items

Part APersonal details: sex, company, nationality, education background, positions in the companies,the years of working experience

Part B Request making 1

Part C(1) Beliefs about making requests(2) Beliefs about replying requests(3) Attitudes concerning different favors

2(a, d, h)2(b, e, g, i)2(c, f, j)

Part D Politeness degree of requests 3

The questionnaire designed for the present study had four main parts. Table 4.2

presents the structure of the questionnaire together with the number of items for each

part. Part A contains personal details (i.e., sex, company, nationality, education

22

background, positions in the companies, and the years of working experience). Part B

requires the participants to write down the exact words they would use when asking their

clients for an immediate reply. Part C consists of statements of beliefs about making

requests, beliefs about replying requests, and attitudes concerning different favors. The

participants responded on a five-point scale: from “This statement is never or almost

never true of me (1)” to “This statement is completely or almost completely true of me

(5)” (See Appendix). Part D contains seven realization forms of different request

strategies, and the participants are asked to put them into order from the most polite one

to the least polite one.

2) Source of the data

In all 39 copies of the questionnaire were collected with the help of my former and

present classmates who had been working or had ever worked in international trade

companies. Questionnaire samples were sent to my friends in advance in case they had

any problem with them. After getting their confirmation that the questionnaire was totally

clear to them, the researcher sent out 50 copies of the questionnaire (according to the

different sizes of their departments). For practical reasons, like business trips, 39 copies

of the questionnaire were filled properly.

4.4 Data Analysis

The data analysis went through two steps: analysis of the e-mails and analysis of the

questionnaire data.

4.4.1 Analysis of the e-mail data 4.4.1.1 The degree of politeness for each strategy

For the statistical analysis, it is necessary to evaluate the degree of politeness (DOP)

for each strategy with exact numbers. If the speaker chooses to make requests baldly on

record, which means he/she uses imperatives directly, he/she can communicate his/her

demands with maximum efficiency but also impose maximum threat to the hearer’s

positive face. Although people usually add the word “please” in daily life when making

requests bluntly, this realization form of requests is definitely less polite than any other

23

request strategies. Thus, in the table, Strategy A was marked with point “1” which stood

for the lowest degree of politeness. According to Trosborg (1995), by intentionally

omitting the speaker’s desire or the hearer’s role as an act performer, hinting gives the

hearer maximum freedom and thus saves the hearer’s positive and negative face

maximally. Thus, hinting was regarded as the politest way to make requests and was

given the highest point “4.” Although, according to Trosborg (1995, p.197), “‘hearer-

oriented’ requests are generally more polite than requests formulated on ‘speaker-based’

conditions,” there was no evidence showing differences in the degree of politeness

between Strategies B, C and D. As a result, the differences of the DOP between Strategies

B, C and D were hard to measure, so that they were given the same point “2” for the

convenience of data analysis. Besides, although making requests by inquiring the hearer’s

ability/permission took hearer-related conditions into consideration and thus could reduce

the threat to the hearer’s negative face, suggestory formulae usually took the form that

sounded also for the hearer’s interest. Thus, there was lack of evidence to decide the

relative degree of politeness of the strategies, in particular the strategies E and F.

Therefore, similar to the situation in speaker-oriented requests, Strategies E and F were

given the same point “3” for their DOP were close. Besides, since almost all the strategies

could be modified by adding the word “please” so as to soften the mood, the effects of

“please” were eliminated in the study.

4.4.1.2 Defining Strategy HBased on the categorization shown in Table 3.1, requests were divided into different

categories. However, when analyzing the data, the researcher found there was another

category of requests strategies new to the existing categorization, and was marked as

“Strategy H.”

Before or after making those requests, the speakers gave reasons or appreciations for

the requests they demanded. As the speaker explained why it was necessary for the hearer

to perform the act required by the speaker, on the one hand, the hearer felt obligatory to

respond to the request which was the ultimate goal of the speaker; one the other hand,

since the reasons were rooted in objective conditions, which stated that the speaker did

not mean to impede the hearer’s action or his/her freedom to choose, the threat to the

hearer’s negative face could be weakened. When the speaker expressed his/her

24

appreciation before or after making requests, to save the speaker’s face the hearer might

feel hard to refuse him/her for if the hearer refused the speaker’s request, the speaker’s

efforts for request and thankfulness were in vain. Since Strategy H was also speaker-

related, its DOP was given point “3.”

Although this reason-given or appreciation-given strategy sounded quite powerful in

theory, most of the time it was used together with other strategies, like Strategies A, D

and F. The combinations of strategies were regarded as two separate strategies for the

convenience of statistical analysis. Illustrations were given in the following analysis for

each request strategy. With the strategies in mind, the modified categorization of request

strategies was presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: The Modified Categorization of Request Strategies Directness Request strategies Illustrations DOP

Direct request A. Expressing requirement explicitly Send me your quotes. 1

Indirect request

Conventionally indirect

B. Pointing out responsibilities/necessities

You have to send us your quotes first.

