The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English
Open accessAbstract
This study combines interlanguage pragmatics and speech act research with computermediated communication and examines how native and non-native speakers of English formulate low-and high-imposition requests to faculty.While some research claims that email, due to absence of non-verbal cues, encourages informal language, other research has claimed the opposite.However, email technology also allows writers to plan and revise messages before sending them, thus affording the opportunity to edit not only for grammar and mechanics, but also for pragmatic clarity and politeness.The study examines email requests sent by native and non-native English speaking graduate students to faculty at a major American university over a period of several semesters and applies Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper's (1989) speech act analysis framework -quantitatively to distinguish levels of directness, i.e. pragmatic clarity; and qualitatively to compare syntactic and lexical politeness devices, the request perspectives, and the specific linguistic request realization patterns preferred by native and non-native speakers.Results show that far more requests are realized through direct strategies as well as hints than conventionally indirect strategies typically found in comparative speech act studies.Politeness conventions in email, a text-only medium with little guidance in the academic institutional hierarchy, appear to be a work in progress, and native speakers demonstrate greater resources in creating e-polite messages to their professors than nonnative speakers.A possible avenue for pedagogical intervention with regard to instruction in and acquisition of politeness routines in hierarchically upward email communication is presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 · Cited by 891 · cited 3×
“…been associated with the most indirect request strategies, hints (as in it’s cold in here, which represent the second most polite form in Brown & Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory), because "they testify to a lack of [a speaker’s] concern for pragmatic clarity" (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p. 144).”
InfluentialPragmatics in language teaching
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001) · Pragmatics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524797.003 · Cited by 730
Cited by
Constructing a Scale to Assess L2 Written Speech Act Performance: WDCT and E-mail Tasks
Chen, Y.-S., & Liu, J. (2016) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434303.2016.1213844 · Cited by 20
Students' Perceptions of Quality Across Four Course Development Models
Brown, V. S., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2018) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1213 · Cited by 20
“Email is often considered impersonal by students (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007), whereas a synchronous discussion can feel friendlier and can allows for quick communication and feedback.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Biesenbach-Lucas, S.
- Venue
- Language Learning & Technology
- Published
- 2007-06-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 59-81
- ISSN
- 1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105821021
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.64152/10125/44104
- The paper
- Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44104
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.