Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees
-
Sun Hee Kim
Sun Hee Kim is pursuing her doctoral degree in the Department of English Language and Literature at Korea University. She has an academic background in applied linguistics and business and has work experience in Korean corporations. Her research interest covers intercultural workplace discourse and pragmatics. She is currently looking into online intercultural communication that takes place among L2 speakers and their interactional accomplishments in the light of achieving intersubjectivity.
and
Hikyoung Lee
Hikyoung Lee is a Professor of Applied Linguistics and English Education in the Department of English Language and Literature and the Director of the Institute of Foreign Language Studies (Foreign Language Center, Korean Language Center) at Korea University in Seoul, Korea. Her work mainly focuses on English education at the tertiary level and cross-cultural distance language learning. Her research interests include second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and language policy.
Abstract
Previous research on politeness tends to examine the inadequacy of non-native speakers’ pragmatic knowledge. In this study, we broaden our focus to the influence of different lingua-cultural values on politeness in simulated workplace e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees. By exploring differential perceptions towards power-asymmetry, this study investigates how and why politeness strategies are realized similarly and/or differently in and around the speech acts of requests in English. By quantitatively and qualitatively analyzing the elicited data, the study suggests that lingua-cultural values influenced perception and production in power-asymmetrical situations. Findings reveal that power is a more prominent factor than familiarity for Korean employees, but to a lesser extent for American employees when doing politeness in e-mail requests. Results showed that the underlying reasons for formulating requests differed not only between Korean and American employees but also between two Korean employee groups that differed according to depth of intercultural experience. This study contributes to recent research strands in intercultural pragmatics and communication by arguing that pragmatic strategies to express politeness in relation to power are culture specific with existing and newly reconstructed lingua-cultural values coming into play.
About the authors
Sun Hee Kim is pursuing her doctoral degree in the Department of English Language and Literature at Korea University. She has an academic background in applied linguistics and business and has work experience in Korean corporations. Her research interest covers intercultural workplace discourse and pragmatics. She is currently looking into online intercultural communication that takes place among L2 speakers and their interactional accomplishments in the light of achieving intersubjectivity.
Hikyoung Lee is a Professor of Applied Linguistics and English Education in the Department of English Language and Literature and the Director of the Institute of Foreign Language Studies (Foreign Language Center, Korean Language Center) at Korea University in Seoul, Korea. Her work mainly focuses on English education at the tertiary level and cross-cultural distance language learning. Her research interests include second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and language policy.
Acknowledgments
We wish to express our gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive suggestions and Editor-in-Chief Istvan Kecskes for his assistance. We would also like to sincerely thank Kathy Lee for carefully reading an earlier version of this paper. Finally, we are grateful to all our research participants who made this study possible.
References
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca & Sandra Harris. 1996. Requests and status in business correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 635–662.10.1016/0378-2166(96)89191-0Search in Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Catherine Nickerson & Brigitte Planken. 2013. Business discourse, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137024930Search in Google Scholar
Bilbow, Grahame. 1995. Requesting strategies in the cross-cultural business meeting. Pragmatics 5(1). 45–55.10.1075/prag.5.1.02bilSearch in Google Scholar
Billmyer, Kristine & Manka Varghese. 2000. Investigating instrument based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21(4). 517–552.10.1093/applin/21.4.517Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in request: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11. 131–146.10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. New Jersey: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Bovée, Courtland L. & John V. Thill. 2014. Business communication today, 12th edn. New Jersey: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Byon, Andrew Sangpil. 2004. Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1673–1704.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Byon, Andrew Sangpil. 2006. The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research 2. 247–276.10.1515/PR.2006.013Search in Google Scholar
Clark, James Leland & Lyn R. Clark. 1982. A handbook for office workers, 3rd edn. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.Search in Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2010. Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior: Perceptions of social situations and strategic usage of request patterns. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2262–2281.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2011. “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3193–3215.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006Search in Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1996. Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. Language Sciences 18. 629–650.10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00039-3Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2015. Language and power, 3rd edn. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Firth, Alan & Johannes Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81. 285–300.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.xSearch in Google Scholar
Firth, Alan & Johannes Wagner. 2007. Second/Foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal 91. 800–819.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00670.xSearch in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14. 237–257.10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-OSearch in Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2003. Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in institutional settings, Text, 23(1). 27–52.10.1515/text.2003.003Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2007. Politeness and power. In Carmen Llamas, Louise Mullany & Peter Stockwell (eds.), The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics, 121–130. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hartford, Beverly S. & Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig. 1996. “At your earliest convenience”: A study of written student requests to faculty. Pragmatics and Language Learning 7. 55–70.Search in Google Scholar
Hendriks, Berna. 2010. An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of non-native request modification in e-mails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(2). 221–255.10.1515/iprg.2010.011Search in Google Scholar
