Intercultural Communication in Letters of Recommendation英语专业毕业论文

《Intercultural Communication in Letters of Recommendation英语专业毕业论文》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Intercultural Communication in Letters of Recommendation英语专业毕业论文（14页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Intercultural Communication in Letters of Recommendation Abstract: The letter of recommendation (LR) as a means to communicate across different cultures for the purpose of applying for entering a university can be problematic. Using contrastive rhetoric analytic framework, this paper compares LRs wr

2、itten by Chinese and English native speaker professionals. Discussion of culturally situated interpretations of the LRs is based on interviews with university professors who have been on the admission committee. The findings show similarities in macro discourse structure but differences in discourse

3、 content between the LRs, which suggest that successful intercultural communication in LRs requires meticulous dialogue with the other according to Bakhtins theory of dialogism. Unequal power relationship between writer and reader is also discussed from critical discourse analysis perspective.Key wo

4、rds: Letters of recommendation; intercultural communication; dialogismIntroductionAs more international students apply for admission to the colleges and universities in the United States, the admission committee has to read more letters of recommendation (LRs) written by English non-native speaker (

5、ENNS) writers than ever before. The letters function as a medium in intercultural communication (IC) between English native speaker (ENS) readers and ENNS writers. However, according to many educators and employers, too few letters of recommendation tell recipients what they really need to know abou

6、t a candidate (Palmer, 1983, p. 1). Although the writers identification is not specified here, we can assume that IC between the ENNS writer of the LR and the ENS reader is more problematic than the communication among the same language speakers because of the cultural as well as linguistic differen

7、ces.The problems in this IC result probably from the different approaches to the discourse conventions. Bouton shows that although the speech event has core characteristics cross-culturally, the realization of the speech event varies in both formal and content schema (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1995

8、, p 127). The differences may cause miscommunication if the reader fails to understand the discourse conventions of the writer if those are unfamiliar.The LR has a long history in the Western world, and can be traced to the middle of the third century B. C. (Cotton, 1981, p. 2). The routine of writi

9、ng recommendation resulted in the emergence of a mold into which each individual case could easily be fitted (although, ., room was left for variation) original, expediency and economy profited from crystallized formulae and set phrases (p. 6). The consistent practice of writing the LR has developed

10、 into a specific discourse genre with three characteristics. First, the participants are generally from educational field the admission committee and the teachers or professors who write LRs for their former students, and hence form a specific discourse community. Second, writing and reading LRs con

11、stitute a specific speech event in which the writer recommends and the reader uses the recommendation as one of the information resources to select candidates. Third, all the participants share the communicative purposes, that is, the person recommended is to be considered as a candidate for admissi

12、on to a study course.By contrast, the LR does not seem to be a well-established genre in Chinese written discourse. Traditionally, higher educational institutes in China do not require LRs for admission. There has been an informal practice that a brief note or a simple letter, which mainly states th

13、e relationship between the writer and the person recommended, might be presented to the person in charge of admission. This kind of practice, however, is very limited. In such a letter, the qualities of the recommended person are guaranteed by the credibility of the writer who is usually known by th

14、e reader. Therefore, the letter generally does not include any specific information but mostly the recommended persons virtues such as honesty, straightness, diligence, faithfulness, and so on.The different cultural practice and language use in the LR cannot be ignored if appropriate interpretation

15、of the letters must be achieved. However, the LR has rarely been studied, though research on other aspects of academic discourse has been voluminous, from reprint requests (Swales 1990) to politeness strategies in scientific articles (Myers 1989, cited in Precht 1998, p. 242). Viewing the LR in IC a

16、s a problematic issue, I will in this paper compare two LRs written respectively by an ENS writer and a Chinese native speaker (CNS) writer to find out how the writers from different cultural and linguistic background realize the speech act of recommendation. The contrastive rhetoric analysis will b

17、e incorporated with the characterizations of the LR as a particular kind of discourse genre as well as culturally situated interpretations of texts. In other words, the two letters will be compared in terms of their rhetorical construction by the writers and potential interpretations by the readers.