2C. Expressing the speaker’s needs

Now we need your quotes.

D. Expressing the speaker’s willingness

We hope you can send us your quotes.

E. Suggesting the hearer How about sending us your quotes first?

3F. Inquiring about the hearer’s

ability /willingness /permission

Can you send me your quotes?

H. Giving reasons or appreciations

Thank you if you can send me your quotes.

Non-conventionally indirect G. Hinting the hearer We haven’t got your

quotes yet. 4

Note: DOP means degree of politeness

4.4.1.3 Combinations of strategies a. Combination of Strategy A and H

As discussed before, making requests directly was probably the most impolite way of

all the requests strategies. Sometimes, direct requests were softened by adding

explanations or expressing appreciations, as in Example (13).

(13) Also, please try to provide some data about the success of your program in

25

North American market. This would be more convincing to the CTC tool buyer.

In this case, the requester represented the producer of CTC tool in China, while the

requestee was the agent for the requester’s company in Canada. The requester first used

imperatives to ask for more information, and then he explained the reason. Since the data

could be helpful to convince the buyer, in other words, the request was made for both of

the two parties’ commercial benefit, so the requestee was pleasant to provide the data to

the requester. Thus, in this case, Strategies A and H were combined and functioned well.

b. Combination of Strategies D and H

It was found that Strategies D and H could be combined in requests, which could

achieve a higher degree of politeness. When expressing the speaker’s willingness, the

speaker can make further explanation for the request or express appreciation for the

desired act that the hearer may perform in the future.

(14) Hope you can understand and thank you for your understanding.

Take Sentence (14) for instance. The speaker asked for the hearer’s understanding,

and then thanked her for her understanding. When there was some trouble with the

business due to certain objective or even irresistible forces, this sentence was quite often

used.

c. Combination of Strategies F and H

When inquiring the hearer’s ability/willingness/permission, sometimes the speaker

employed Strategy H to further lower the threat to the hearer’s face.

(15) Please can you be so kind as to forward me invitation letters (on a company letterhead and individually) as soon as possible?

Take Sentence (15) as an example. The requester emphasized that he would

appreciate the requester’s help if she could perform the desired act.

4.4.1.4 Calculating the points of DOP

To answer the research questions, request strategies used in those e-mails are

investigated in terms of their frequencies and means of PDOP (points of degree of

politeness). The researcher first highlighted all the requests found in the e-mails based on

the definition of “request” (see 2.1.2). Besides studying the frequency of each request

strategy used in the e-mails, the researcher also figured out the average PDOP of each

subjects. Then with the help of SPSS, the independent t-tests were used to find out

26

whether the difference of request strategies used by Chinese and natives was significant.

The same calculation was done to find out whether the difference of request strategies

used by novices and veterans was significant.

SA x 1+SB x 2+ SC x 2+ SD x 2+SE x 3+SF x 3+SH x 3+SG x 4Average PDOP= Number of RequestsNote: SA stands for the number that Strategy A is used.

4.4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire data Among the four parts of the questionnaire, obviously Part C is the main section

providing key data for the study. The item numbers and value of Alpha for each item in

Part C are presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.5: The Value of Alpha for Each Item in Part C

Variable Name Items No. of Items Alpha

Years of working experience 1Beliefs about making requests a, d, h 3 .501Beliefs about replying requests b, e, g 3 .614Attitudes concerning different favors c, f, j 3 .585

Item i was removed from the category of “beliefs when replying to the requests”

since it was not valid according to the result of reliability test. According to Qin (2003,

p.77), if the number of items for each category is limited, a low value of Alpha is also

acceptable. In fact, it is not hard to find research papers on pragmatic journals home and

aboard that even have a value of Alpha lower than .5 for limited items. Besides, the

internal reliability within items also depends on their content. Since the questionnaire for

the present study measured the participants’ opinions on politeness in requests, it was

much related to the personality of the participants which was difficult to measure or

control. Thus, though the Alpha values in Table 4.4 were lower than .65, they were still

reliable for further statistical analysis. However, it is for sure that further improvement

can be made to the present questionnaire to increase the Alpha values.

27

Chapter FiveRESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results of the current study are presented. The first part states both

the results from the e-mails colleted and the questionnaire. The frequency of request

strategies used in e-mails will be studied and comparisons will be made between the e-

mails written by Chinese and natives as well as between novices and veterans. The

second part will discuss the differences drawn from the results, and explain the reasons

for both the differences and the commonalities in terms of directness, politeness, and

other correlational factors.

5.1 Request Strategies Commonly Used by Businessmen in E-mails

Among the 189 e-mails collected, a total of 239 requests are made. According to the

suggested categorization in Table 3.1, 250 request strategies are found and sorted into

eight sub-categories. To answer the sub-question concerning the tendency that request

strategies are used in business e-mails written by both Chinese and natives, the frequency

of each strategy is listed below in Table 5.1. Besides, the frequency of the combination of

strategies is studied and sampled.

