This article, using data from a year-long study of writing processes in an institutional context, looks at the demands made on writers in workplace environments as they make requests of their colleagues. Building on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, the study takes a view of context as being a key factor in framing requests, in addition subscribing to the notion of context as an ongoing dynamic, or mutually constitutive activity system. Although the variables of relative power and degree of imposition are important factors in the choices writers make, a further consideration is the need to balance their own relational needs with the expectations of the institution as they create texts for multiple audiences. In addition, the linguistic choices writers make in such contexts as they position themselves in relation to their peers and those further up the hierarchy may also serve to define and reinforce their identity within the institution.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1996). Requests and status in business correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 635-662.
2.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-104). London: Taylor & Francis.
3.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475-509.
4.
Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
5.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. London: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Cicourel, A. (2003). On contextualizing applied linguistic research in the workplace. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 360-373.
7.
Devitt, A. (1993). Generalising about genre: New conceptions of an old concept. College Composition and Communication, 44(4), 573-586.
8.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
9.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
10.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
11.
Geisler, C., Bazerman, C., Doheny-Farina, S., Gurak, L., et al. (2001). IText: Future directions for research on the relationship between information technology and writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 269-308.
12.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power: Making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings. Text, 23(1), 27-52.
14.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
15.
Kong, K. (1998). Are simple business requests really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text, 18(1), 103-141.
16.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). The fly’s perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a business manager. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 211-231.
17.
Maier, P. (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11(3), 189-205.
18.
Meier, A. (1995). Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 381-392.
19.
Mulholland, J. (1999). E-mail: Uses, issues and problems in an institutional setting. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and language (pp. 57-84). London: Longman.
20.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
21.
Myers, G. (1999). Interaction in writing: Principles and problems. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 40-61). London: Longman.
22.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing genre. In C. Goodwin & A. Duranti (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.
24.
Parks, S. (2001). Moving from school to the workplace: Disciplinary innovation, border crossings, and the reshaping of a written genre. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 405-438.
25.
Pilegaard, M. (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223-244.
26.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554.
27.
Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. (2003). Trading between reflexivity and relevance: New challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 271-285.
28.
Sarangi, S., & Slembrouck, S. (1996). Language, bureaucracy and social control. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
29.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
30.
Smart, G. (1998). Mapping conceptual worlds: Using interpretive ethnography to explore knowledge-making in a professional community. Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 111-127.
31.
Trosborg, A. (1997). Contracts as social action. In B. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 54-75). London: Longman.
32.
Upton, T., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 313-329.
33.
Vergaro, C. (2004). Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 181-207.
34.
Winsor, D. (1999). Genre and activity systems: The role of documentation in maintaining and changing engineering activity systems. Written Communication, 16(2), 200-224.
35.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 13-35.
36.
Yeung, L. (1997). Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 505-522.
