The Pragmatics of Letter Writing

c:/3weng/20-2/05-khatib.
3d ± 9/6/1 ± 17:33 ± disk/mp
World Englishes, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 179±200, 2001. 0883±2919
The pragmatics of letter-writing
MAHMOUD A. AL-KHATIB*
ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on personal letter-writing as a mode of communication between an L2

writer and an L1 reader, a little explored discourse type, yet particularly vital and salient in the process of
language teaching and learning. The corpus is composed of 120 personal letters. They are supposed to be
written to British English native speakers. The data were analyzed and discussed in the light of the
theoretical insights of a number of modern linguists, notably Grice's Cooperative Principle and Leech's
Principle of Politeness as well as Brown and Levinson's views of politeness strategies. The main objective of
the study is to examine the corpus of letters in terms of the sociocultural background of the writers, that is,
to establish interpretive links between the type of material collected and its situational and cultural context.
As a non-nativized variety of English, the language used by the students exhibits certain peculiarities likely
to be the result of contradiction between two different cultures. The major argument therefore developed in
this study is that these peculiarities can be seen as `èrrors'' which are the by-product of incomplete
understanding of the sociocultural background of the target language.
INTRODUCTION1
A central goal of academic purposes in EFL programs is to help students develop writing
and thinking strategies needed to write academic texts of different types in content
classes. One type of writing which seems to be of great challenge to Arab students
learning English as a foreign language (FL) is letter-writing ± both formal and informal.
The most challenging is the latter type, usually addressed to intimates, which requires a
great deal of knowledge to be shared by both the writer and the reader. Personal letter-
writing can be seen as a special type of writing, demanding a different type of processing
(in terms of selecting ideas, conducting a uni-directional argument, or information
encoding and presentation) than, for example, job application writing, or writing for
courses or scholarships. Writing personal letters in a foreign language is associated with
the requirement to perform an identifiable set of procedures to meet the criteria on tasks
such as greeting, congratulating, inviting, discussing personal issues, all of which appear
to be culturally bound.
One might claim here that most of the difficulty encountered by students writing
personal letters in a foreign language could be due to the absence of ``shared knowledge''
between the writer and the reader. Talking of the importance of ``shared knowledge'' in the
process of writing, Nystrand (1986: 36) maintains that the ``Text is not just the result of
composing, it is also the medium of communication.'' He adds that ``the very information
structure of written communication, for example, depends not just on the writer's meaning
and purpose but rather on the extent of match between what the writer has to say and what
the reader needs to know, i.e., the extent to which writer and reader share knowledge.''
Similarly, Y. Kachru (1997) has also stressed the importance of ``shared knowledge'' when
she reported that ``people who share a common language and culture have an easier time
`making sense' of each other's utterances and actions.'' She also believes that only very
* Department of English for Applied Studies, University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. E-mail:
Mahmoud@just.edu.jo
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
c:/3weng/20-2/05-khatib.3d ± 9/6/1 ± 17:33 ± disk/mp
180 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib
restricted communication is possible without a shared knowledge of the sociocultural

