Email Apologies by Native and Nonnative English Speakers: What Do They Do? Why do They Do It?

1. Email Apologies by Native and Nonnative English Speakers: What Do They Do? Why do They Do It? Dongmei Cheng Nothern Arizona University

2. Research Goal • To explore the use of email apologies written by native and nonnative English speaking students to instructors in college settings.

3. Research Questions • How are the various semantic strategies used by native and nonnative English speaking students in their email apologies to instructors? • How are the various stance markers used by native and nonnative English speaking students in their email apologies to instructors? a) Modals & semi-models; b) hedges; c) amplifiers; d) conditionals • What are the thoughts and considerations of the participants in writing the apology emails?

4. Participants • Total N=40 (NES=21; NNES=19) • NESs (Female=13; Male=8) • Freshmen who are taking the first-year composition course • NNESs (Female=3; Male=16) • Advanced learners in the IEP program at NAU • 12 come from mainland China 5 Arabic, 1 Japanese and 1 Korean L1 students. • Mean length of English language instruction: 7.42 years • Mean length of stay in the U.S.: 11.04 months

5. Participants • Participants’ Age: • Previous instruction on email writing: • self-reported by 4 NESs and 3 NNESs—instruction on email format • (e.g. greeting & closing remarks)

6. Materials • A written instruction sheet containing the following three prompts: • You have missed today’s class. Write an email to your instructor regarding this. • You have missed today’s appointment with your instructor. Write an email to him/her regarding this. • You have turned in your paper late. Write an email to your instructor regarding this.

7. Materials • Creation of the prompts: • The three situations—1) Class absence; 2) Missed appointment; and 3) Late paper were the most common ones in the natural emails sent by the same student population as the participants in this study.

8. Analysis • A coding scheme for semantic strategies (See handout): • Expression: sorry, apology, apologies, apologize, etc. • Acknowledgement: It’s totally my fault. • Explanation: My computer broke down. • Repair: I hope we can schedule another meeting. • Promise: I promise this won’t happen again. • Statement: This is Tom from your English class. • Asking: Thank you for your understanding. • Combination: I’m sorry for missing class today. Adapted from the coding scheme by Cohen & Olshtain (1981)

9. Analysis • Linguistic devices (Handout Table 1) • Stance Markers: lexical/phrasal features that show stance • Modals (& semi-modals): can, could, have to • Hedges: Words/phrases that have the effect of toning down the message, e.g. I hope, I know, I was wondering, possible, possibly • Amplifiers: Words/phrases that lend emphasis to the message, e.g. very, so, sincere(ly), really • If-Conditionals: If I missed anything in class today, would you please let me know?

10. Analysis • Coding procedure (Continued) • All emails (63 NES emails & 57 NNES emails) were divided into T-units (a T-unit=an independent clause with all its dependent clauses). • T-units recoding after a week: 99.07% intra-rater reliability • Numbers of T-units (for norming purposes): NES NNES Class Absence 116 64 Missed Appt 107 70 Late Paper 117 66 Total 340 200

11. Analysis • Coding procedures (continued) • Each T-unit was assigned with a code (1-7) corresponding with the semantic strategy types in the coding scheme. For combination strategies, codes such as 16 or 63 were assigned. • A second coder independently coded 50% of the data after a brief training using non-sample emails.

12. Analysis • Coding procedures (continued) • Overall inter-rater reliability : 85.07% (60 emails) • Class Absence: 84.69% (20 emails) • Missed Appointment: 87.10% (20 emails) • Late Paper: 83.51% (20 emails) • Major disagreement: Strategy 3 (Explanation) vs. Strategy 6 (Statement) • I was not able to make it in time because of traffic. • Combining Strategy 3 and 6 into one resulted an inter-rater reliability of 95.31%.

13. Analysis • Normed frequency = (Raw counts/total T-units) * 100 • Normed frequencies were used for all statistical procedures. • Alpha was preset at .05.

14. Quantitative Results • RQ1: the use of semantic strategies • RQ1.1. Does each speaker group use each type of semantic strategy differently across the three scenarios? (within-group difference) Friedman tests (nonparametric alternatives to one-way repeated-measure ANOVAs)) • RQ1.2. Is there a difference in the use of each type of semantic strategy between the NES and the NNES group in each scenario and overall? (between-group difference) Mann-Whitney tests (nonparametric alternative to independent t-tests) Note: Refer to Figure 1 on handout

15. Quantitative Results • NESs’ use of semantic strategies (RQ1.1) • Acknowledgement of inconvenience/self-blame: Missed Appt>Class Abse • “ I am thoroughly disappointed in myself for not being fully organized and forgetting our meeting date.” • “I realized that you have taken time out your day in order to assist me on my work.”

16. Quantitative Results • NESs’ use of semantic strategies (RQ1.1) • Offers of repairs: Class Abse>Late Paper Missed Appt>Late Paper • “I will do my part to see to it that this does not happen again, or that I notify you prior.” • “If there is anyway that we could make it up later on in the week at our convenience, that would be great.”

17. Quantitative Results • NNESs’ use of semantic strategies (RQ1.1): • Statement of name/event: Class Abse>Missed Appt Late Paper>Missed Appt • “This is Mary.” • “I am your student, Mary.”

18. Quantitative Results • NNESs’ use of semantic strategies (RQ1.1) • Combination strategy: • Class Abse>Missed Appt • Missed Appt>Late Paper • “I have missed today’s class because of headache.” • “I missed it (it=the appointment), because today PIE is hectic all day.” • “I am sorry to miss your class today, because I met with some unexpected trouble.”

19. Quantitative Results • Semantic strategy use between NESs and NNESs (RQ1.2) • Expression of apology: • NNESs>NESs (Missed Appt) • NNESs>NESs (Total) • Combination strategy: • NNESs>NESs (Class Abse) • NNESs>NESs (Late Paper) • NNESs>NESs (Total) • Offer of repair: • NESs>NNESs (Class Abse)

20. Quantitative Results • RQ2. the use of stance markers (See Figure 2 on handout) (modals; hedges; amplifiers & conditionals) • RQ2.1. Does each speaker group use the four types of stance markers differently in each of the three scenarios and overall? (within-group difference) (Friedman tests) • RQ2.2. Does each speaker group use each of the four type of stance markers differently across the three scenarios? (within-group difference) (Friedman tests) • RQ2.3. Do the two speaker groups use stance markers differently in response to each of the three scenarios and overall? (between-group difference) (Mann-Whitney tests)

21. Quantitative Results • RQ2.1. the use of four types of stance markers within one speaker group: • the four stance markers appeared in different frequencies in the emails written by both groups. • NNESs most preferred to use modals to show stance, while NESs most preferred to use amplifiers. • Conditionals were the most rarely used ones by both groups.

22. Quantitative Results • RQ2.2. the use of four types of stance markers within the NES group: • The four most frequently used modals by NESs were would, could, can and will. • Amplifiers were used significantly more often than hedges and conditionals in response to all three scenarios, and they were even used more frequently than modals in response to late paper.

23. Quantitative Results and Discussion • Most of the modals used by NESs were embedded in requests or promises of non-occurrence, typically appeared towards the end of the email messages: • “If I missed anything in class today, would you please let me know so that I can make them up?” • “I was wondering if there was any way you could let me know what the homework is for the next class period.” • “I promise I will never miss the following classes.”

24. Quantitative Results & Discussion • The wide range of amplifiers used by NESs: • Class Abse: “It seems that I have unfortunately come down with the swine flue.” • Missed Appt: “I am very sorry” . “I would greatly appreciate if you would allow me to schedule another time emotionally-loaded adjectives and adverbs such as “deeply”, “sincere(ly)”, “completely”, “thoroughly”, “mistakenly” and “swamped”. • Late Paper: “I take full responsibilities for the consequences of it.” “I’m hoping I can still get some sort of credit for this assignment.”

25. Quantitative Results & Discussion • RQ2.2. the use of four types of stance markers within the NNES group: • The most frequently used modals by NNESs were can, will and could. • a very small range of amplifiers with almost none emotionally-loaded adjs/advs. • The three major amplifiers were “very”, “so” and“really”.

26. Quantitative Results • RQ2.3 between-group difference in the use of stance markers • NESs utilized significantly more amplifiers, conditionals and total stance markers than NNESs in their apology emails.

27. Qualitative Results from Retrospective Interviews • Perceptions of language use and educational exposure • Use respectful/polite language • using apology-related politeness markers , especially the word “sorry”was mentioned by more NNESs (15 out of 19) than by the NESs (10 out of 21). • using other politeness markers, especially an expression to show thanks towards the end of the email was mentioned more by the NESs (12 out of 21) than by the NNESs (3 out of 19). The NESs attributed their reasons for using the expression thank you or thank you for your understanding to good manners.

28. Qualitative Results from Retrospective Interviews • Perceptions of language use and educational exposure • Language transfer • NES: transfer from informal communication • “i am very sorry that i missed todays appointment. is there any way we can reschedule? i have been very busy and it completely slipped my mind i am very sorry. i hope you can understand where i am coming from. Thank you.” • NNES: transfer from L1 • “I am your student, **. I am sorry i turned in the paper late. I hope you will not be angry about that.”