Table 5.1 shows that in business e-mails the request strategy most frequently used is

Strategy A. Among 250 request strategies used, 57.2% of them were classified as Strategy

A. Being the most direct strategy, expressing requirements baldly can fulfill the function

of business e-mails well, because the requirement is so clarified as to leave no room for

misunderstanding. Although it may threaten the requestee’s face to a large degree, the

damage it may make to the ‘face’ is not as serious as in face-to-face communication since

28

e-mail business communication includes a long physical distance between the speaker

and hearer. Thus, being the most effective way to make requests, Strategy A is used most

often.

Table 5.1: Frequency of Request Strategies Being Used Strategies SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH Total SA+SH SF+SH SD+SH

Total 143 10 21 14 5 42 2 13 250 7 2 4Percentage 57.2 4.0 8.4 5.6 2.

016.8

0.8

5.2 100 2.8 0.8 1.6

Note: SA stands for Strategy A.

Besides Strategy A, Strategy F is also commonly used. The total percentage of

Strategy A and Strategy F was 74%, which means most of the requests are realized by

explicit requirements or inquiring about the hearer’s ability /willingness /permission.

Unlike Strategy A, Strategy F is less direct for its concerns of the hearer. By inquiring

about the hearer’s ability/willingness/permission, the speaker considers both subjective

and objective conditions which may prevent the hearer from performing the desired

action. Being noticed in the data collected from the e-mails, participants intended to

choose Strategy F when asking the hearers for a big favor. Politeness is paid attention to

at the price of benefits. Thus, it is the most frequently used one among the indirect

request strategies.

Strategies E and G are the least commonly used in business e-mails, with Strategy G

being rarely used. As the most indirect way of all, Strategy G may fail to achieve the goal

of getting things across for its implied meaning can be easily ignored or misunderstood

by the hearer. Thus, the strategy is inappropriate for making requests in business e-mails,

which directly leads to its low frequency.

As for the combination of request strategies, although their frequencies are low, it is

obvious that the combination of Strategies A and H is comparatively more commonly

used than the other two groups. It is partly due to the consideration that the combination

of Strategies A and H can redress the threat to the hearer’s face caused by explicit

requests.

To sum up, the data above reveal that businessmen intend to express requirements

explicitly more often than to use other request strategies. They prefer making direct

requests to making indirect ones despite the fact that indirect requests are more polite.

29

Meanwhile, it was found that hinting rarely appeared in business e-mails for making

requests.

5.2 Comparison of Request Strategies Used by Chinese and Native English-Speaking Businessmen

To find out whether there are significant differences between request strategies used

by Chinese and those used by natives in business e-mails, the present study first

investigates the usage of each request strategy by Chinese and natives separately (see

Table 5.2). From the Table 5.2, it is obvious that Chinese businessmen prefer to express

requirement explicitly. Strategies C, D and F demonstrate a similar level of frequency,

while Strategies B and G share the same low frequency. Strategy E is not frequently used.

The combination of Strategies A and H is more frequently used than the combination of

Strategies D and H. There is no use of the combination of Strategies F and H.

More than half the request strategies used by native English-speaking businessmen

belong to the category of Strategy A. Second to Strategy A, Strategy F is also frequently

used. The total percentage of Strategies A and F is 77.3%, which means native English-

speaking businessmen tend to choose these two ways to make requests for most of the

time. Strategies B, C and H are not frequently used, while Strategies D and E are hardly

used. Besides, based on the data collected there is no evidence showing native English-

speaking businessmen choose to hint the requestee (Strategy G) when making requests in

business e-mails. The combination of Strategy A and H shares the same frequency with

the combination of Strategies F and H, while there is no use of the combination of

Strategies D and H.

Table 5.2: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Chinese and Natives SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH SA+SH SF+SH SD+SH

Chinese 62.4 1.8 8.3 9.2 3.7 7.3 1.8 5.5 3.7 0 1.8Natives 53.2 5.7 8.5 2.8 0.7 24.1 0 5.0 2.1 2.8 0

Total 57.2 4.0 8.4 5.6 2.0 16.8 0.8 5.2 2.8 1.6 0.8

To sum up, the data in Table 5.2 indicate that Chinese businessmen prefer to make

direct requests, while English-speaking natives tend to use both Strategies A and F often.

30

Using Strategy F, the speaker inquires the hearer’s ability/willingness/permission, which

not only shows concerns for the hearer but also leaves the hearer enough options to

choose. From this aspect, the native businessmen made more efforts in order not to give

the requestees a feeling of being forced to fulfill the requests. In fact, this explains the

necessity of using conventional indirect request formulae in daily communication.

Besides comparing the percentage of each request strategy, the present study also

compares the standardized number of request strategies used by Chinese and those used

by native businessmen (see Table 5.3). To testify whether significant differences exist

between request strategies used by Chinese and natives, Person Chi-Squre and Asymp.

