A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LANGUAGE STYLE VARIATIONS IN E-MAIL AND TELEGRAM MESSAGES BY NON-NATIVE INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

• Authors: Rostami Farahnaz , Khodabandeh Farzaneh
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study sought to explore the formality styles of writing among intermediate EFL Iranian learners to scrutinize their competence in the writing skill. A convenience sample of 30 students were chosen through Oxford Quick Placement Test (2001) from among 60 university students. The first group sent their messages (essay tasks) through e-mail and the second group used Telegram. A corpus containing a total of 240 written texts was extracted from both groups. This corpus was then analyzed and compared in terms of formality styles. A detailed comparison of the two sub-corpora revealed a significant difference between texts written and sent by Telegram application and e-mails. The results of data analysis also indicated that informality and formality markers potentially function as distinctive factors, capable of differentiating between the texts sent by Telegram and e-mails. Ultimately, the essays sent by Telegram (containing 5 factors including contractions, questions, modal verbs, opening sentences, vocabulary) were recognized to use more informal styles of writing than emails. Taking the current study’s findings into account, academic writing pedagogy may benefit from a focus on employing appropriate writing strategies and techniques to accelerate Iranian university students’ writing development.

Keywords

EN

essay writing; formality styles; social media; Telegram; writing skill

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 69-89

Contributors

author

Rostami Farahnaz

• Payame Noor University of Tehran

author

Khodabandeh Farzaneh

• Payame Noor University of Tehran

References

• Abbasian, F., & Tahririan, M. (2008). The discoursal and formal analysis of e-mails: A cross disciplinary genre analysis. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 11(2), 1-22.
• AbdAlfattah, S. (2015). The effectiveness of using a WhatsApp messenger as one of mobile learning technique to develop students’ writing skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 6, 32-45.
• Alfaki, I., & Alharthy, K. (2014). Towards a digital world: Using social networks to promote learner’s language. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(10), 105-114.
• Andrén, M., Sanne, J., & Linell, P. (2010). Striking the balance between formality and informality in safety-critical communication: Train traffic control calls. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 220-241.
• Atkinson, J. (1982). Understanding formality: The categorization and production of ‘formal’ interaction. The British Journal of Sociology, 33, 86-117.
• Barron, A. (2006). Understanding spam: A macro-textual analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(6), 880-904.
• Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455-463.
• Brown, P., & Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as a marker of situation. In: R. Klaus, H. Giles (eds.), Social Markers in Speech (pp. 33-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Büschken, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2017). Improving text analysis using sentence conjunctions and punctuation. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2908915.
• Cheung, M. (2010). The globalization and localization of persuasive marketing communication: A cross-linguistic socio-cultural analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2), 354-376.
• Chik, A., & Ho, J. (2017). Learn a language for free: Recreational learning among adults. System, 69, 162-171.
• Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.
• Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Sudhof, M., Jurafsky, D., Leskovec, J., & Potts, C. (2013). A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (pp. 250-259). Sophia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
• Epstein, E. L. (2013). Language and Style. London: Routledge.
• Hassan, A. (2018). The impact of WhatsApp on learners’ achievement: A case study of English language majors at King Khalid University. International Journal of English Language Education, 6(2), 69-81.
• Heylighen, F. & Dewaele, J.-M. (1999). Formality of Language: Definition, Measurement and Behavioral Determinants. Brussels: Interner Bericht, Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
• Ingram, D., & Sasaki, M. (2003). The importance of communication in English in a globalized world and in the field of medicine. Akita: Akita University. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3498&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
• Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
• Khoshsima, H., Toroujeni, S. M. H., & Samani, F. S. (2017). The impact of digital item presentation on the intermediate level language learners’ testing performance and attitudes towards onscreen test in private language learning context. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(3), 196-211.
• Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• McQuiggan, S., McQuiggan, J., Sabourin, J., & Kosturko, L. (2015). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Developers, Educators, and Learners. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118938942.
• Mehrpour, S., & Mehrzad, M. (2013). A comparative genre analysis of English business e-mails written by Iranians and native English speakers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2250-2261.
• Oxford Quick Placement Test (2001). Oxford University Press and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Retrieved from http://www.vhs. aschaffenburg.de/documents.
• Pavlick, E., & Tetreault, J. (2016). An empirical analysis of formality in online communication. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 4(1), 61-74.
• Phinney, M. (1991). Computer-assisted writing and writing apprehension in ESL students. Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice, 189-204.
• Reinhardt, J. (2019). Social media in second and foreign language teaching and learning: Blogs, wikis, and social networking. Language Teaching, 52(1), 1-39.
• Richards, J. C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal, 46(1), 1-18.
• Sabate, P., Ed, T., & Begoña, M. (2008). Orality and literacy, formality and informality in email communication. Ibérica, 15, 71-88.
• Sockett, G. (2014). The Online Informal Learning of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
• Sylven, P., & Sundqvist, L. (2016). Extramural English in Teaching and Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
• Warschauer, M. & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-23.
• Xodabande, I. (2017). The effectiveness of social media network Telegram in teaching English language pronunciation to Iranian EFL learners. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1347081
• Zhu, Y., & Chen, H. (2015). Social media and human need satisfaction: Implications for social media marketing. Business Horizons, 58, 335-345.