norms conditioning language use.
This paper examines the problems encountered by Jordanian students of English
involved with one type of writing (i.e., writing personal letters), and highlights the probable
causes of these problems and discusses their implications for sociolinguistic theory and the
theory of language teaching.
This paper attempts to bring the errors made by the students to the fore and sheds light
on the sources of these errors in terms of the sociocultural background of the students.
More specifically, the following discussion will illustrate how the choice of evaluative
``methods of writing'' in the data encodes, and is enhanced by, contextual and cultural
constraints that underlie letter-writing in Arabic.
The study is primarily motivated by claims made in a number of recent publications
(e.g., Y. Kachru, 1997; Grabe and Kaplan, 1996; Brandt, 1990; Nystrand, 1986; Kaplan,
1987) regarding the interactive character of language and the importance of ``reciprocity''
and ``shared knowledge'' in comprehending and appreciating a message.
The study attempts to address the following research questions:
1. What are the main differences between letter-writing in Arabic and letter-writing in English?
What are the main linguistic and extralinguistic features which characterize each type of them?
2. How does a Jordanian student of English use his/her linguistic repertoire when writing in a
language other than her/his own?
3. Is the quality of students' written ideas in English affected by their sociocultural background or
the sociocultural background of the language? Do they attempt to adapt to their addressees
(British English L1 speakers) when writing in English?
4. Does the written material reveal that the students are aware of the politeness strategies which
govern the use of English?
To appreciate the discussion that follows, a review of the literature and the theoretical
background of the study, with particular emphasis on the key points raised here, is in
order.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Studies on writing across cultures and on teaching writing in English to speakers of
other languages are many (cf. Jones et al. 1999; Mauranen 1992, 1993; Leki, 1991;
B. Kachru, 1992; Y. Kachru, 1994, 1997; Reynolds, 1993; Clyne, 1983, 1987; Ostler,
1987; Hinds, 1983). Most of these works, especially beginning with Leki (1991), have
attempted to address themselves to two fundamental questions: how to describe and
explain rhetorical differences between texts written by academics with different cultural
backgrounds, and what kinds of sociolinguistic inferences to draw from the linguistic
properties exemplified in the written material. Numerous hypotheses have been advanced
regarding the first question. First, it has been assumed that different speech communities
have different ways of organizing ideas in writing, which reflect their ``cultural thought
patterns'' (Y. Kachru, 1997). Kachru also cited a related claim, relevant to language
teaching, especially to the teaching of ESL, that non-native users of English employ `à
rhetoric and a sequence of thought which violate the expectations of the native speakers''.
Kaplan's (1966) seminal paper was the first to focus on rhetoric as a new field of inquiry
in analyzing errors in L2 learning. It provided the basis for subsequent research which has
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 181
seen rhetoric as the study of the principles and rules of composition (either written or oral),
and discourse analysis as concerned with studying the means whereby language coheres at
a level larger than a sentence (cf. Bentahila and Davies, 1989; Bourdieu and Passeron,
1994; Leki, 1991; Kachru, 1986; Nelson, 1997). In his study, Kaplan argued that patterns
of rhetoric are culturally relative and that paradigms of logic are not universal. The
thought patterns, according to Kaplan, which speakers and readers of English appear to
expect as an integral part of their communication, are predominately linear in sequence
which contrasts with ways of thinking in other cultures. Moreover, he suggested a set of
typologies of rhetorical structure for English, Semitic, Oriental, Romance and Russian
cultures. Therefore, Kaplan (1966, 1987) claimed that contrastive rhetoric is as important
as contrastive grammar and should be taught in the same way. In a later stage he (Kaplan,
1987) took the position that all of the various rhetorical modes are possible in any
language, but maintained that each language has clear preferences, and that the full gamut
of forms does not occur with equal frequency in any used language.
These views proved to be supported by a number of conversation analysts, anthro-
pologists and ethnographers who attempted to look into the contextualization aspects of
speech events for establishing explanatory connections between linguistic choices and
sociocultural integrative processes, namely by exploring how the former invoke and at the
same time are shaped by the latter (cf. Y. Kachru, 1994; Mauranen, 1993; Hill and Irvine,
1993; Oxford, 1990; Brandt, 1990; Conner, 1995; Conner and Kaplan, 1987). In this regard
Mauranen (1993) argues that ``writing clearly is a cultural object, existing only in the social
world of humans, as a product of social activities. Writing is also very much shaped by the
educational system in a writer's native culture.'' She also adds that:
The rhetorical means available to a writer for realizing his or her rhetorical strategy are limited by
the value and belief system prevailing in the discourse community which constitutes the social
context for the text. In academic writing, the most relevant discourse communities constraining the
writer are the academic community being addressed, and the writing culture that the writer was
socialized into when first learning to write, usually his or her national culture. (Mauranen, 1993: 5)
Writing as a mode of communication does not distinguish itself from other modes of
discourse in terms of its metacomponents. That is to say, speaking is generally no less
purposeful or meaningful than writing (see Nystrand, 1986; Tannen, 1984). In previous
literature, it has also been reported that both speaking and writing have many character-
istics in common. This fact is obviously manifested in Nystrand's words (1986: 40) when he
says communication requires the interaction of two participants, usually called a producer
and a receiver. This interaction is obvious enough in the give and take of talk. But it is true
of writing too. When readers understand a text, an exchange of meaning has taken place.
The writer has spoken to the readers. He also argues that: ``Writing is no less interactive
than speech in either principle or practice. As discourse, writing is nonetheless an
interactive medium even if the reader does not know the writer and indeed even though
the writer may be long deceased when the reader finds the text'' (Nystrand, 1986: 40).
Written discourse like conversation is a process by which each participant performs
intentional actions upon the other. Understanding, according to Downes (1984), is in essence
the perception of the speaker's intention. When the intention for performing the utterance or
the sentence is perceived, this is the successful accomplishment of the action. Rommetveit
(1974: 63, reported in Nystrand, 1986) argues `às long as writers write on the premises of
readers and readers read on the premises of writers, the result is coherent communication.''

Once again, one of the main objectives of this study is to shed light on the difficulties
encountered by Jordanian university students in writing English personal letters. I argue
that although some of these difficulties appear to reflect a defect in knowledge or linguistic
competence, others seem to be due to the absence of ``shared knowledge'' or/and ``mutual
knowledge'' between the writer (L2 learner) and the reader (L1 speaker).
My approach to the present data is with a cross-cultural aim based on two pervasive
principles which have been used widely in the field of conversation analysis. These are:
Grice's (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) and Leech's (1983) Principle of Politeness (PP).
It has been argued in the literature that most conversations are organized according to
these two principles. Also an attempt will be made to make occasional reference to Brown
and Levinson's model (1978, 1987) (i.e. The notion of Politeness and Face Threatening Act
(FTA) ) in discussing some of the results of this study.
It is also worth noting that as the study is meant to shed light on the sociocultural and
pragmatic aspects underlying the process of communication between the students as L2
writers and their hypothetical recipients as L1 readers, an attempt will also be made to discuss
these aspects in light of the role played by a number of domestic culture-based stereotypes.
Thus, the work discussed here is based on a number of distinct but interrelated models.
Before we proceed in our discussion, I shall briefly outline some of these models below.
Grice's maxims
Grice's Co-operative Principle implies decisions in four major areas, relation, quality,
quantity and manner, and their significance is spelled out by maxims (Thomas, 1995). These
are the Quantity, Quality, Relevance and Manner maxims.
It is noted that unlike the rules of grammar, these types of rules (rules of conduct) tend
to be flouted by speakers much of the time. And the reason why they flout them is to make
some infringements; namely a speaker intends to make the hearer notice faults and draw
conclusions. These conclusions were referred to by Grice as Conversational Implicatures.
An implicature, thus, is an inference generated in the course of conversation because of
what is called non-observance of the maxims. Grice suggests that there are many occasions
when people fail to observe the maxims. There are five ways of failing to observe a maxim.
Among these is `ìnfringing a maxim''. When a speaker, with no intention of generating an
implicature and with no intention of deceiving, fails to observe a maxim, she or he is said to
ìnfringe' a maxim. The non-observance here emanates from imperfect linguistic perform-
ance rather than from desire on the part of the speaker to generate a conversational
implicature (see Thomas, 1995; James, 1980). Thomas (1995) says that this type of non-
observance could occur because the speaker has imperfect command of language, because
the speaker's performance is impaired in some way, or, simply, because she or he is
constitutionally incapable of speaking clearly to the point.
Leech's Politeness Principle

In like manner, Leech (1983) suggests a number of maxims which, he believes, stand in
the same relationship to the Politeness Principle (PP) as Grice's maxims stand to the CP.
These maxims, according to Leech, are necessary in order to explain the relationship
between sense and force in human conversation. They range from those which have very
extensive but by no means universal applicability, to the somewhat idiosyncratic (Thomas,
1995: 160). The main maxims are: Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement

and Sympathy. Some of them have also a number of sub-maxims. Each of these maxims
will be presented briefly below:
1. The Tact maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize the
expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other.
Sub-maxims
(a) Size of imposition: By size of imposition, Leech means how great is the request one is
making. To illustrate, Leech provided an example of how somebody tends probably to use
a greater degree of indirectness in asking, for example, to borrow 10 pounds than she or he
would in asking to borrow 10 pence. It seems that the concept of ``size of imposition'' can
be satisfactorily discussed and explained along the lines of Goffman's (1967) notion of
``free'' and ``non-free'' goods (see Thomas, 1995).
(b) Mitigating the effect of a request by offering optionality: This resembles the second of
Lakoff 's 1973 ``rules of politeness'': ``Give options''.
(c) The cost/benefit scale: This is explained by Thomas (1995: 16) as follows: if something is
perceived as being to the hearer's benefit, x can be expressed politely without employing
indirectness. Have a chocolate? But if x is seen as being costly to the hearer, greater
indirectness may be required: could I have one of your sandwiches?
2. The Generosity maxim: Minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize the expression of
cost to self.
3. The Approbation maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other;
maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of other.
4. The Modesty maxim: Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of
dispraise of self.
5. The Agreement maxim: Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other;
maximize the expression of agreement between self and other.
In commenting on Leech's model of politeness, Thomas (1995: 167) argues that there
appears to be no motivated way of restricting the number of maxims; and in theory it
would be possible to produce a new maxim to explain every tiny perceived regularity in
language use. However, she claims that ``for all its problems, it allows us, better than any
of the other approaches discussed here (in her book) to make specific cross-cultural
comparisons and (more importantly) to explain cross-cultural differences in the perception
of politeness and the use of politeness strategies.''
The notion of stereotype