Sig. were processed with the help of SPSS.

As clearly shown in Table 5.3, the differences in the use of Strategies A ,C and H

between Chinese and native businessmen are not significant (P﹥.05). The results also

show that the differences in the use of Strategies B, D, E, and F between Chinese and

native businessmen are significant (P﹤.05). Since the data for Strategy G is far from

enough for statistical analysis, its number is not regarded as a key element in the

discussion. Therefore, we can conclude that native businessmen apparently use Strategies

B and F more often than Chinese businessmen, while the frequency of Strategies D and E

used by Chinese outnumbers that used by natives.

Table 5.3: Comparison Between Chinese and Native Businessmen (standardized) SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH Total

Chinese 47.6 20 42.9 71.4 80 19.0 100 46.2 43.6Natives 52.4 80 57.1 28.6 20 81.0 0 53.8 56.4

X2 0.160 36.000 1.960 17.640 36.000 38.440 - 0.640 1.440(P) 0.689 0.000 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.424 0.230

Note: X2 stands for the value of Person Chi-Square; (P) stands for the value of Asymp.Sig.

The results from the two tables above can be summarized as follows. Strategies A

and C are among the top three request strategies most frequently used by both Chinese

and native businessmen with no significant differences, which reveals the fact that these

two comparatively direct strategies are preferred in business written communication. Part

of the reason is that the two strategies can best achieve the goal of business

communication. Just as Trosborg states, pointing out necessity /responsibility (Strategy

B) is usually used when the speaker has superiority over the hearer. However, the study in

31

this case only investigated the e-mail between participants with equal position. As a

result, though it is more direct than Strategy C, Strategy B is not often used in business e-

mails. Besides, the significant difference in the use of Strategy F that exists between

Chinese and native businessmen can be caused by the relatively low pragmatic

competence of Chinese businessmen. Since English is their second language, the reason

of the difference can be that they are not familiar with the sentence structure of Strategy

F. This possible explanation will be testified by the result of the questionnaire (See

Appendix).

Table 5.4: APDOP of Each Participant Kim--Philip Wong--Mike Yang--George Wu--Serge Li--Karl Liza--Emma

APDOP 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.1Note: APDOP stands for average points of degree of politeness

Table 5.5: T-tests Report for the Difference between Chinese and Natives Variables Mean SD T-value PChinese 1.700 .2449 -.809 .084Natives 1.867 .4412

To further analyze the difference in the use of request strategies between Chinese and

natives in business e-mails, the average points of degree of politeness (APDOP) for each

participant are counted out based on the arithmetic mentioned above in Table 5.4. The

table displays the APDOP of each participant. It can be found that the participants are

divided into two groups (Chinese and natives). Then SPSS was operated to get the t-tests

report in Table 5.5. As is shown in Table 5.5, the mean APDOP of request strategies used

by Chinese is a little bit lower than that used by natives. However, the statistics indicate

there is no significant difference in the APDOP of request strategies used by Chinese and

natives ( p= .084 .050﹥ ). In general, the native English-speaking businessmen are more

polite than the Chinese businessmen when making requests in business e-mails but the

difference is not significant. This conclusion will be supported by the results of the

questionnaire and further explanation will be provided.

5.3 Comparison of Request Strategies Used by Novices and Veterans

32

To find out whether there are significant differences in the use of request strategies

between novices and veterans in business e-mails, the present study first investigates the

usage of each request strategy by novices and veterans separately. Table 5.6 indicates that

novices use explicit requirements most frequently. Most of the time they choose to use

Strategies A and F to make requests (nearly 80% of all). Strategies D and H are not

frequently used, while other strategies are rarely used (including Strategies B, C and E).

Besides, there is no evidence showing novices choose to hint the requestee (Strategy G)

when making requests in business e-mails. The frequencies for each combination of

strategies are relatively low, but also indicate that novices combine different strategies

together sometimes when making requests in business e-mails.

To some degree, the situation with the veterans is similar to that of the novices. They

also use explicit requirements most frequently. Besides Strategies A and F, Strategy C is

also frequently used. The total percentage of the three strategies is more than 80%, which

means the other strategies are rarely used. Furthermore, only the combination of

Strategies A and H is used by the veterans when making requests in business e-mails.

In general, when making requests, businessmen, novices and veterans alike, use

Strategies A and F most frequently. Besides, veterans also often express their needs in

requests, which means they share the common top three request strategies as native-

speakers. This seems to show that the veterans have already achieved a higher level of

pragmatic competence.

Table 5.6: Comparison Among Each Strategy Used by Novices and Veterans SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH SA+SH SF+SH SD+SH

Novices 63.7 3.0 2.3 6.8 1.5 15.9 0 6.8 2.3 3.0 1.5Veterans 50.0 5.1 15.3 4.2 2.5 17.8 1.7 3.4 3.4 0 0Natives 53.2 5.7 8.5 2.8 0.7 24.1 0 5.0 2.1 2.8 0

Besides comparing the percentage of each request strategy, the present study also

compared the standardized number of request strategies used by the novices and the

veterans (see Table 5.7). To testify whether significant differences exist in the use of

request strategies between the novices and the veterans, the values of Person Chi-Squre

and the values of Asymp. Sig. were processed with SPSS. Since the data for Strategy G is

far from enough for statistical analysis, its number is not regarded as a key element in the

results discussion.

33

As clearly shown in Table 5.7, except Strategies A and F, the differences in the use of

all the request strategies between novices and veterans are significant (P .05﹤ ).

Therefore, we might conclude that the veterans apparently use Strategies B, C and E

more often than the novices, while Strategies D and H used by Chinese largely

outnumber those used by the natives. Besides, the results show that the novices tend to

use more sorts of combinations of request strategies than the veterans do.

Table 5.7: Comparison Between Novices and Veterans (standardized) SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH Total SA+SH SF+SH SD+SH

Novices 58.7 40.0 16.7 64.3 40.0 50.0 0 69.2 52.8 42.9 100 100Veterans 41.3 60.0 83.3 35.7 60.0 50.0 100 30.8 47.2 57.1 0 0

X2 3.240 4.000 43.560 7.840 4.000 0.000 - 14.440 0.360 - - -(P) 0.072 0.046 0.000 0.005 0.046 1.000 - 0.000 0.549 - - -

Note: X2 stands for the value of Person Chi-Square; (P) stands for the value of Asymp.Sig.

Table 5.8: T-tests Report for the Difference between Novices and Veterans Variables Mean SD T-value PNovices 1.733 .4633 -.476 .066Veterans 1.833 .2251

To further analyze the difference of request strategies used by novices and veterans

in business e-mails, we ran t-tests to find out whether the difference was significant or

not. The average points of degree of politeness (APDOP) for each participant were listed

in Table 5.4, where the participants were divided into two groups (novices and veterans).

Then SPSS was operated to get the t-tests report in Table 5.8. As it is shown in Table 5.8,

the mean APDOP of request strategies used by novices is a little bit lower than that used

by veterans. However, the result indicates there is no significant difference in the APDOP

of request strategies used by novices and veterans ( p=.066 .050﹥ ). Thus, it can also be

concluded that veterans are more polite than novices when making requests in business e-

mails although the difference is not significant.

5.4 Chinese Businessmen’s Perception on Request DOP

In the previous parts of this chapter, the tendencies and differences shown in the use

of request strategies by Chinese and natives as well as by novices and veterans were

34

revealed with tentative interpretations. Since the usage of request strategies is much

related to personal perception of the politeness of different requests, to further interpret

the tendencies and differences obtained above, we also explored the thoughts of

businessmen when they making requests.

Table 5.9 describes the results of the questionnaire of the study, with the frequencies

of each realization form of requesting. Then the order of request strategies from the most

polite to the least polite was figured out according to the largest percentage of each

realization form. For instance, 84.6% participants thought that d (using Strategy B) was

the least polite request of all, so Strategy B was listed in the last position. According to

the order chosen in the questionnaire, Chinese businessmen consider Strategy F as the

most polite when making requests, even much more polite than hinting. That explains the

results of analyzing the data of e-mails which states that Chinese businessmen lack the

related pragmatic knowledge on hinting. Although hinting the hearer is rarely used for

requesting in business e-mails, its usage and degree of politeness should be paid attention

to for it is an important way of communication.

Table 5.9: DOP of Request Strategies in Chinese Businessmen’s Mind DOP a (SA) b(SC) c(SG) d(SB) e(SE) f(SF) g(SD)

7 0 0 2.6 0 33.3 38.5 25.66 5.1 0 0 0 38.5 43.6 12.85 2.6 7.7 2.6 0 17.9 17.9 51.34 10.3 38.5 43.6 0 5.1 0 2.63 33.3 28.2 17.9 10.3 2.6 0 7.72 38.5 23.1 30.8 5.1 2.6 0 01 10.3 2.6 2.6 84.6 0 0 0

Most polite Least polite (SF) > (SE) > (SD) > (SG) > (SC) > (SA) > (SB)

From Table 5.9, we can also conclude that the participants only reached general

agreements on the DOP of SB and SF. Others spread over most of the position that are

given, which shows that the participants had some confusion about the DOP of those

request strategies. Furthermore, since the participants wronged the order of SA and SB,

they probably thought making direct requests was not too impolite, which explains why

Chinese businessmen used explicit requests more often than natives in e-mail writing.

Therefore, improvements can be made in EBE teaching, particularly, in the fields of

pragmatic knowledge.

35

The following tables illustrate Chinese businessmen’s perception of request DOP,

while comparisons between novices and veterans are made. The data in Table 5.10

presents that both novices and veterans think about being as polite as possible when

making requests (Mean is close to 5). Since the mean value got by the novices is higher

than that by the veterans, novices consider politeness more often than veterans, although

the difference is not significant (P=.322﹥.05). Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that

though businessmen value benefits most, they still think much of politeness.

Table 5.10: Chinese Businessmen’s Belief about Making Requests Items Experience N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)

Beliefs about making requests Novice 22 4.5455 .322Veteran 17 4.3725

When replying requests, Chinese businessmen show low recognition of the degree of

politeness. Table 5.11 shows that both of the mean values got by the novices and the

veterans are close to 2.5, which suggests that they thought being polite enough or not had

not much influence on whether they would perform the required action or not. Their

attitude is like “business is business, nothing personal.” In contrast to their beliefs about

making requests, the participants showed general tolerance to the matter of politeness,

which is necessary for cross-cultural communication. In other words, experienced

businessmen tend to try their best to be polite as well as to be tolerant to the other party.

Table 5.11: Chinese Businessmen’s Beliefs about Replying RequestsItems Experience N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)

Beliefs about replying requests Novice 22 2.6515 .519Veteran 17 2.5098

The results of items in Table 5.12 about the participants’ attitudes concerning

different favors they ask for show that Chinese businessmen sometimes try to be polite

when asking for a big favor, like bargaining for a higher price for their products, but they

do not think it is necessary to do so. Comparatively, veterans tend to make more efforts

on politeness when it concerns their benefits. From this perspective, veterans have a

higher awareness of the importance of politeness in business communication than

novices, with a difference close to the level of significance (P=.064).

Table 5.12: Chinese Businessmen’s Attitudes Concerning Different Favors

36

Items Experience N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)Attitudes concerning different favors Novice 22 2.3788 .064

Veteran 17 2.7647

Table 5.13: Frequency of Request Strategies in the Questionnaire SA SD SF SG SH SA + SH SD + SG SF + SH Total

Frequency 12 10 4 1 7 3 1 1 39Percentage 30.8 25.6 10.3 2.6 17.9 7.7 2.6 2.6 100.0

The above results of the questionnaire can further support the conclusions drawn

from the previous e-mails analysis. However, the results of Part B in the questionnaire

lead to a totally different picture from the e-mails analysis. Table 5.13 presents the

frequency and percentage of each request strategy that was used in the requests

participants wrote in the blanks. Apparently, the participants used more indirect request

strategies than direct ones, which is the opposite of the results in the e-mails. They tended

to use phrases like “We hope you can” or “I’m looking forward to” quite often. Besides,

appreciations were expressed frequently when making requests. Of all eight strategies,

only five of them were used. Those differences from the results of the previous e-mails

analysis are partly due to the small sample of the questionnaire. There may be other

reasons; for instance, the participants would have chosen more than one formulae if more

space was given. The questionnaire could be further modified. However, it is likely that

the differences reveal that there is a gap between the data from the questionnaire and the

data from naturally occurring discourse. The shortage of direct requests may be a result

of trying to be more polite when filling the questionnaire. This intervening variable may

unavoidably influence the final result of the questionnaire. Thus, choosing a

questionnaire as the instrument faces the risk of its defaulted weakness.

37

Chapter SixCONCLUSION

This chapter summarizes the major findings of the study and the implications of the

findings, and finally, indicates the limitations of the study as well as points out suggestive

directions for future research.

6.1 Major Findings

In the present study, request strategies used in business e-mails were investigated in

terms of politeness and directness. After quantitative analysis, the study yielded the

following findings:

1. Expressing requirements explicitly is used most frequently in business writing

communication. Besides, requests sometimes take the forms of inquiring about the

hearer’s ability/willingness/permission and expressing the speaker’s needs. This

conclusion indicates the differences between daily communication and business

communication. As the most important result of the present study, the conclusion

proves the significance of communicative register in politeness studies.

2. With no significant differences in the degree of politeness communicated, Chinese

and native businessmen both have a favorite request strategy (i.e. expressing requests

explicitly). Among the other request strategies, natives have an inclination of

inquiring about the hearer’s ability/willingness/permission, while Chinese show no

inclination of this kind.

3. In general, the pragmatic competence of veterans is higher than that of novices.

According to the data analysis, veterans apparently use Strategies B, C and E more

often than novices. Besides, the results show that novices tend to use more

combinations of request strategies than veterans do. Thus, it seems that veterans are

38

more polite than novices when making requests in business e-mails though the

difference is not significant. As politeness is concerned, both veterans and novices

consider it important when making requests in business e-mails. However, in

veterans’ mind, more efforts should be made to sound more polite when asking for a

big favor from the requestees.

6.2 Implications of the Study

The thesis reveals implications in cross-cultural communication studies on speech

acts as well as in EBE teaching and learning.