Ho, Victor Chung Kwong. 2011. A discourse-based study of three communities of practice: How members maintain a harmonious relationship while threatening each other’s face via email. Discourse Studies 13(3). 299–326.10.1177/1461445611400673Search in Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet & Maria Stubbe. 2015. Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315750231Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 96–119. New Jersey: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Hwa-Froelich, Deborah A. & Debra C. Vigil. 2004. Three aspects of cultural influence on communication: A literature review. Communication Disorders Quarterly 25(3). 107–118.10.1177/15257401040250030201Search in Google Scholar
Hwang, Juck-Ryoon. 1990. Deference versus politeness in Korean speech. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 82. 41–55.10.1515/ijsl.1990.82.41Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Yeonkwon. 2002. The use of (im)politeness strategies in Korean business correspondence. University of Edinburgh dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Yeonkwon. 2005. Power and politeness in Korean business correspondence. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), Asian business discourse, 291–312. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Yeonkwon. 2009. Korea. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini (ed.), The handbook of business discourse, 357–371. UK: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Kang, M. Agnes. 2003. Negotiating conflict within the constraints of social hierarchies in Korean American discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3). 299–320.10.1111/1467-9481.00226Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1). 1–26.10.1515/iprg.2004.005Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2011. Intercultural pragmatics. In Dawn Archer & Peter Grundy (eds.), The pragmatics reader, 371–384. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kong, Kenneth Chak Chung. 2006. Accounts as a politeness strategy in the internal directive documents of a business firm in Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 16(1). 77–101.10.1075/japc.16.1.05konSearch in Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony. 2014. Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(2). 259–277.10.1515/ip-2014-0011Search in Google Scholar
Lim, Tae-Seop & Soo-Hyang Choi. 1996. Interpersonal relationships in Korea. In William. B. Gudykunst, Stella. Ting-Toomey & Tsukasa Nishida (eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures, 122–136. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Louhiala-Salminen, Leena, Mirjaliisa Charles & Anne Kankaanranta. 2005. English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes 24(4). 41–421.10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.003Search in Google Scholar
Ly, Annelise. 2016. Internal e-mail communication in the workplace: Is there an “East-West divide”? Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1). 37–70.10.1515/ip-2016-0002Search in Google Scholar
Maier, Paula. 1992. Politeness strategies in business letters by native and nonnative English speakers. English for Specific Purposes 11. 189–205.10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80009-2Search in Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, Rosina. 2009. Politeness studies. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini (ed.), The handbook of business discourse, 166–179. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748631834-020Search in Google Scholar
Marti, Leyla. 2006. Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 1836–1869.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.009Search in Google Scholar
Matsumto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 403–426.10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3Search in Google Scholar
Nickerson, Catherine. 2005. English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes 24. 367–380.10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research 5. 189–216.10.1515/JPLR.2009.011Search in Google Scholar
Pan, Yuling. 1995. Power behind linguistic behavior: Analysis of politeness phenomena in Chinese official settings. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14(4). 462–481.10.1177/0261927X950144007Search in Google Scholar
Park, Mi Young, W. Tracy Dillon & Kenneth L. Mitchell. 1998. Korean business letters: Strategies for effective complaints in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Business Communication 35(3), 328–345.10.1177/002194369803500302Search in Google Scholar
Pilegaard, Morten. 1997. Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 223–244.10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00084-7Search in Google Scholar
Pufahl Bax, Ingrid. 1986. How to assign work in an office: A comparison of spoken and written directives in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10. 673–692.10.1016/0378-2166(86)90146-3Search in Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, Pamela. 2007. Using English for international business: A European case study. English for Specific Purposes 26. 103–210.10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron, Suzanne Wong Scollon & Rodney Jones. 2012. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach, 3rd edn. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0555Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean language. London: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2005. The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203390825Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Jianyu Xing. 2003. Managing rapport in intercultural business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese-British welcome meetings. Journal of Intercultural Studies 24(1). 33–46.10.1080/07256860305788Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, Jane. 1998. Contexting Koreans: Does the high/low model work? Business Communication Quarterly 61(4). 9–22.10.1177/108056999806100403Search in Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1999. Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Torelli, Carlos J. & Sharon Shavitt. 2010. Culture and concepts of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(4). 703–723.10.1037/a0019973Search in Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110885286Search in Google Scholar
Vine, Bernadette. 2004. Getting things done at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.124Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 145–178.10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2Search in Google Scholar
Yates, Lynda. 2010. Speech act performance in workplace settings. In Alicia Mártinez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, 109–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.26.07yatSearch in Google Scholar
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2004. Explicitness for requests is a politer strategy than implicitness in Korea. Discourse and Cognition 11(1). 173–194.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2011. Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3). 385–409.10.1515/iprg.2011.018Search in Google Scholar
Appendix A. Hypothetical request situations in the workplace
Situation 1
Asking your boss for a transfer to a different team
You and your team leader “Andrew Hunt” have been working on the same team for over five years. You and your team leader have a good relationship. You have been working on the same team for quite some time, and you think it is about time you move to another team to work on something new. If you tell your boss that you want to work on another team, there might be a high possibility that you could be transferred to a new team. You are interested in the marketing team. However, you are agonizing whether to say this face to face. Instead, you decide to send him an e-mail to ask him to transfer you to the marketing team.
Situation 2
Asking the HR manager for a second chance for an interview
You are a junior manager. The company is currently looking for candidates to work in the new branch office in Sydney. You are very interested in the position and have immediately applied for an interview. Unfortunately, you were stuck in a meeting with an important client, which resulted in not being able to show up for the interview on time. By the time you arrived at the HR department, it was already late and there was no one to whom you could explain the situation. When you called the office the next morning, the secretary in the HR department told you that there was nothing that she could do. You are still eager for this position, so you decide to send the HR manager “Brian Turner”, whom you have never met before, an e-mail asking him for a second chance to do the interview.
Situation 3
Asking a subordinate to present instead
You are a senior manager working on a marketing team. You have to present next year’s marketing plan, which will be held three days from now, in front of the executives of the company. However, you realize that you have a very important meeting with the company’s VIP client, which you must attend, on the same day of the presentation. You know that “Eric Stevens” who is a junior manager working on the same team is a competent worker and a great presenter. You have been working with him for the past three years and enjoy talking with him during your coffee breaks. You and Eric have been working on the marketing plan together. You are sure that he will have no problem with the presentation. He is not in his office at the moment. You want to ask him if he could cover your part of the presentation in an e-mail.
Situation 4
Asking subordinates to work overtime during the weekend
A couple of days ago, you were promoted to director of the sales department. Today is Friday and everyone’s excited that they can rest over the weekend. However, the CEO “Mark Andrews” calls you into his office. He asks your department to make presentation slides that show the company’s achievements for the past five years. He will need the slides for his business trip to England. The final version has to be done by next Tuesday. You know that it takes time to gather data and organize them in presentation slides. When you go back to your office, you notice that everyone went to their individual meetings with people from other departments. You have your own meeting in a few minutes, so you decide to send an e-mail to inform your subordinates that the task the CEO assigned the department has to be done during the weekend.
Appendix B. Overall number of requests realized in each situation
| Situation 1 | Situation 2 | Situation 3 | Situation 4 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AE | 28 (25 %) | 32 (30.8 %) | 25 (27.2 %) | 33 (29.2 %) | 118 (28 %) |
| KE1 | 38 (33.9 %) | 36 (34.6 %) | 33 (35.9 %) | 45 (39.8 %) | 152 (36 %) |
| KE2 | 46 (41.1 %) | 36 (34.62 %) | 34 (37 %) | 35 (31 %) | 151 (35.9 %) |
| Total | 112 (100 %) | 104 (100 %) | 92 (100 %) | 113 (100 %) | 421 (100 %) |
Note: Raw number (percentage).
Appendix C. Use of address terms in each situation
| Situation 1 | Situation 2 | Situation 3 | Situation 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First name | AE | 18 (78.3 %) | AE | 5 (21.7 %) | AE | 23 (100 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 3 (12 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 11 (44 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 8 (32 %) | KE2 | 1 (4.2 %) | KE2 | 21 (84 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| Mr. + Last name | AE | 4 (17.4 %) | AE | 12 (52.2 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 9 (36 %) | KE1 | 6 (25 %) | KE1 | 2 (8 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 9 (36 %) | KE2 | 11 (45.8 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| Mr. + Full name | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 6 (26.1 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 1 (4.2 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 4 (16 %) | KE2 | 6 (25 %) | KE2 | 1 (4 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| Mr. + First name | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 1 (4.2 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| No address term | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 1 (0 %) | KE1 | 4 (16.7 %) | KE1 | 2 (8 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 2 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| Last name | AE | 3 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 2 (8 %) | KE1 | 1 (4.2 %) | KE1 | 1 (4 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 1 (4 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| Full name | AE | 1 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 9 (36 %) | KE1 | 11 (45.8 %) | KE1 | 9 (36 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 3 (12 %) | KE2 | 6 (25 %) | KE2 | 2 (8 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
| Others | AE | 1 (4.3 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | N/A |
| KE1 | 2 (8 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | N/A | |
| KE2 | 1 (4 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | N/A | |
Note: Raw number (percentage).
Appendix D. Use of supportive moves in each situation
| Situation 1 | Situation 2 | Situation 3 | Situation 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hint preparatory | AE | 21 (91.3 %) | AE | 7 (30.4 %) | AE | 7 (30.4 %) | AE | 17 (73.9 %) |
| KE1 | 16 (66.7 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 2 (8 %) | KE1 | 6 (24 %) | |
| KE2 | 15 (60 %) | KE2 | 3 (12.5 %) | KE2 | 5 (20 %) | KE2 | 13 (54.2 %) | |
| Disarmer | AE | 11 (47.8 %) | AE | 9 (39.1 %) | AE | 8 (34.8 %) | AE | 16 (69.6 %) |
| KE1 | 1 (4.2 %) | KE1 | 2 (8.3 %) | KE1 | 2 (8 %) | KE1 | 11 (44 %) | |
| KE2 | 4 (16 %) | KE2 | 6 (25 %) | KE2 | 7 (28 %) | KE2 | 17 (70.8 %) | |
| Sweetener | AE | 19 (82.6 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 17 (73.9 %) | AE | 5 (21.7 %) |
| KE1 | 6 (25 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 13 (52 %) | KE1 | 1 (4 %) | |
| KE2 | 14 (56 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 22 (88 %) | KE2 | 4 (16.7 %) | |
| Promise/Commitment | AE | 1 (4.3 %) | AE | 13 (56.5 %) | AE | 1 (4.3 %) | AE | 7 (30.4 %) |
| KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 3 (12.5 %) | KE1 | 1 (4 %) | KE1 | 6 (24 %) | |
| KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 5 (20.8 %) | KE2 | 2 (8 %) | KE2 | 8 (33.3 %) | |
| Support | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 0 (0 %) | AE | 15 (65.2 %) | AE | 9 (39.1 %) |
| KE1 | 0 (0 %) | KE1 | 1 (4.2 %) | KE1 | 3 (12 %) | KE1 | 0 (0 %) | |
| KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 0 (0 %) | KE2 | 8 (32 %) | KE2 | 1 (4.2 %) | |
| Grounders | AE | 23 (100 %) | AE | 23 (100 %) | AE | 23 (100 %) | AE | 23 (100 %) |
| KE1 | 23 (95.8 %) | KE1 | 23 (95.8 %) | KE1 | 25 (100 %) | KE1 | 25 (100 %) | |
| KE2 | 22 (88 %) | KE2 | 24 (100 %) | KE2 | 25 (100 %) | KE2 | 24 (100 %) | |
Note: Raw number (percentage).
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- “ktîr Tajjibe ce plat! fî garlic?”: Compliments and assessments in French and Lebanese dinner talk
- Politeness and the Greek diaspora: Emic perceptions, situated experience, and a role for communicative context in shaping behaviors and beliefs
- Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees
- Communicative constructions of space in epistemic asymmetry: The case of German-Chinese university placement interviews
- Forum
- On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language
- Book Reviews
- Leech Geoffrey: The pragmatics of politeness
- Capone, Alessandro: The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-philosophical considerations
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- “ktîr Tajjibe ce plat! fî garlic?”: Compliments and assessments in French and Lebanese dinner talk
- Politeness and the Greek diaspora: Emic perceptions, situated experience, and a role for communicative context in shaping behaviors and beliefs
- Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees
- Communicative constructions of space in epistemic asymmetry: The case of German-Chinese university placement interviews
- Forum
- On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language
- Book Reviews
- Leech Geoffrey: The pragmatics of politeness
- Capone, Alessandro: The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-philosophical considerations