Stereotypes are an extremely common and natural phenomenon in speech communities.
Lippman (1922) defines them as mental pictures formulated by human beings to describe
the world beyond their reach. To him, while stereotypes are at least partially culturally
determined, their contents are factually incorrect (reported in Farghal and Shakir, 1993).
From the same vantage ground, Dundes (1971, cited in Farghal and Shakir, 1993) has
stressed the congruence between stereotypes and ``social reality'' rather than between
stereotypes and `òbjective reality''.
In an attempt to come up with a definition of stereotyping, Saville-Troike (1989: 194)
argues that making judgements about people according to linguistic features is a common
form of stereotyping; it is possible because of the highly ``visible'' nature of the markers in
language which are correlated with a number of extralinguistic categories such as sex, age,
ethnicity, religion etc. These social categories in turn carry with them traditional attitudes

and expectations which strongly influence all types of communication, and which govern
what Goffman (1967) refers to as `ìnteraction ritual''. Saville-Troike assumes that social
typing should be seen as a potentially positive and in any case inevitable process. However,
the typing may assume negative aspects and then it ceases to be just a mode of
socialization. It may become, therefore, a means of disaffiliation or rejection, or of
rationalizing prejudice, and it is this negative connotation that is usually associated with
the term ``stereotyping''. Moreover, she makes the claim that stereotyping operates
between members of different groups only at initial or superficial contact, and does not
survive repeated interaction. She thinks that this does not necessarily lead to ``better
understanding''. `Òn the contrary, it tends to reinforce mistaken judgements of the other's
intentions and increase expectations that the other will behave in a certain way . . .
Misjudgement is calcified by the conviction of repeated experience'' (Tannen, 1979: 161,
reported in Saville-Troike, 1989: 196).
Saville-Troike (1989: 197) claims that stereotypes of a particular speech community are
relevant for ethnographic description in at least three important respects:
(1) as a dimension of the attitudes related to language which are part of the content of the
description; (2) as part of the framework of sociocultural expectations within which commu-
nicative behavior must be interpreted by participants or observers; (3) as a check on reliability of
reported data when doing research in a community other than one's own.
The significance of this phenomenon in linguistics, especially in the study of conversa-

tional discourse, was noted, for example, in Apt-Mahadev (1985), and Farghal and Shakir
(1993), who found stereotypes to be a rich material for the creation of jokes. They are
useful for the creation of jokes, according to Apt-Mahadev, for they are readily accessible
to all members of a community.
Farghal and Shakir (1993) who themselves benefited much from the notion of stereo-
types in analyzing jokes in Jordanian Arabic, also reported that stereotypes can be intra-
group/intrinsic ± that is, relating to the same community the joker belongs to; and inter-
group/extrinsic ± that is, relating to other communities and/or cultures.
Similarly, an examination of the corpus shows that the letters written by our students
have extensively utilized a large number of popular stereotypical beliefs in Jordan for both
writing the letters and designing their contents. Following in the footsteps of Farghal and
Shakir (1993), I will use their work on jokes and local stereotypes as a model and will
discuss the collected letters under five main headings. These are:
1. Greeting stereotypes
2. Gender-segregation stereotypes
3. Communal stereotypical attributes
4. Religious stereotypes
5. Intrinsic stereotypes
DATA AND METHOD
The data for the subsequent analysis consists of 120 personal letters written by 120 students of
English at two Jordanian universities: the University of Science and Technology (a public university),
and Irbid National University (a private university) in Irbid city.2 Each student was asked to write a
personal letter to a hypothetical British L1 friend inviting her/him to visit Jordan for sightseeing or
for attending a wedding party. By personal letter we mean the type of letter usually written to

intimates; and the language used was supposed to be of the spontaneous type of speech that can take
place in relaxed environments of narrative communication between intimates. The students were
informed beforehand that the written material would be read and marked by two native speakers of
English (two university professors) so as to make them take the task seriously, and feel that they were
talking to genuine native speakers of the language.
The letters would seem to provide excellent opportunities for cross-cultural studies of discourse
strategies. For one thing the data were produced by very similar groups of students in terms of
cultural background and language mastery. In both cases the students were trained enough about
how to write formal and informal letters in English. That is to say, they were acquainted with the
tactics needed for writing letters in English. Moreover, the students were exposed to a large number
of personal letters written by English native speakers, and they had engaged in analyzing and
discussing some of these letters. Given the fact that the data were produced by students who had had
at least eight years of instruction in English as a school subject, and who were third- or fourth-year
English majors, most of the variables encountered could be due to ignorance on the part of the
writers about the cultural norms of British society.
In an attempt to better understand the nature of the data produced by the students, the present
research examines and analyzes a selected set of scripts taken from the data. In so doing, I introduce,
identify and interpret the text-building mechanisms in relation to the sociocultural background of
both the writers and the readers. It should be noted here that no effort on the part of the researcher
was made to revise or make any corrections on the texts in terms of language and/or style. That is,
unless they hinder intelligibility, the scripts will be presented to the readers of this paper exactly as
written by the students.
To verify the validity of the results of this study, the data were discussed with four native speakers
of English, two British and two American, all highly qualified (i.e., Ph.D. and MA holders). The
rationale behind doing this was to find out whether their reactions to the written material
corresponded with my views and findings. On the whole, these respondents agreed that the
explanations given indeed represent those patterns which differentiate Jordanian society from British
society in terms of politeness strategies and other sociocultural norms.
Before I proceed with the discussion of the data, a number of terms need to be clarified. It is well
known that neither the Arab world on one hand, nor the ìnner circle' countries (i.e. the UK, the
USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) on the other, are completely homogeneous. Therefore we
have to be very specific when talking about an L2 writer and an L1 reader and their related cultures.
By an L2 writer I mean a Jordanian L2 writer who learns English as a foreign/second language and
her/his culture that has many things in common with the cultures of other Arab countries like Syria,
Palestine, and Lebanon. And by an L1 reader I mean a British English L1 speaker and her/his
culture, which differs radically from the cultures of other English-speaking countries, like, for
example, the USA and Canada.
Admittedly, the data suffer inevitably from shortcomings. The letters were written to hypothetical
friends. That is, the students were asked to imagine a reader, and create an entirely fictionalized
ongoing written conversation in the form of letters. A number of students commented that it was not
an easy task for them to write letters to hypothetical friends, for instance. It seems likely, thus, that
the data cannot provide more than broad guidelines on the type of strategies being used by the
writers. However, they do provide a useful source of information on the differences taking place
between Jordanian society and British society in terms of language use, politeness strategies, and
sociocultural background.
LETTER-WRITING IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC
Having provided an overview of previous literature, and the theoretical background of