6.2.1 Implications for speech act studies The definition of each request strategy is given and illustrated with examples from

naturally occurring contexts while the modified categorization of request strategies

clarifies the main categories and their interrelations, which can be applied in the future

research on speech acts. To evaluate the politeness of each request strategy, the present

study applies the measure tool PDOP and calculates the APDOP of each participant,

which contributes to the statistic study of speech acts in the future.

This study contributes to cross-cultural studies by suggesting specific registers as an

important theme. Previous cross-cultural studies mainly focus on daily communications,

but the result from the present study presents that business written communication

acquires different features from daily communication. Thus, it is suggested that specific

registers be regarded in the future research on cross-cultural communication.

Most of the previous cross-cultural studies on speech acts, in particular CCSARPs,

employ the discourse completion test. As mentioned in the literature review, the findings

of CCSARP studies have been questioned. In this study, the results show that what the

participants used in daily life could be totally different from what they filled in the

questionnaires, which again outstands the significance of obtaining data from natural

occurring contexts.

6.2.2 Implications for EBE teaching and learning Previous studies on EBE have already covered business written communication.

39

However, most attention has been given to it regarding its features as a specific genre.

The present study investigates its features from another perspective: speech acts, which

contributes to obtain a whole picture of EBE.

In our country, much attention has been paid to the development of English learners’

linguistic competence, while their pragmatic competence has been neglected for a long

time. Our students need sufficient practice in order to obtain the necessary pragmatic

competence for successful and effective communication.

The study provides salient data on the requestive behavior of both Chinese and native

businessmen, which reveal that the Chinese businessmen may, sometimes, fall back on

their pragmatic competence when choosing requestive strategies. In other words, the

Chinese businessmen have not obtained enough pragmatic knowledge in the process of

their English learning. As in this study, the Chinese participants had confusions about the

degree of politeness for most requestive formulae. This defect can be removed by

enhancing the pragmatic practice in EBE teaching. Besides, the results from comparing

requests made by the novices and the veterans display that veterans generally have a

higher level of pragmatic competence and are more close to natives considering the

frequencies of the top three request strategies. However, their differences are not

significant, which suggests that the gap between the veterans and the novices, i.e. their

different working experience, can be filled up by enhancement of pragmatic practice in

EBE teaching and learning.

6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

Although efforts have been made to improve the present study to the greatest extent,

the current findings should be interpreted in relation to some limitations.

First, the source of the data is limited. Both the number of the e-mails that have been

collected and the number of the copies of the questionnaire are too small to draw highly

generalizable conclusions that can be applied to all Chinese and native English-speaking

businessmen. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the value of Alpha for the questionnaire is a

40

little bit low, which can be improved by modifying the items.

The present study suffers some limitations due to the object of this research. When I

investigated the request strategies in this study, the influence of power and status was

neutralized. However, there were some other variables that were hard to control, e.g.

personality, cultural differences, and the market tendency. Businessmen from the

purchase side usually enjoy superiority over people in charge of selling. What is more,

different people have different personalities, education backgrounds, values, so it is

difficult to generalize conclusions for all people.

In the process of collecting and analyzing data for this study, the writer spotted many

interesting phenomena that are worthy of future research. For instance, besides requests,

many other speech acts are frequently used, including complaints, thanks, and so on. The

function and usage of those speech acts in business communication needs to be studied in

order to draw a whole picture of using speech acts across cultures. Furthermore, this

study emphasized the differences caused by different nationalities and years of working

experience. Besides the two variables, consideration might be given to the power,

distance, and gender in the future research since those are key factors influencing

people’s choice of request strategies.

41

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bhatia, K.V. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Longman Publishing.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics. (Vol.5, No.3, pp. 196-213).

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). The argument: intuitive bases and derivative definitions. In He, Zh. X. (Eds.), Selected readings for pragmatics (pp.562-594). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2003.

__. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Candlin, C. N. (1987). Beyond description to explanation in cross-cultural discourse. In: Larry E. S. (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 22-35). London: Prentice Hall.

Cao, Y. [曹瑜], 2005, 汉语与英语请求策略对比研究. 吉林大学硕士学位论文。Carmen, G. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-

native speakers. Multilingua (No. 8, pp. 3-20).

Cheng, G.Y. [程谷雨], 2006, 请求策略在汉英语言使用中的对比研究. 上海电机学院学报 (06)。

Chiappini, F. B. & Harris, S. J. (1996). Requests and status in business correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics. (Vol.28, pp. 635-62).

He, Y.B. [何勇斌], 2001, 礼貌原则与经贸英语表达. 国际经贸探索(01): 74-78。Huang D. M. (2003). Politeness strategies in business letters. Unpublished master

dissertation. Guangxi Normal University.

Huckin, N. T. & Olsen A. L. (1991). Technical writing and professional communication for nonnative speakers of English. Book-mart Press.

Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: an introduction. In He, Zh. X. (Eds.), Selected readings for pragmatics (pp.715-734). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2003.

