Abstract
This chapter presents a corpus-based study of commitments in Business English emails using a speech act-annotated corpus of emails. Starting from a detailed analysis of the lexicon and phraseology of this speech act, a revised description of commitments is proposed. This considers three distinct sub-categories with different functions, namely action, informational, and interactional. By bringing together authentic corpus data and computational analysis, this research demonstrates how corpus linguistics can contribute to our understanding of the pragmatics of workplace communication.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Although the research deals with written language, for convenience and uniformity with spoken language research, I refer to speaker and hearer instead of writer and reader, respectively.
- 2.
The Enron email corpus consists of the unedited, unmodified collection of Enron employees’ mailboxes; this data was made publicly available following legal proceedings against the corporation. It is the largest publicly available collection of real-world BE email data.
- 3.
I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who drew my attention to the pragmatically annotated spoken language corpus by Kallen and Kirk (2012); unfortunately I have not yet been able to review it so I cannot assess its suitability for the present research.
- 4.
There is also limited overlap between the research presented here and the well-established field of dialogue act classification (for example Core and Allen 1997; Georgila et al. 2009; Stolcke et al. 2000). The focus there is on synchronous communication, with few complete sentences, and categories which do not reflect well the types of utterances found in written language.
- 5.
For a related discussion, cf. Koester (2004a:62), where the author notes how the use of modals such as will and be going to indicate confidence and assertiveness on the part of the speaker, in contrast to the more tentative modals could or might.
References
Adolphs, Svenja. 2001. Linking lexico-grammar and speech acts: A corpus-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nottingham.
Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English. London: Longman.
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arundale, Robert. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1): 119–153.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca (ed.). 2009. The handbook of business discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Catherine Nickerson, and Brigitte Planken. 2007. Business discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Stephen, and James Curran. 2007. Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and log-linear models. Computational Linguistics 33(4): 493–552.
Core, Mark, and James Allen. 1997. Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation scheme. In Proceedings of the Working notes of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines, Cambridge, MA.
Curran, James and Stephen Clark. 2003. Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. In Proceedings of the CoNLL Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
Curran, James, Stephen Clark, and Johan Bos. 2007. Linguistically motivated large-scale NLP with C&C and Boxer. In Proceedings of the ACL 2007 Demonstration Session.
De Felice, Rachele. 2012. Applied Pragmatics: Corpus-based methods and computational tools. Paper presented at “Discourse and Technology: Tools, Methods and Applications”, Birmingham, 17–18 May.
De Felice, Rachele, and Paul Deane. 2012. Identifying speech acts in emails: Toward automated scoring of the TOEIC ® email task. Princeton: ETS.
De Felice, Rachele, Jeannique Darby, Anthony Fisher, and David Peplow. 2013. A classification scheme for annotating speech acts in a business email corpus. ICAME Journal 37.
Georgila, Kalliroi, Oliver Lemon, James Henderson, and Johanna Moore. 2009. Automatic annotation of context and speech acts for dialogue corpora. Natural Language Engineering 15(3): 315–353.
Gimenez, Julio. 2006. Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international business communication. English for Specific Purposes 25(2): 154–172.
Handford, Michael. 2007. The genre of the business meeting: a corpus-based study. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nottingham.
Handford, Michael. 2010. The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, Janet, and Maria Stubbe. 2003. Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Pearson.
Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra, and Bernadette Vine. 2011. Leadership, discourse and ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jucker, Andreas, Daniel Schreier, and Marianne Hundt (eds.). 2009. Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kallen, Jeffrey, and John Kirk. 2012. SPICE-Ireland: A user’s guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.
Koester, Almut. 2002. The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System 30: 167–184.
Koester, Almut. 2004a. The language of work. London: Routledge.
Koester, Almut. 2004b. Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1405–1428.
Koester, Almut. 2006. Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.
Koester, Almut. 2010. Workplace discourse. London: Continuum.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, Carson, and Sheryl Leicher. 2006. Pragmatic annotation of an academic spoken corpus for pedagogical purposes. In Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Corpus research from phrase to discourse, ed. Eileen Fitzpatrick, 107–116. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Newton, Jonathan, and Ewa Kusmierczyk. 2011. Teaching second languages for the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 74–92.
O’Keeffe, Anne, Brian Clancy, and Svenja Adolphs. 2011. Introducing pragmatics in use. London: Routledge.
Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.). 2008. Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rühlemann, Cristoph. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. Anne O’Keeffe and Michael McCarthy, 288–301. London: Routledge.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1988. Presequences and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1999. Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies 1: 405–435.
Scott, Mike. 2010. WordSmith tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1–23.
Stolcke, Andreas, Klaus Ries, Noah Coccaro, Elizabeth Shriberg, Rebecca Bates, and Dan Jurafsky. 2000. Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics 26(3): 339–371.
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Can I have that in writing, please? Some neglected topics in speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 479–494.
Styler, Will. 2011. The EnronSent corpus. Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder Institute of Cognitive Science.
van Rees, M.A. 1992. The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 31–47.
Acknowledgments
Rachele De Felice would like to gratefully acknowledge the support received by the Leverhulme Trust; this research was undertaken by the Fellowship holder and not on behalf of the Leverhulme Trust. This research was carried out while the author was a research fellow at the Centre for Research in Applied Linguistics, University of Nottingham. Thank you also to Jeannique Darby, Tony Fisher, and David Peplow for their invaluable work in manually annotating the Enron email data and identifying taxonomical issues, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Felice, R. (2013). A Corpus-Based Classification of Commitments in Business English. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6249-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6250-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)