the study, discussion of the main features of letter-writing in English and Arabic is in order.

Letter-writing in English
Low (1978) argues that informality of style in personal writing is achieved by the use of
specific, concrete words rather than general, abstract words, and by the use of short,
conversational-type sentences rather than by long, formal sentences. He adds that the
personal touch can best be achieved by keeping a specific reader in mind instead of writing
to a general audience.
Cory (1996: 103) sees the informal letter as one that is characterized by the following:
1. There is no need to write the name and the address of the person at the top of the first page.
2. Abbreviations are commonly used for the days and months.
3. Dear is always appropriate ± for family, intimates and even enemies.
4. Most letters start with a reference to the most recent contact with the other person.
5. Most letters end with a reference to the next contact with the other person.
6. Love is a suitable ending for an intimate friend of either sex.
7. More affectionate: All my love, Love and kisses, Lots of love (for intimates). For a friend or
colleague: All the best, Best wishes. For a personal letter, but not to a personal friend: Yours,
Regards.
8. Technical devices. Someone's writing would sound more informal if he/she:
(a) were friendly and humorous,
(b) referred to common friends,
(c) referred to things already known by his/her addressee,
(d) wrote in `spoken' English (used personal constructions/phrases with I and you),
(e) used informal vocabulary, including phrasal verbs and informal linking words (see Cory,
1996: 113).
Letter-writing in Arabic
Arabic is completely different because there are two distinct but interrelated varieties
in the same language used side by side by the same speech community, with one regarded
as high (H) and the other as low (L). Ferguson (1959) maintains that the functional
distribution for H and L Arabic shows that there are situations in which only L can be
used and others in which only H is appropriate, with very little overlap between the two.
It is well known that the H variety is learned largely, as Ferguson put it, by formal
education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes, but is not used by
any sector of the community for ordinary conversation. The H variety is used then for
most types of writing. Letter-writing, of both types, formal and informal, are no
exception. Linguistically speaking, both types of writing (the formal and informal) are
characterized by being formal since they are written in the H variety. So, the substance of
the letter is important because it is the crucial element which differentiates the formal
from the non-formal. This is because informality of style in writing Arabic personal
letters can be achieved not by using different types of language in terms of grammar and
lexicon, but by giving less formal facts or information in terms of the relationship of the
writer to the reader. Another means by which one may achieve informality of style is by
using more colloquial lexical items, particularly those which are seen as lexical borrow-
ings from the classical variety.
An examination of a number of model personal letters suggests that the letters would
still sound formal even if they were written to brothers, intimates or friends, and this
tendency can be ascribed to the rhetorical form employed in classical Arabic.
The layouts of both the formal and informal types of letters are almost the same in

Arabic. Among the conventions on which letter-writing in Arabic is based, are the
following:
1. Neither the sender's address nor the receiver's address should be put at the top of the first page.
Rather Arab writers usually write their addresses on the back of the envelope.
2. The date is often put at the top of the first page, left side.
3. Most letters are headed by the invocation `Ìn the name of God . . .''
4. The addressee is usually referred to as: ?al ?ax ?al ¿aziz ``dear brother'', or Sadiqi ?al ¿aziz x
``my dear friend x'' or ?l Sadiq ?alhbib ``My beloved friend' etc.
5. The title of the addressee is followed immediately by the formulary phrase taHiya Tayeba
waba¿ d ``good greetings and now then''.
6. The substance of the letter follows.
7. Most letters end with such expression as ma¿ ?atyab ?altahiyat ``with best wishes''.
8. ?axikum ?al muxlis ``your faithful brother'' or Sadiqakum ?l muxlis ``your faithful friend'' is a
suitable ending for an intimate friend of either sex.
A personal letter may sound informal, then, by using such techniques:

1. be friendly and humorous,
2. refer to memories already known by the addressee,
3. refer to common friends,
4. use some colloquial items of classical origin every now and then,
5. ask a lot of personal questions about the recipient and common friends, relatives, family, and
so on.
It is worth noting that the same punctuation is used regardless of whether the letter is
formal or informal. Abbreviations, contractions and ellipsis have no place at all in Arabic
letter-writing, except for those borrowed from English language tradition. It is also
worthwhile to note that personal letters are lengthy in nature, they may be of two or
three pages in length.
The substance of letters in Arabic is different from that in English. This could be due to a
wealth of reasons, one of which is the rhetorical nature of classical Arabic as a literary
means of communication. Shouby (1951), an Arab psychologist, assumes that literary
Arabic can be linked to the ideal self and colloquial Arabic to the real self of the Arab
psyche. As far as literary writing is concerned, Shouby (1951: 293) argues that
It is still impossible for any Arab to write with no consideration for such grammatical, idiomatic,
or stylistic requirements as are exemplified in the Qur'an without running the risk of being
denounced as an ignorant or stupid person, if not as an impudent abuser of the integrity of Arabic
as well as of the sacredness of the revealed word of God.
Letter-writing is no exception. A person also has to be careful even if the letter is written
to an intimate. All grammatical and stylistic requirements have to be taken into
consideration. Even if a letter-writer attempts to liberate himself from the burden of
formality imposed on him, he will not be able to succeed.
ANALYSIS
The role of culture specific knowledge, i.e. stereotypes
Greeting stereotypes. The use of greetings or salutations is one important strategy by
which a speaker/writer attempts to please, and as such win the ``social approval'' of the

addressee. The most common form that can be utilized by a Jordanian or Arab letter-writer
is to ask about the recipient, family, and health. That is, the addressee has to be asked how
he/she is treated by life (i.e. how he is), and about his family (i.e. how the children and family
are), and about health (i.e. how health is). Such questions are usually followed by a number
of hopes and wishes like `Ì hope you are fine'', or ``the family is fine'' or ``you are in good
health''. The reason why Jordanians begin their letters by asking such questions is because
they, in general, place great value on relatives, friends and relationships. Consequently, a
substantial amount of space is devoted in the letter for the greetings and for asking about
health and how things are going. This could be a reflection of the verbal behavior of
Jordanian people in which friends spend a considerable amount of time asking such
personal questions upon meeting each other.
Interestingly, an examination of the data shows that 65 percent of the collected letters
were found to take on a local Jordanian dimension, by employing the greeting forms used
by Jordanians. To illustrate, let us have a look at the three introductory excerpts in
examples (1), (2), and (3) below, which are taken from three different letters.
(1) How are you? How is you family? How are your parents? I wish that you and your family are
in good health.
(2) I want to begin my letter by asking about your health and study, and about our friend x's
health.
(3) First of all, I'd like to ask you about your health, and about your parents.
Although ``question opening'' is one effective technique by which L1 writers may open
their letters, the use of such a technique appears to be not so effective because the writers
here tend to infringe the Gricean maxims of Manner and Quality; that is, the introductory
parts of the letters are written according to an Arab style of writing, and are also lengthy in
terms of questioning (not concise) and are not to the point. Concise here does not mean
abrupt or curt, rather it means to greet the addressee in a few words in a way that is
compatible with the addressee's world. However, upon reading a letter opening with an
Arab type of greeting (asking about health) a British addressee may communicatively
receive the message by implicating that his health was not good, i.e., he was unwell. This
implicature is also brought about on the part of the British L1 speaker of English by
infringing the Manner maxim, i.e., where British people do not begin their letters with such
lengthy questioning.
Lastly, although these introductory greetings are written to serve a number of social
functions, i.e., to please the addressee and to win her/his ``social approval'', the writers
appear to have utilized a polite manner varying from that used by British people to convey
the message of solidarity. This method might not have a positive effect on L1 speakers had
they not been cooperative and able to adapt to cultural norms other than their own.
On asking the British respondent about his reaction to this phenomenon he reported that
although British people may begin their letters with ``how are you?' or ``how is the family?'',
it is not the norm for most of them to ask such questions as much as Arab people do.
Gender-segregation stereotypes. In Arab society the gender of the addressee in relation to