18、 The findings will be discussed in the light of Bakhtins theory of dialogism and critical discourse theory on the maintenance of power relations between the reader (addressee) and the writer (addresser). Further research will be suggested at the end in order to substantiate the findings in the curre

19、nt study.MethodData Two types of data are collected for this study. One consists of two letters from a file of LRs submitted to a MATESOL (Master of Arts for Teachers in English to Speakers of Other Languages) program at one of the US universities in the middle of 1990s. I was permitted to use them

20、in this paper with the candidates names and former universities deleted. Neither candidate was admitted to enter the program. One letter was written by an ENS in 198 words, and the other by a CNS in 200 words.The other type of data comprises interviews and written comments on some samples of LRs fou

21、nd typical from the file. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted with both English and Chinese NS professors. The former are the Universitys MATESOL professors who have years of experience in reading LRs. Besides interviews, I also asked them to write their comments on the given samples.

22、The latter are three Chinese NS scholars. The questions I asked them were focused on their experience in writing LRs, the history of Chinese LRs as a genre, and the problems of LRs written in English by Chinese professionals.Analytical framework As a qualitative case study, this paper will follow wi

23、th modification Prechts (1998) broad structure found in her study of 39 LRs written by 10 Americans, 10 British, 9 Germans and 10 Eastern Europeans. The structure has three major parts, i.e., Introduction/Frame, Body/Evaluation, and Conclusion/Prediction. Each part is constituted by a certain number

24、 of items (see Table 1). Three items usually form the Introduction. They are purpose of the LR, context in which the recommender knows the recommendee, and the recommenders personal comments on the recommendees qualifications. Body can be formed either in a topical or chronological format with suppo

25、rting evidence consisted either of a listing of facts or of stories about the recommendee (Precht 1998:253). Conclusion usually ends the LR with the writers prediction of the recommendees future success in the program applied.Table 1. Analytical framework adopted from Precht (1998)StructureConstitue

26、ntsIntroduction/FramePurpose Context of knowingPersonal commentsBody/EvaluationTopicality vs. chronologyFactual reporting vs. storytellingConclusion/PredictionFuture success of the recommendeeBesides the contrastive rhetoric analytic framework, Bakhtins theory of dialogism and critical discourse ana

27、lysis theory will be applied as theoretical framework for further analyzing the LRs. The former mainly refers to Bakhtins definition of speech genres as typified utterances that emerge within spheres of activity and genres are not templates we instantiate, but dialogic relationships that emerge amon

28、g situated utterances (Prior 2001, p. 72). Viewing LRs as a genre in Bakhtins framework, I will explore the writers intent and the readers interpretation situated in the dialogic process of IC.The latter is focused on power relations between the reader and the writer in the approach of critical disc

29、ourse analysis. Analytic parameters consist of the writer and the readers unequal roles in the social activities of recommending and gatekeeping respectively. Data Analysis and ResultsIn this section, I will first analyze the ENS letter followed by the CNS one. After that, I will compare the two let

30、ters in terms of their structural patters. The ENS letter begins with two big case lines, TO: ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE and RECOMMENDATION FOR X, which can be categorized as the first paragraph to specify the purpose of this letter. The second paragraph introduces the features of the courses the candidat

31、e took with the writer. It attempts to provide a solid background for the writers recommendation and knowledge of specific academic qualities of the candidate. The following paragraph focuses on the candidates achievement in the course taught by the writer. It includes information on the number of c

32、redits, the candidates grade compared with her classmates, and the grading system. From these two paragraphs, the reader is informed of the relationship between the writer and the candidate, and abilities of the candidate in her course, which is specifically described as a large lecture course, the

