Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical Data Analysis: The Email Corpus

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Communicating in Digital Age Corporations

  • 402 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses the issue of empirical data in the exploration of primary business communication and reports on the findings of the critical, socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical and content/quantitative analyses (including keywords, most-frequent terms and clusters) of an email corpus compiled mostly from the emails originating in the Sales divisions of three global IT corporations. In particular, managerial discourse and internal power relations are critically analysed, along with the results of the coding process of the entire corpus. Attention is devoted to directives in managerial discourse and to urgency, bad news and other representative codes that point to key drivers in the internal and external communication of Sales. Top keywords from the corpus are discussed and compared with the selected reference corpora.

Sell, Sell, Sell……!!!

That’s it! Start using the app on your phone and get selling!

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2012). Making sense of management: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amernic, J., & Craig, R. (2006). CEO speak. The language of corporate leadership. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biebricher, T. (2005). Selbstkritik der Moderne: Foucault und Habermas im Vergleich (Frankfurter Beiträge zur Soziologie und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 7). Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, D., & Locher, M. (2008). Impoliteness in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, J. (2013). BELF (business English as a lingua franca) and intercultural issues: Rapport management in consulting and training encounters in international and local settings. In M.P. Escoubas-Benveniste & S. Di Vito (Eds.). Quale plurilingualismo per quale ambito lavorativomultilingue? (pp. 107-132). Rome: Università di Roma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadfoot, K., Deetz, S., & Anderson, D. (2004). Multi-levelled, multi-method approaches in organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 193–211). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, C. (1995). Work, self, and society: After industrialism. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiapello, E., & Fairclough, N. (2002). Understanding the new management ideology: A transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. Discourse & Society, 13(2), 185–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of Two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czerniawska, F. (1998). Corporate speak: The use of language in business. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. New York: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S., & McClellan, J. G. (2009). Critical studies. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 119–131). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Sawad, A., Arnold, J., & Cohen, L. (2004). ‘Doublethink’: The prevalence and function of contradiction in accounts of organizational life. Human Relations, 57(9), 1179–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5(01), 25–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London/New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Oxford: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P., Hull, G. A., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984, 1987). The theory of communicative action. Vols. 1 and 2. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbe, D. (2013). English in business meetings. Berlin: epubli Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handford, M. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, M. S., & Wilson, G. L. (1998). Communicating in business and professional settings (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say? Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C., & LukeÅ¡, D. (2007). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis. In C. Hart & D. LukeÅ¡ (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory (pp. IX–XIII). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2007). Emic conceptualisations of (im) politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 657–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havertake, H. (1984). Speech acts, speakers, and hearers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemp, P. (2009). Death by information overload. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, L. A. (2003). Becoming a manager: How new managers master the challenges of leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iedema, R. (2003). Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iedema, R., Degeling, P., Braithwaite, J., & White, L. (2004). ‘It’s an interesting conversation I’m hearing’: The doctor as manager. Organization Studies, 25(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, H., & Stockwell, P. (1996). An introduction to the nature and functions of language. London: A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koester, A. (2004). Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1405–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koester, A. (2006). Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koester, A. (2010). Workplace discourse. London: A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, V. (2005). Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society, 16(2), 199–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koller, V. (2012). How to analyse collective identity in discourse: Textual and contextual parameters. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 5(2), 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, K. C. (1998). Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(1), 103–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, K. C. (2006). Accounts as a politeness strategy in the internal directive documents of a business firm in Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics (No. 30). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In W. Bublitz & N. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 77–106). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshan-Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 330–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mautner, G. (2005). Time to get wired: Using web-based corpora in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 16(6), 809–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communications Monographs, 54(2), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumby, D. K. (2007). Organizational communication. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of sociology (pp. 3290–3299). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumby, D. K. (2013). Organizational communication: A critical approach. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. (2000). A corpus-based study of business English and business English teaching materials. PhD thesis, University of Manchaster, Manchaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and language cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational discourse: Domains, debates, and directions. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 435–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poncini, G. (2002). Investigating discourse at business meetings with multicultural participation. IRAL, 40(4), 345–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poncini, G. (2004). Communicating local elements to diverse audiences: Promotional materials for wineries. In M. Gotti & C. Candlin (Eds.), Intercultural aspects of specialized discourse (pp. 173–196). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pufahl Bax, I. (1986). How to assign work in an office: A comparison of spoken and written directives in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(6), 673–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putman, L. L. (2004). Discourse analysis: Mucking around with negotiation data. International Negotiation, 10(1), 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinsch, N. L., Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. H. (2008). Multicommunicating: A practice whose time has come? Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. S. (2014). Management communication: Getting work done through people. In V. Bhatia & S. Bremner (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication (pp. 165–192). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international business: A European case study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G., & Buckley, C. (1988). Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 24(5), 513–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarangi, S. K., & Slembrouck, S. (1992). Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(2), 117–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 537–547). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2011). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, C. (2015). QDA miner (with WordStat and Simstat). Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(4), 386–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P., & Mayr, A. (2010). Language and power. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeltzer, L. R., Glab, J., & Golen, S. (1983). Managerial communication: The merging of business communication, organizational communication, and management. Journal of Business Communication, 20(4), 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1998). From text to context: An open systems approach to research in written business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, H. (2011). Politeness in a Japanese intra-organisational meeting: Honorifics and socio-dialectal code switching. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 21(1), 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 131–149). Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2003). The discourse-knowledge interface. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis. Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 85–109). Houndsmills: Palgrave-MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 62–85). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vine, B. (2004). Modal verbs in New Zealand English directives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(3), 205–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, T. J. (1994). In search of management: Culture, chaos and control in managerial work. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, T. J. (2001). In search of management: Culture, chaos and control in managerial work. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. C., Luk, R. W. P., Wong, K. F., & Kwok, K. L. (2008). Interpreting tf-idf term weights as making relevance decisions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 26(3), Article No. 13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany

    Anna Danielewicz-Betz

Authors
  1. Anna Danielewicz-Betz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Danielewicz-Betz, A. (2016). Empirical Data Analysis: The Email Corpus. In: Communicating in Digital Age Corporations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55813-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55813-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-55812-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55813-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation