Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns

Abstract

Abstract This cross-cultural study examines the differences in communicative styles between English and German email responses to customer complaints by analysing their discourse structure (through a rhetorical move analysis) and the frequency of first-person references (Iandweand their different forms). The framework is given by House (House, Juliane. 2006. Communicative styles in English and German.European Journal of English Studies10(3). 249–267.), who suggests that English speakers tend to use a more interpersonal (i.e., people-oriented) communicative style, while German speakers show a preference for a transactional (i.e., content-oriented) style. In addition, first-person references within the genre of email responses to complaints are associated with either the customer service agent’s personal or corporate identity. The data consist of 150 English and 84 German authentic emails. The results of the move analysis reveal that the discourse structure of both data sets is mainly similar, but the few differences point into the direction of support for House’s framework, in particular the dimension on addressee- or content-orientation. Although agents generally use morewethanI-references in both data sets, thus exhibiting mainly a corporate identity, they tend to use the opposite in some moves (e.g.,Apology), which points to pronominal shifting across move level, as suggested in previous research (Zhang, Yi & Camilla Vásquez. 2014. Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction.Discourse, Context and Media6. 54–64.). Overall, the German agents use morewe-references compared to their British colleagues. Finally, agents use pronominal shifting within move level to distance themselves from the company.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.