the addresser may provide information about the type of language being used in terms of
form and content. Segregation of sexes is one of the main features that characterize Arab
society. Although the present study data were collected from students (males and females)
who were enrolled in co-educational institutions, it seems that the students were still aware

of the cultural norms of their society which impose a great deal of restrictions on a man±
woman relationship. The two gender groups do not exist in isolation from one another, but
instead interact in a number of subtle ways.
A close examination of the data shows that 92 percent of the letters written by females
were addressed to females, and 85 percent of those written by males were addressed to
males. Thus, these results indicate that the writers were apparently still aware of the
sociological norms of their society, which impose, as said previously, some limitations on
mixed gender relationships, e.g. prohibiting a lady from corresponding with strangers. So,
each student tended to choose his/her penfriend from the same sex group. It has also been
noticed that the gender of the writer appeared to play a role in the type of topics, interests
and hobbies discussed in the letters. In this regard, Rubin (1984: 265) argues that ``the
needs, goals, attitudes, habits and values of the individuals involved represent another
source of influence on communication within relationships.'' In like manner, Nystrand
(1986: 48) claims that ``the shape and conduct of discourse is determined not only by what
the speaker or writer has to say or complete but also by joint expectations of the
conversants that they should understand one another.''
Communal stereotypical attributes. Communal attributes also appear to have left their
effect on letter-writing. An invitation, for example, is a social act by which somebody asks
a friend or colleague, in a friendly or polite way, to participate in a social event. Low (1978)
maintains that an informal invitation should reveal the friendly personality of the writer. It
should also be cordial and gracious in tone and should give all details about the when,
where, why and possibly even the who. But such details could be given in different ways of
cordiality and politeness. Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) have introduced a convincing
account of the different ways in which people can convey politeness and cordiality. That is,
they believe that the distinction is basically based on the nature of societies and on whether
such societies are positive or negative politeness societies. Sifianou (1989) concluded that
no society is likely to be completely uniform in its politeness strategies. Societies can be
distinguished as being relatively more positive or negative. She also maintains that: ``Since
this politeness orientation is relative rather than absolute, it follows that even two societies
will not exhibit identical preferences of strategies. The interactional needs of participants
which determine the choice of strategies will vary even within the same system, let alone
cross-culturally'' (p. 529).
Evidence from the present study also seems to support this allegation. The difference
between the behavior of our students and that of British English L1 readers seems to fit
neatly with this distinction (see Sifiano, 1989).
In both Jordanian and British cultures, acts of inviting and offering are characterized by
being politely and cordially made. However, the distinction between the two ways of
inviting and offering seems to fall between the type of strategies being used by each society.
Like Greeks (see Sifiano, 1989), Jordanians tend to prefer positive politeness strategies like
in-group markers, more direct construction, and as such they prefer to use linguistic
devices which sound `òptimistic' about the outcome of the encounter. On the contrary, the
British tend to prefer and use negative politeness strategies. As Sifiano (1989) puts it, ``they
equate indirectness, the main motivation of negative politeness, with politeness, and this
contributes to the elaboration of the structure and the tentativeness of the message.''
Example (4) is a case in point, where the two societies use two different patterns of
politeness strategies.

(4) Dear Mary,

How are You? How is your work? How is the family? I hope you are in good health when
you receive my letter. I want to invite you to Jordan. By the way, I am still waiting for you to
come and visit us here as you promised me before. Everybody around is willing to see you because
I keep talking about you to my friends. I'm sure that you will have lots of fun when you visit the
various ancient places in Jordan . . . and spending marvelous beautiful nights in our country. I'll
be waiting for you. Please come soon, and don't make me get angry with you. All love for
everybody. Do not forget to send me fax, when you want to come. See you soon.
Yours Sincerely,
X
The politeness in this letter basically resides in the insistence of the writer on her friend (the
addressee) to accept her invitation. In Arab society, in general, and in Jordanian society in
particular, insistence and repeated offering can be seen as a clear mark of generosity.
Jordanian society has a special patterning for inviting and accepting. That is, when two
people engage in an encounter, the one who offers should insist on offering and the one
who is being invited should bashfully reject the offer (but fully intend to accept it later). In
other words, the recipient is expected to reject an offer several times, before accepting it
with a show of reluctance. To invite without insistence means that the concerned person is
not serious about the invitation, and offers it as a mere remark of courtesy; and to accept
the offer without reluctance means that the recipient is gluttonous, and may be described
as an ill-behaved person.
By contrast, British people do not use such a politeness strategy (see Thomas, 1995),
rather an invitation may be made directly and once. At the very best, in case of reluctance
it could be followed by `àre you sure?'' Many of my colleagues who were conversant with
British culture, having lived in Britain for a number of years as students, reported several
cases in which they were obliged to accept an invitation/offer from the first time. Had they
refused to accept it, as they said, from the first time, they might lose the chance to take part
in the event they were invited to.
So, the tactic of invitation utilized by this student appears to infringe on at least two
maxims, though to varying degrees. Firstly, the maxim of Manner ± her insistence results
in a great deal of repetition, and expressing the message in a long-winded way; and
secondly the maxim of Quantity ± the letter includes a lot of redundancy as the writer
seems to be more informative than is required. It should be noted that more than 40 cases
like this have been observed in the data.
This extract conversationally implicates, from an Arab point of view, that the writer is
very generous. This implicature is brought about by the insistence on the writer's friend to
accept the invitation. Thus, the addressee would find herself invited in a fashion different
from that used in her society. Again, this tactic would have never worked had the addressee
not been cooperative (i.e., accepted the invitation, although it was made according to a
foreign patterning).
As for the reactions of the respondents to this invitation, one of the American
respondents summarized her reaction in few words by saying, `Ì feel pressured. I would
like a less direct invitation'' (i.e. an invitation in a less insistent mode).
Religious stereotypes. Religion was also found to play a role in the process. A
considerable number of religious expressions were found to be used heavily by the
letter-writers. For example, eight letters (written by both males and females) were found

