A Corpus-Based Classification of Commitments in Business English

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics book series (YCLP, volume 1)

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.

References

  1. Adolphs, Svenja. 2001. Linking lexico-grammar and speech acts: A corpus-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  2. Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Arundale, Robert. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1): 119–153.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  8. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca (ed.). 2009. The handbook of business discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Catherine Nickerson, and Brigitte Planken. 2007. Business discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, Stephen, and James Curran. 2007. Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and log-linear models. Computational Linguistics 33(4): 493–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Curran, James and Stephen Clark. 2003. Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. In Proceedings of the CoNLL Conference, Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. De Felice, Rachele, and Paul Deane. 2012. Identifying speech acts in emails: Toward automated scoring of the TOEIC ® email task. Princeton: ETS.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gimenez, Julio. 2006. Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international business communication. English for Specific Purposes 25(2): 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Handford, Michael. 2007. The genre of the business meeting: a corpus-based study. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  24. Handford, Michael. 2010. The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes, Janet, and Maria Stubbe. 2003. Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra, and Bernadette Vine. 2011. Leadership, discourse and ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jucker, Andreas, Daniel Schreier, and Marianne Hundt (eds.). 2009. Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  28. Kallen, Jeffrey, and John Kirk. 2012. SPICE-Ireland: A user’s guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
  29. Koester, Almut. 2002. The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System 30: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koester, Almut. 2004a. The language of work. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Koester, Almut. 2004b. Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1405–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koester, Almut. 2006. Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Koester, Almut. 2010. Workplace discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Newton, Jonathan, and Ewa Kusmierczyk. 2011. Teaching second languages for the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Keeffe, Anne, Brian Clancy, and Svenja Adolphs. 2011. Introducing pragmatics in use. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.). 2008. Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1988. Presequences and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1999. Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies 1: 405–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scott, Mike. 2010. WordSmith tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
  43. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Searle, J.R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Can I have that in writing, please? Some neglected topics in speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Styler, Will. 2011. The EnronSent corpus. Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder Institute of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations