This article presents selective findings from an ongoing study that investigates rhetorical differences in business letter writing between Vietnamese students taking an English for Specific Purposes course in Vietnam and business professionals. Rhetorical analyses are based on two corpora, namely, scenario (N = 20) and authentic business letters of request (N = 25). Two criteria, the notion of move (a meaningful unit in linguistic form contributing to the communicative purposes of a text) and linguistic properties, are used for rhetorical analysis, supplemented by analysis of data from interviews with student participants. Based on the findings and discussions, recommendations are offered for preparing students well for the business workplace through incorporating more authentic models and contexts into pedagogical strategies.
AnsonC. M.ForsbergL. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200-231.
2.
ArvaniM. (2006). A discourse analysis of business letters written by Iranians and Native speakers. Asian ESP Journal, 1, 12-23.
3.
BachaN. N.BahousR. (2008). Contrasting views of business students’ writing needs in an EFL environment. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 74-93.
4.
BellA. H.DillonW. T.BeckerH. (1995). German memo and letter style. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 9, 219-227.
5.
BhatiaV. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London, England: Longman.
6.
BoiarskyC. (1995). The relationship between cultural and rhetorical conventions: Engaging in international communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 4, 245-259.
7.
BremnerS. (2010). Collaborative writing: Bridging the gap between the textbook and the workplace. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 121-132.
8.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CampbellN. (2002). Getting rid of the yawn factor: Using a portfolio assignment to motivate students in professional writing class. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 42-54.
10.
CharlesM. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 19-36.
11.
CheungM. (2008). “Click here”: The impact of new media on the encoding of persuasive messages in direct marketing. Discourse Studies, 10, 161-189.
12.
ConnorU. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teachers of writing in multicultural classrooms. In SeverinoC.GuerraJ. C.ButlerJ. E. (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 198-208). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.
13.
DiasP.FreedmanA.MedwayP.PareA. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
HylandK. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15.
KaplanR. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
16.
KongK. C. C. (1998). Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text, 18, 103-141.
17.
LekiI. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
18.
MabritoM. (1999). From workplace to classroom: Teaching professional writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 101-105.
19.
MaierP. (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by natives and non-native English speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 189-205.
20.
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
21.
NguyenH. (2008, June). Teaching business English in Vietnam: Current situation and challenges. Paper presented at the International Conference on “Improving Quality of English Teaching for Nonmajor Students,” Hanoi, Vietnam.
22.
NickersonC. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 367-380.
23.
ParkM. Y.DillonW. T.MichellK. L. (1998). Korean business letters: Strategies for effective complaints in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 328-345.
24.
PhanL. H. (2001). How do culturally situated notions of “polite” forms influence the way Vietnamese postgraduate students write academic English in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 45, 296-309.
25.
PilegaardM. (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223-244.
26.
PurvesA. C. (1988). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
SchneiderB.AndreJ.-A. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of students in three disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 195-218.
28.
ScollonR.ScollonS. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
29.
Starke-MeyerringD. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalisation: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 468-499.
30.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Valero-GarcésC. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 279-294.
32.
Van NusM. (1999). “Can we count on your bookings of potatoes to Madeira?” Corporate context and discourse practices in direct sales letters. In Bargiela-ChiappiniF.NickersonC. (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 181-205). London, England: Longman.
33.
VergaroC. (2002). “Dear Sirs, What would you do if you were in our position?” Discourse strategies in Italian and English money chasing letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1211-1233.
34.
VergaroC. (2004). Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 181-207.
35.
WangJ. (2010). Convergence in the rhetorical pattern of directness and indirectness in Chinese and U.S. business letters. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 91-120.
36.
YeungL. N. T. (1997). Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 505-522.
