Impoliteness and Emotional Appeals in Academic Email Negotiations of Saudis and Australians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study contributes to the growing body of literature on cross-cultural variations in persuasive appeals by examining email communication for academic proposal purposes. In contrast to previous studies that focused on letters or newspaper articles, this study offers a more nuanced analysis by exploring the use of impoliteness frameworks and persuasive appeals within a genre analysis. Specifically, the study compares email data written by twenty Australians and a hundred Saudis and examines gender and cultural differences in the use of emotional/affective appeals and (im)polite moves. The findings reveal that Saudis, particularly males, use more pressuring tactics, such as imposition tactics, under the affective appeal, while Australians employ fewer emotional/affective appeals in comparison to Saudis. Moreover, the study challenges traditional gender differences in linguistic research, with Saudi males using more affective language (than females) in communication with power imbalances due to the appreciation of a hierarchical system in high context cultures. These findings have implications for intercultural communication and the crafting of persuasive messages in various contexts, including academic proposal writing.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".