Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:30:23.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Structure and Content of Letters of Reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Lawrence F. Bouton
Lawrence F. Bouton
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different expectations for structure and content in the construction of text can lead to difficulties in cross-cultural communication. This study investigates letters of reference as one type of written text that is relatively frequent in the contexts of the international academic community. Sixty-five letters of reference written by American referees and 65 letters written by referees from five Asian cultures were analyzed to discover the conventions and expectations guiding readers and writers from these backgrounds. Although there were many similarities in the two sets of texts, there were also several differences in the structure, content, and implicature employed in the letters; there is a complex interaction between the tripartite conceptual structure of the letters (the introduction, body, and closing) and the occurrence of specific elements of content and the form those elements took.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 211 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 411–458). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of 12 text (pp. 9–23). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. P. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampe, D. (1975). Meaning and truth in the theory of speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 1–40). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steffensen, M. S. (1%). Register, cohesion, andcross<ultural reading comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 220). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman.Google Scholar