The level of context dependence of engagement markers in Peninsular Spanish and US business websites

  1. Ivorra-Pérez, Francisco Miguel
  2. Giménez-Moreno, Rosa
Revista:
LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos

ISSN: 1133-1127

Año de publicación: 2018

Título del ejemplar: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos. Issue dedicated to Professor Françoise Salager-Meyer

Volumen: 24

Número: 2

Páginas: 38-53

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos

Resumen

This paper examines the impact of Spaniards’ and North-Americans’ level of context dependence (Hall, 1976) on the engagement markers (Hyland & Tse, 2004) used on the presentation page of 100 business websites from the toy sector (50 from Spain and 50 from the US). Following an observational and a quantitative analysis, the findings reveal remarkable statistical differences in the interactional discourse of this digital genre, which may be a valuable source of information for export companies to introduce their products abroad by means of their business websites. In addition, we believe that the business website can be used in the teaching and learning of Spanish and English for professional purposes, with a special focus on the way interactional discourse is produced and interpreted in this digital genre cross-culturally.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bhatia, VK. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional setting. London: Longman.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ab-lex.
  • Bou-Franch, P. (2015). The genre of web-mediated service encounters in not-for-profit organisations: Cross-cultural study. In M. Hernández-López & L. Fernández-Amaya (Eds.), A Multidisciplinary Approach to Ser-vice Encounters (pp. 65-85), Leiden/Boston: Brill.
  • Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
  • Caillat, Z. & Mueller, B. (1996). The influence of culture on American and British advertising: An exploratory comparison of beer advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (3), 79-88.
  • Clyne, Michael. (1994). Intercultural communication at work. Cultural values in discourse. USA: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
  • Connor, U., Nagelhout, E. & Rozycki, W. (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amster-dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71.
  • Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 11, 29-52.
  • De Mooij, Marieke. 2000. Mapping cultural values for global marketing and advertising. In John Philips (ed.), International Advertising, Realities and Myths, 214-218. Sage Publications Ltd.
  • Díaz-Pérez, F.J. (2003). La cortesía verbal en inglés y en español. Actos de habla y pragmática intercultural. Jaén: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Jaén.
  • Garcés-Conejos, P., Lorenzo, N., & Bou-Franch, P. (2010). A genre approach to impoliteness in a Spanish tele-vision talk show: Evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics,7(4). 689-723.
  • Garcés-Conejos, P. 2015. Setting the linguistics research agenda for the e-service encounters genre: na-tively digital vs. digitized perspectives. In M. Hernández-López & L. Fernández-Amaya (Eds.), A Multi-disciplinary Approach to Service Encounters, (pp.15-36), Leiden/Boston: Brill.
  • García-Yeste, M.A. (2013). Press advertisement for food in Spain: cultural orientations and communicative style. Ibérica, 26, 195-216.
  • Gil, L., Soler, C, & Stuart, K. (2004). TextWorks. Valencia. Departamento de Idiomas.
  • Giovannini, A., Martín, E., Rodríguez, M., & Simón, T. (1996). Profesor en acción 1: el proceso de aprendizaje. Madrid: Edelsa.
  • Grice, Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, (pp.45-47), New York: Academic.
  • Guillén-Nieto, V. (2009). Crossing disciplines in intercultural communication research. In V. Guillén-Nieto, C. Marimón-Llorca & Ch. Vargas-Sierra (Eds.), Intercultural Business Communication and Simulation and Gaming Methodology, (pp. 29-64), Peter Lang: Bern.
  • Guillén-Nieto, V. (2013). Intercultural business pragmatics: the case of the business letter of introduction. In I. Kecskes & J. Romero-Trillo (Eds.), Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics, (pp.395-420), Berlín: Mou-ton De Gruyter.
  • Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor.
  • Halliday, M. (1975). Language as social semiotic: towards a general sociolinguistic theory. In A. Makkai & V. Becker (Eds.), The First LACUS Forum, (pp.17-46), Columbia: Hornbeam Press.
  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: Profile Books.
  • Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264.
  • Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. Sage Publications Ltd.
  • Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purpo-ses, 18(1), 3-26.
  • Hyland, K. & Polly, T. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
  • Junqueira, L. & Cortés, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A cor-pus-based analysis. Rhetoric, Professional Communication and Globalization , 6, 88-109.
  • Kaplan, R. (1996). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16 (1). 1-20.
  • Loukianenko-Wolfe, M. (2008). Different culture-different discourses. Rhetorical patterns of business letters by English and Russian speakers. In U. Coonor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.) Contrastive rhetoric. Reaching to intercultural rhetoric, (pp.87-121), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Com-pany.
  • Márquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Politeness phenomena in British English and Uruguayan Spanish: The case of requests. A Journal of English and American Studies, 18, 159-167.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfrurtam Main: Peter Lang.
  • Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: causal metatext in Spanish and English Ras. Eng-lish for Specific Purposes, 16 (3), 161-179.
  • Moreno, A. I. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural Studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagel-hout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, (pp. 25-41), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 50-72.
  • Oshland, J. & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping. Cultural sense making in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), 65-79.
  • Prykarpatska, I. (2008). Why are you so late?: Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints in American Eng-lish and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 87-102.
  • Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell.
  • Shokouhi, H. & Talati, A. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 549-568.
  • Singer, M. R. (1998). Culture: a perceptual approach. In J. M. Bennet (ed.), Basic Concepts of Communication. Selected Readings, (pp.97-110), Yarmouth, Maine: USA.
  • Suau, F. (2010). La traducción especializada (en inglés y español en géneros de economía y empresa). Ma-drid: Arco/Libros, S.L.
  • Suau, F. (2016). What can the discursive construction of stance and engagement voices in traveler forums and tourism promotional websites bring to a cultural, cross-generic and disciplinary view of interperso-nality? Ibérica, 31, 199-220.
  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Usunier, J. C. & Lee, J. (2005). Marketing across cultures. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes,15(4), 279-294.
  • Vande-Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and communi-cation, 36, 82-93.
  • Vázquez-Orta, I. (1995). A Contrastive study of politeness phenomena in England and Spain. Applied and interdisciplinary papers. Paper n. 267. Duisburg: L.A.U.D.
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102.
  • Walker, D., Walker, Th., & Schmitz, J. (2003): Doing business internationally. The guide to cross-cultural success. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9. 145-78.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet