This document summarizes a study on the development of an L2 learner's email literacy from writing to peers to writing to authority figures. The study examined one participant's 266 emails over 2.5 years. It found that the participant's language use, message length, structure, and request strategies differed between emails to peers versus professors. Specifically, emails to professors were more formal, shorter, and used more indirect and mitigating language. The participant's email practice evolved over time and was influenced by both their L1 writing style and growing experience with institutional communication norms.

1. The Development of E-Mail Literacy: From Writing to Peers to Writing to Authority FiguresPresenter: Ji-Jhen LiInstructor:Dr. Pi-Ying Hsu May 4, 2011

2. 2CitationChen, C-F. E. (2006). The development of E- mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning and Technology, 10 (2), 35-55.

3. 3Content1Introduction2MethodologyFindings & Conclusions34Reflection

4. E-mail has been widely used for both personal communication and institution. However, there are notparalinguistic cues in using e-mail for status-unequal communication.4Introduction

5. Definition of Term5A shared mentalVocalinflectionGesturesFacialexpressionParalinguistic cues

6. 6Literature ReviewChinese students structure their request e-mails in an indirect sequence. They transfer the request strategies in Chinese into the English request e-mails written to US professors.(Kirkpatrick,1991; Nash,1983; Zhang,1955)

7. 7Purpose of the Study to uncover the complexity of an L2 learner’s developing e-mail practice to explore sociocognitive and sociopsychological factors affecting participant’s language use via e-mail

8. 8Methodology3 in-depth interviewsOneparticipantLing266 e-mailsOnline interview via mailOnline chat

9. 9Research Questions1Did Ling’s language use differ between the e-mails sent to peers and the e-mails sent to professors?2Did her use of these discourse forms and strategies change over time in her e-mail practice?

10. Research Questions103 From Ling’s perspective, what made her change or remain unchanged in her language use in e-mail communication? 4How can change or resistance to change in her e-mail practice be explained from sociocultural perspectives?

11. Data Analysis11Ling’s e-mail discourse featuresDiscourse styleMessage lengthMessage structure

12. Discourse Style12E-mails duringdoctoral studyFamiliarityE-mails during master studyPower relationFormalShowing respectE-mails to peersGood impressionEasy and fluentInformalA sense of belongSolidarity

13. Message Length13E-mailsduringdoctoral studyE-mail experienceE-mails during master studyShorterTime SavingFace-to-face interactionImproved oral EnglishE-mails to peersStating purposesLong entriesA sense of personal touch

14. Message Structure14E-mails to peersE-mails during master studyE-mails during doctoral studyInductiveInductiveInductiveIndirect personNative culture practice

15. Data Analysis15Request strategiesRequest actsSupportive movesQueryPreparatoryWant StatementsMitigatingAggravating

16. Request Acts16Query PreparatoryWant StatementsMostlySometimesmayNeverE-mails during masterE-mails duringdoctoral study E-mails to peers

17. Supportive MovesE-mails to peersSmalltalkapologizingE-mails during Master studyMitigatingsupportivemovesSelf-humblingReluctance to impingeE-mails during doctoralstudy availability1717

18. Supportive Moves18E-mails to peersPersonal detailreasonsStudent-orientedreasonsE-mails during Master studyAggravating supportivemovesUrgencyInstitutionalreasonsE-mails during doctoralstudy Ability

19. Conclusions19L2 learner’s frequent use of e-mail to peersEffectively for institutional status-unequal communication

20. 20ConclusionsCommon Chinese cultureL1 writing styleLing’s e-mail writing Subculture language Self-cognition

21. Reflection2198 e-mailsto US professors168 e-mailsto peers

22. Reflection223 in-depth interviewsOver 2 .5 years

23. Reflection23

24. 24Thanks for your listening.