|
Chapter I. Theoretical foundations and approaches to the study of politeness 7
|
| bet | 22/24 | | Sana | 20.11.2023 | | Hajmi | 0,66 Mb. | | #102138 |
Bog'liq Ergashaliyeva Yulduz contentdanThe summary of the Chapter III.
The objective of this chapter was to investigate some typical features of language used in emails and trace up some differences and resemblances between the spoken norm of language and language of emails on the one hand, and the written norm of language and language of emails on the other. The findings have revealed that the boundaries between speech and writing against background of text-based CMC are indistinct.
On the level of lexis, lexical density, type-token ratio, frequency of words and vocabulary were analyzed. The analysis of lexical density of the particular emails as well as the relative proportion of nouns and verbs again indicates closer relationship between the spoken norm of language and language of emails. On the other hand, the analysis of the type token ratio as well as the relative proportion of adjectives in the emails shows the different outcome – the CMC texts are more akin to the written norm of language than to the spoken norm. Concerning the word frequency, the findings suggest that the emails are located somewhere between the spoken and written norm of language. However, the occurrence of the personal pronoun “I” in the first position implies closeness of the emails and speech. As far as the vocabulary of emails is concerned, the relatively high occurrence of colloquial expressions, code-mixing, interjections, discourse markers, attention signals, response forms and expletives again imply the proximity of emails to speech. As for the specific vocabulary of emails, the relatively high incidence of acronyms was revealed.
There also tended to be more politeness devices with direct request strategies (in the case of appointment and feedback requests), and comparatively fewer politeness devices with indirect request strategies. Apparently, the email medium did not make politeness features unnecessary; it is the request strategy that may have a greater impact in email as to whether or not and to what extent requests are modified syntactically and/or lexically, in attempts at preserving brevity and clarity.
Overall, our research has been that the exploration of ‘face’ as a negotiated image between interactants appears to be an appropriate point of departure for the analysis of politeness strategies. From there, the understanding of (im)politeness meaning is made with the considerations of relevant factors in the context.
|
| |