33、size of the class and the difficulty of the material requires a high degree of industry and independence from the students, and all discussion and written work are in English. Such description leaves the impression of reliability upon the reader because the information comprises what the course is l

34、ike. It also focuses on characteristics deemed to be relevant to this specific application, for example, English language proficiency.The last paragraph is about the candidates personal and academic traits, and the writers confidence in the candidates potentiality as a graduate student, on which the

35、 writers recommendation with no qualifications is based. The adjectives used to describe the candidate like mature, industrious, and thoughtful sound positive.The CNS letter has four paragraphs. The first paragraph states the purpose for writing the letter. As the writer refers to the candidate as m

36、y student in the first paragraph, it is understood in the second paragraph that the writer had taught the person for three years, which seems to give a very strong background for the writer to speak for the person. However, the real content of the grade A seems ambiguous as the letter is from China,

37、 where, the reader may know, the grading systems are different from those in the United States. The lack of the specific information the reader needs to understand what the A implies probably weakens the function of this letter because it does not sound informative. The writer continues in the secon

38、d paragraph to describe the person as diligent and responsible. The writers experience with the person seems to indicate that the person is recommended because she had a strong interest in teaching languages in addition to her three As in the courses. The writer seems to regard the persons intention

39、s for further study in linguistics and psychology as a potential ability to be qualified for admission. The writer is obviously aware of his/her weakness as a recommender, because the courses he/she taught the recommendee were three ethnology classes (General History of China, China and Chinese Nati

40、onalities, and introduction to Religion), which are likely to be considered as irrelevant to the MATESOL program. Therefore, the writer especially declares that language is closely related to ethnology. The writers great confidence in her ability, her maturity and determination to pursue advanced st

41、udies seems to indicate his/her strong, sincere recommendation.The third paragraph is about the persons art and music talent. From a Chinese point of view, the writer seems to know the person very well, and likes her as a versatile student. The writer concludes with a strong recommendation in the fo

42、urth paragraph. It coordinates the first paragraph and seems to target at making a deeper impression upon the reader and hence probably influencing the decision-making. The choosing of the two words budding scholar to refer to the person seems to reflect the writers sincere love and hope for her bri

43、ght future since the phrase is commonly used in Chinese academic sphere to refer to those promising and usually young scholars.Both letters share similar macro discourse construction, namely, statement of purpose/introduction, evaluation/body, and recommendation/conclusion (see Table 2). They both h

44、ave four paragraphs. They move from purpose to context of knowing, evaluation by personal comments, and prediction at the end. Table 2. Comparison of the structures between the two lettersPENS LetterCNS Letter1Reader & purposePurpose 2Context of knowing:Description of the courses background for writ

45、ers credential for recommending the person as well as the courses requirements and credibilityContext of knowing:1. three courses 2. discussions Personal comments:1. diligent and responsible; 2. caring about future and interested in academic studies such as linguistics and psychology; 3. interested

46、in teaching languages; 4. ability, maturity and determination to pursue studies 3Context of knowing:his/her student for 2 semestersList of facts:1. course title and its credits 2. grade and what it means 3. the grading system Topicality:Topic sentence 3.1Supporting details:1. music 2. enthusiastic i

47、n teaching others 3. responsible 4. talent in art design 4Personal comments:1. highly motivated, interested 2. having fundamental mastery of the subject studied and creative approach to studying the subject; 3. mature, industrious, thoughtful, and having a positive effect on others around her. Concl

48、usion/Prediction:1. having the requisite experience, the ability and the motivation to succeed in graduate studies. 2. strong recommendationConclusion/Prediction:1. strong recommendation 2. budding scholarHowever, the differences appear quite obvious in three aspects. First, the two writers use diff

49、erent evidence for recommendation. The ENS writer exclusively focuses on the courses he/she taught the person and gives more factual information about the courses and grades; whereas the CNS writer lists three courses he/she taught the recommendee without specific information about the courses and h