Ke, S.Q. [柯群胜], 2001, 经贸英语会话的语用分析. 武汉：武汉科技学院学报(14)。42

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Liao, S.Q. & Qu, C.F. [廖素清, 屈春芳], 英汉“请求”言语行为策略的对比研究 . 宿州教育学院学报 (04)。

Lin, L.F. (2003). A contrastive study on the strategies of requests between English and Chinese. Journal of Hefei University of Technolog (Social Sciences). (Vol.5, pp34-41).

Lin, N. [林娜], 2007, 中英请求语的比较. 商丘师范学院学报(7)。Lu, Q.P. [卢秋萍], 国际商务社交中的语用失误分析研究. 商场现代化(12)。Murray, D. E. (1987). Requests at work: Negotiating the conditions for conversation.

Management Communication Quarterly (No. 1(1), pp. 58-83).

Qin, X. Q. (2003). L2 learning motivation research and its problems. Foreign Language Teaching (Vol. 3, pp.74-78).

Ren, H., Li, S. & Zhang, W. R. [任红, 李耸, 张文茹], 2008, 英汉请求言语行为的异同与英语教学. 科技信息(学术研究) (12)。

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

__. (2001). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. (Original work published 1969).

Sun, Z. X. (2002). A Pragmatic Approach to Politeness in Business Letters in English. Journal of Jiangsu University. (Vol.4, pp25-31).

Tan, L. P. (2008). The application of politeness strategies in the business correspondence. Journal of Hubei Radio & Television University. (Vol.3, pp15-24).

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Xue, Y. [薛　瑜], 2001, 从 GRICE 的会话合作原则谈英语商务信函. 上海：上海科技翻译(04)。

Yang, F. J., Jiang, Z. Q. & Ye, Y. [杨方杰, 姜志琼, 叶勇],（编译）, 1997, 实用商贸英文书信范例大全. [Collection of Practical Letters for International Trade English].成都：四川人民出版社。

Yang, X. X. [杨筱霞], 商务人士英语中介语之请求言语行为研究——基于真实语料的调查分析. 考试周刊 (28)。

Yao, S. X. & Qiu, T. H. (2003). Comparison of strategies of request between English and Chinese. Journal of Luoyang Institute of Technology (Humanities). (Vol.1, pp 22-29).

Yi, Z. [易之], 2007, “请求”言语行为在中英文化中的差异. 广西民族大学学报 (哲学

43

社会科学版) (S1)。Yli-Jokipii, H. (1994). Requests in professional discourses: A cross-cultural study of

British, American and Finnish business writing. Helsinki: Sumolainen Tiedeakatemia.

Zeng, W. Q. [曾文雄], 2002, 商务英语谈判的语用策略. 遵义师范学院学报（4）: 73-75。

Zeng, X. P. [曾小楠], 商务英语的语用分析. 中国科教创新导刊 (20)。Zhuang, L. M. [庄乐梅], 2004, 国际结算. 北京：中国纺织出版社。

44

APPENDIX: POLITENESS-OF-REQUEST QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is designed for a research on business email writing. Please follow the instructions and answer the questions in accordance with your own situation. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. All the information you give will be kept in confidential and used for the study only.

Background informationSex: ___________ Country: _________________Education: ________________ Company: ________________Position: _____________________ Years of working experience: _______

1. Suppose now you are writing to one of your clients and asking for an immediate reply to your quote, you may write down:____________________________________________________

2. Please read the following statements and choose the number of the item that best describes you in the bracket at the end of each statement. The numbers stand for the following responses:1= This statement is never or almost never true of me 2= This statement is usually not true of me3= This statement is sometimes true of me 4= This statement is often true of me5= This statement is completely or almost completely true of me a. When I make a request, I think of being polite first. ( )b. I pay no attention to politeness when replying to clients’ requests since company’s interest is

my priority. ( ) c. If I ask my client to raise their price, I will try my best to make it sound polite. ( )d. When I make requests to my clients, I’ll try my best to be as polite as possible. ( )e. When I receive a request worded politely, I will be delighted to agree to it. ( )f. If I ask my client for the date of a shipment, I will be very direct. ( )g. I prefer being requested by a mild tone, and it’s likely I’ll try to agree to it. ( )h. I don’t pay much attention to politeness when making requests. ( ) i. When I get an email full of polite words, I feel imposed to do what it asks me to. ( )j. If I need to make some requests, no matter what they are, I’ll use the same straightforward

sentence pattern and wording. ( )

3. Below there are several illustrations of requests for a quote. Please put the letters of each sentence in order according to their degree of politeness. a. Send me your quotes, please.b. Now we need your quotes, please.c. We haven’t got your quotes yet.d. You have to send us your quotes first. e. How about sending us your quotes first? f. Can you send me your quotes, please? g. We hope you can send us your quotes.

Most polite Least polite

45

( ) > ( ) > ( ) > ( ) > ( ) > ( ) > ( )

46