MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189430850 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1205

Request Strategies in Professional E-mail Correspondence: Insights from the United States Workplace

2015· article· en· W2189430850 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitenessVariety (cybernetics)Rhetorical questionPsychologyVariation (astronomy)Professional communicationProfessional associationSocial psychologySociologyLinguisticsPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite growing interest in the rhetorical features of e-mail correspondence, this is the first study to examine the request strategies in e-mails written by native English-speaking professionals from a variety of industries in the United States. This study uses Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper’s (1989) speech act framework to analyze the request strategies from 450 request head acts. Though often mitigated with lexico-syntactic devices, direct requests occurred at about two and one half times the rate of indirect requests, and there was some variation in request strat- egy according to request category, gender, status, and social distance. Although the imperative was used most frequently across all gender, status, and social dis- tance groups, senders did not choose it—the most direct strategy—as often with recipients to whom they wrote direct requests most frequently. This shows that senders may prefer particular direct or indirect strategies over others with certain recipients. Moreover, senders often used more mitigators with recipients to whom they more frequently wrote direct requests, thus suggesting that the politeness of a request cannot be judged solely by the request strategy chosen. As the first cor- pus-based study that examines authentic request e-mails in the North American workplace, this study offers important pedagogical implications for professional e-mail composition. Malgré un intérêt croissant pour les fonctions rhétoriques de la correspondance par courrier électronique, cette étude est la première à porter sur les stratégies visant les demandes dans les courriels rédigés par des professionnels d’anglais langue maternelle provenant de diverses industries aux États-Unis. Cette étude s’appuie sur le cadre portant sur les actes de langage de Blum-Kulka, House et Kasper (1989) pour analyser les stratégies qui sous-tendent 450 demandes. Bien que souvent mitigées par des mécanismes lexico-syntaxiques, les demandes di- rectes se sont produites 2 fois et demie plus souvent que les demandes indirectes. Les stratégies variaient en fonction de la catégorie de demande, le genre, le statut et la distance sociale. Alors que l’impératif était employé le plus souvent par l’ensemble des groupes (genre, statut, distance), les expéditeurs ne se sont pas servis de cette stratégie - la plus directe - aussi souvent avec les destinataires à qui ils écrivaient des demandes directes le plus souvent. Ce résultat indique que les expéditeurs pourraient préférer certaines stratégies directes ou indirectes avec certains destinataires. De plus, les expéditeurs employaient souvent plus d’éléments atténuateurs avec les destinataires à qui ils envoyaient plus souvent des demandes directes, indiquant que le niveau de politesse d’une demande ne s’évalue pas uniquement selon le choix de stratégie de demande. En tant que première étude reposant sur un corpus qui porte sur des messages électroniques authentiques visant des demandes dans les milieux de travail en Amérique du Nord, ce travail offre des implications pédagogiques importantes pour la rédaction de messages électroniques professionnels.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it