29. Qualitative Results from Retrospective Interviews • Perceptions of language use and educational exposure • Use specific language • In explaining their reasons in providing an account for their “wrong-doings” in the emails, all 21 NESs articulated that in order to be polite to the instructors, it was necessary to explain the detailed reasons to avoid any misunderstandings. However, only 10 NNESs mentioned that they think it is necessary to provide clear reasons to their instructors.

30. Qualitative Results from Retrospective Interviews • Perceptions of situation differences • Severity of the situation: A missed appointment with the instructor was considered as the most severe “wrong-doing” among the three. • NNESs’ awareness of the different concept of an appointment in the U.S. compared to their home culture.

31. Thank you! Questions? Email: Dongmei.Cheng@nau.edu

33. Summary of Quantitative Results:Within-group differences • NESs used four types of semantic strategies (acknowledgement, repair, asking & combination) differently across scenarios, whereas NNESs used two types (statement & combination) differently. • Modals were found to result a significant difference in usage across the three scenarios for both groups.

34. Summary of Quantitative Results:Between-group differences • NNESs used more expressions of apologies and combination semantic strategies than NESs. • NESs used more amplifiers, conditionals and total stance markers than NNESs.

35. Summary of Qualitative Results • Perceptions of language use and educational exposure • Use respectful/polite language • Use specific language • Language transfer • Perceptions of situation differences • Difference in severity • Cultural concept of missing an appointment

36. Participants • Both groups were recruited from the freshman composition course at NAU. • NESs: from a session taught by the researcher (female, nonnative, in her 20s) • NNESs: from a session taught by a native-English-speaking American (male, in his 40s). • The two sessions used the same curriculum . Both instructors went through the same teacher training in the composition program.

37. Procedure • Setting: 50-minute computer lab session • Instructor explained the details of the research. • Instructor asked for volunteers to participate. • The participants signed informed consent, completed background surveys and sent three emails in response to the three prompts in the written instruction sheet. • The ESL instructor forwarded his students’ emails to the researcher.

38. Analysis • Coding procedures • Total sample size=120 (emails) • NES: 63 emails; NNES: 57 emails • The emails were compiled into six separate word documents: NES_Class Abse; NES_Missed Appt; NES_Late Paper; NNES_Class Abse; NNES_Missed Appt; NNES_Late Paper • The length of the main message of each email was obtained through the automatic word count tool on Microsoft Word 2007.

39. Results on the Mean Length

40. Results and discussions • RQ1: any difference in the mean email length between the two groups? • Independent t-tests • In all three scenarios, the American students wrote significantly longer emails than the ESL students (p<.05).

41. Results and discussion • RQ3. the use of linguistic devices • The use of politeness markers • RQ3.1. Is there a difference in the use of each type of politeness markers between the American and the ESL groups in their apology emails? (Between-group difference) • RQ3.2. Does each of the speaker groups (American vs. ESL) use each type of politeness markers differently across the three scenarios? (Within-group difference)

42. Analysis • Linguistic Devices • Politeness Markers: words that are related to apologies or other speech acts (i.e. thanking & requests) showing politeness • Apology-related: apologize, sorry, apology, apologies and excuse. • Others: thank(s) and please. • Stance Markers

43. Analysis • Coding procedures (continued) • The emails were coded for two major types of linguistic devices along with their sub-types. • Politeness markers: sorry, apologize, apology, apologies, excuse, thank(s) and please. • “Find” function on Microsoft Word 2007 • Hand-check for left-out words due to spelling mistakes

44. Analysis • Coding procedures (continued) • Stance Markers coding • Modals (&Semi-modals) and conditionals were identified through automatic word search followed by hand-check • I read through each email and identified words and phrases that function to tone down the message (hedges) and to lend emphasis to the message (amplifiers). • I then compiled a comprehensive list (very inclusive) of hedges and amplifiers, divided by scenarios and groups. • An applied linguistic professor helped me to scrutinize the list and made changes. • The revised list was used for word count of the hedges and amplifiers in the emails.

45. Results on the use of politeness markers

46. Results and discussion Figure 4. A comparison of politeness markers across the three scenarios and two groups

47. Results and discussion • RQ3.1. results from Mann-Whitney test • The ESL group used apology-related politeness markers significantly more often than the American group • There was not a significant difference in the use of other politeness markers between the two groups • The most frequently used politeness markers by both speaker groups was sorry, which had a normed frequency of 23.5 for the ESL group and 12.06 for the American group.

48. Results and discussion • RQ3.2. results from Friedman test • a significant difference in the use of apology-related politeness markers by the Americans across the three scenarios. • both groups did not show a significant difference in the use of other politeness markers across the three scenarios

49. Results and discussion • RQ.3.2. Post-hoc results from Wilcoxon test • Apology-related politeness markers used by Americans: • Missed Appt>Class Absence • Missed Appt>Late Paper • Apology-related politeness markers used by ESLs: • Class Absence>Late Paper