L2 emails of complaints

Abstract

In this chapter, we analysed the emails of complaints written by 48 low- and high-proficiency Vietnamese EFL learners when communicating with different audiences. The emails were elicited by means of a computerised discourse completion task developed by an international testing organisation. To understand the cognitive processes involved in the learners’ production of complaints, we also analysed think-aloud protocols provided by 8 learners randomly selected from the above pool. Our findings indicate some effect of proficiency on the learners’ pragmatic performance and decision-making processes. However, our findings also show that regardless of proficiency levels, the learners tended to neglect important writing processes. The findings suggest that the learners require pragmatic instruction as well as training in writing processes in order to carry out the email-writing task more effectively.

Learning How to Write Socially Appropriate Emails Through Textbooks: An Evaluation of International English Textbooks

“…Emails to professors require the use of status-appropriate language, such as proper titles, indirectness and formality (Chen, 2006;Formentelli, 2009). Meanwhile, emails to equal status recipients require less formality, often characterized in the absence of certain standard formats such as opening and closing paragraphs (Nguyen & Pham, 2021).…”

Language Learning Motivation and Its Role in Learner Complaint Production

“…Although the speech act of a complaint has no predetermined form [31,32] and is more intricate and difficult than many other speech acts, it has attracted great attention in L2 pragmatics because it is frequently encountered in daily communications, including complaints at home [31,33], in institutional settings [34], in service encounters [27,35] and in L2 emails [36]. Direct complaints occur when speakers address complaints towards hearers and believe that those hearers are accountable for the speaker's dissatisfaction, whereas indirect complaints occur when speakers do not hold the hearers responsible for the offense but are conveying dissatisfaction about themselves or someone/something that is absent [37].…”