Schematic Structure and Stance in Students’ Writing in Business Communication: A Comparative Study of Native English Speaking and Iranian Students

Arezou Bakhtiari

doi:10.24071/joll.v21i2.3039

Schematic Structure and Stance in Students’ Writing in Business Communication: A Comparative Study of Native English Speaking and Iranian Students

Arezou Bakhtiari

Abstract

This study reports on two knowledge elements of stance and schematic structure in order to help novice students increase the efficacy of their writing in business communication. With this regard, Santos’ (2002) Business Letters of Negotiation Model and Hyland’s (2005b) Stance Model of Interaction were drawn upon. Sixty business emails written by native English speaking (NS) and Iranian students of Business Management Departments in universities were analyzed. Two raters explored the corpus for their moves/steps frequencies and a concordance software was used in order to explore stance markers frequencies. To investigate whether Iranian and NS writers are statistically different from each other, the findings of frequencies were submitted to one-variable Chi-square test. The results showed that NS and Iranian writers are not different from each other in their content staging while they are providing information/answers or negotiating. Running counter to moves 2 and 2&3, move 3 turned out to have different results; there was a significant difference between NS and Iranian writers in their request of information/action/favors. Results presented no significant difference between NS and Iranian writers in their employment of hedges and attitude markers of stance with regard to one-variable Chi-square test results. For boosters, Chi-square test detected a significant difference between the groups only in move 2. There was a significant difference, however, between NS and Iranian writers in their use of self-mention markers in moves 3 and 2&3. The results of this paper have both theoretical and pedagogical significance.

Keywords

Genre; Social genre; Business genre; Stance; Move

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.

Bhatia, V. K. (2001). Analysing genre: Some conceptual issues. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 79-92). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.

Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124.

Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. London: Continuum.

Carrió-Pastor, M. L., & Calderón, R. M. (2015). A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse features in business e-mails written by non-native speakers of English. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 214-221.

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385-418.

Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123.

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fetzer, A., & Johansson, M. (2010). Cognitive verbs in context: A contrastive analysis of English and French argumentative discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 240-266.

Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal, 47, 305-16.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.

Grabe, W. (1984). Towards defining expository prose within a theory of text construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70-81.

Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201-224.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.

Huang, Y., & Rose, K. (2018). You, our shareholders: metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text & Talk, 38(2), 167-190.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.), (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Ilie, C., Nickerson, C., & Planken, B. (2019). Teaching Business Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, A. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 4-18.

Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41, 237-252.

Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). “English? – Oh, it’s just work!”: A study of BELF users’ perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204-209.

Kwan, B. S. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.

Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Millot, P. (2017). Inclusivity and exclusivity in English as a Business Lingua Franca: The expression of a professional voice in email communication. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 59-71.

Nathan, P. (2013). Academic writing in the Business School: The genre of the business case report. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 12, 57-68.

Nathan, P. (2016). Analysing options in pedagogical business case reports: Genre, process and language. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 1-15.

Palmer, F. (1990). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.

Paltridge, B. (2013). Genre and English for specific purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 347-366). West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Pullin, P. (2013). Achieving “comity”: The role of linguistic stance in business English as a lingua franca (BELF) meetings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 1-23.

Rahimpour, S., & Faghih, E. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1(16), 92-107.

Samraj, B. (2014). Move structure. In K. P. Schneider, & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 385-405). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Santos, V. B. M. P. dos (2002). Genre analysis of business letters of negotiations. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 167-19.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 79-101.

Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20(4), 313-329.

Vergaro, C. (2004). Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2), 181-207.

Ward, G., Birner, B. J., & Kaplan, J. P. (2003). A pragmatic analysis of the epistemic would construction in English. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in Contemporary English (pp. 71-79). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Warren, M. (2016). Signalling intertextuality in business emails. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 26-37.

Zhang, Z. (2013). Business English students learning to write for international business: What do international business practitioners have to say about their texts? English for Specific Purposes, 32, 144-156.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.v21i2.3039