50、ow the students were graded, and in addition includes the persons abilities in music performance and poster design. The formers courses are in English on American literature, whereas the latters on ethnology which is not specified either in Chinese or English.Second, personal comments as evaluation

51、are presented differently in the two letters. The ENS writer appears following a linear order. The writer first describes the courses, then states that the person was in the courses, presents the persons grades with relevant detailed information, and gives his/her personal comments in the following

52、paragraph. The personal comments appear to be based on a list of facts. The CNS writers personal comments seem to be topical and are presented in two paragraphs. The first group of comments is focused on her diligence and being responsible, and second on her liveliness and amicability. Third, predic

53、tions are expressed in different manners. The ENS writer is certain about the persons possessing the requisite experience, the ability and the motivation to succeed in her graduate studies, which is stated right before his/her recommendation with no qualification in the same sentence. In contrast, t

54、he CNS writers predictions seem to be implied in personal comments in sentence 6 paragraph 2 and a metaphor of budding scholar in the last paragraph.Now, we see the letters analyzed have similar macro structure as well as distinct evidence choice, manner of presenting personal comments and predictio

55、ns. But what do the similarities and differences mean? To further analyze the data to interpret the writers intent in connection with the readers expectations, I will explore the culturally situated meaning of the similarities and differences of the LRs as a genre with its own characterizations.Sinc

56、e writing LRs is a long-established social activity in the Western world, a set of rules for the writer to observe and the expectations from the reader for the necessary information included in the letters have been formed through the practice. Morristt (1935, p. 195) set eight criteria for a good L

57、R for the selection of secondary school teachers: 1) the writer (position, professional attitude, academic standards); 2) the writers opportunity to observe, actually know, and evaluate the candidate as a teacher; 3) the professional relationship between the writer and the recommended; 4) the kind o

58、f letter; 5) the tone of the letter; 6) the quality of information revealed in the letter; 7) the contents of the letter relative to the candidate; and 8) recency of the letter.Some suggestions for writing the effective letters offered by the experienced letter readers are summarized in Palmer (1983

59、, Abstract) as:(1) dont rely on a predetermined list of questions; (2) explain your relationship to the candidate; (3) learn about the candidates career goals; (4) compare the candidate to others; (5) tailor the letter to the specific position or program being applied for; (6) back up your remarks w

60、ith details; (7) decline the candidates request for a letter if you feel uncomfortable about writing it; (8) elaborate on the limitations of the candidates current position; (9) avoid sexist or racist remarks; (10) watch for phrasing which could be misunderstood; (11) volunteer to provide further in

61、formation by telephone; (12) keep the letter brief; and (13) end on an upbeat note.Based on those studies, a good LR for the MATESOL program may comprise at least three elements: 1) the relationship between the writer and the candidate; 2) the specific information relevant to the candidates academic

62、 abilities as a MATESOL student; and 3) the overtone of the letter is professional and sincere. In other words, as Prof. T suggests, the reader would look for the writers credibility and the letter to be informative, relevant, and specific.Accepting those characterizations, we may find that the ENS

63、letter is more informative, relevant, and specific than the CNS one. The former focuses on learning abilities whereas the latter includes both academic and extracurricular abilities. The two letters present different proportion of facts and impressions and therefore one sounds more objective than th

64、e other (see Table 3 on the next page). As Prof. R comments, the ENS letter sets up the criteria so carefully what this professors experience is with this student in her/his coursework, and how the student compares with others. On the other hand, the ENS letter may not sound informative though it is

65、 relevant and specific. Prof. R comments on the specific information presented in 3.2 (see Table 3 for the numbered sentence) and the words fundamental mastery in 4.2 of the ENS letter, writing, good info but it sounds like the person is not underline the original outstanding, just good and sounds sort of basic, nothing that special respectively. On sentence 4.3, she writes, This sentence is positive, but sort of generic in that everyone says stuff like this. On the basis of the famili