to be headed with the invocation In the name of God, the Beneficent, and the Merciful. ?in
sha?a ?aLLah (God willing) was also another expression of wish, which was found to be
utilized more than 20 times by letter-writers. The use of such expressions is taken from the
Arab and Islamic tradition, where the writer tends to say ``God willing'' wherever he/she
wishes something good to happen in the future.
It is highly likely that the sociocultural rationale behind using these expressions is to
enhance solidarity and to achieve more trustworthiness on the part of the hearer/receiver
(see Al-Khatib, 1994). To illustrate the use of the latter type of expressions, consider the
example in (5) below:
(5) Thank you for your letter informing me that you are coming soon, I am so happy to receive
such a letter from you. I am looking forward to meeting you soon in Amman, Inshallah.
By using such an expression, it seems that the writer here tends to exploit this religious
strategy in order to win the addressee's social approval, by communicating the message
that she or he is a religious person and believes that everything can come into being by the
willingness of God. So, it is highly likely that the writer here has no intention of generating
an implicature, nor does she or he intend to deceive. It is rather a failure to observe the
maxim of Manner ± such an expression is not used by British English native speakers ±
simply because of ignorance of the sociocultural background of British society. Again, it
should be noted here that infringing the maxim of Manner by the writer is often meant to
uphold the politeness strategy on a scale different from that used by British people. To put
it differently, it is highly likely that the writer here meant to follow some maxims of
politeness (e.g., Tact maxim) at the expense of the maxim of Manner.
Intrinsic stereotypes. In Jordan, the most appropriate way to honor a guest is to offer
him the popular Jordanian meal, Al-Mansaf. Al-Mansaf is a food made with rice, big
portions of lamb meat and a sauce of yogurt or semi-solid curdled milk.
It has been noticed that some of the students have attempted to fulfill the PP by
including in their invitations some information about the type of food that they would
offer if the recipients accepted their invitations. Consider the example in (6) below:
(6) Dear Sara,
How are you? How is your brother Jim? I wish you are both very fine, and you are in very
good health. If you would ask about me, I'm very fine. I would like to take this opportunity to
invite you to visit us in Jordan, where you can visit many places such as Al-Aqaba and its
beautiful beach, Al-Rabad castle in Ajloun and many other beautiful places. Then I will show
you some of our traditions; and let you taste our special food, Al-Mansaf. And so many other
things are waiting for you to see. I would like to tell you that you are most welcome to stay with
us in our home.
I'll be waiting for your telephone call. Please let me know when you will be here in Jordan.
With best wishes.
Yours truly,
Y
The writer (a female student) here wants to tell her friend that she will acquaint her with
some of the Jordanian traditions, and promises to let her try Al-Mansaf food. Also, she
says that many other beautiful surprises are still waiting for the guest.
The content of this extract seems to mirror the stereotypical belief in the proper Arab
tradition, which stipulates that guests have to be hosted for at least three consecutive days

without asking them about their wants. To put it differently, as a mark of generosity, Arab
people tend to honor a notable guest by offering a resting place and the most delicious type
of food. This standardly implies that the guest is very important, and the writer here as a
host seems to make use of an intrinsic local stereotype for honoring her guest. The method
of inviting used here appears to infringe the maxim of Quantity, by making the writer's
contribution to the exchange less informative than is required. That is, talking about a type
of food which is unknown to the addressee, without giving any idea about what it is made
of or how it is made. Also, it is most likely that she meant to flout the maxim of Manner
(wording her message in an ambiguous way, by saying ``so many other things are waiting
for you'') so as to entice the addressee to make her visit.
So, failure on the part of this writer to observe the maxims of Quantity and Manner,
without any intention of deceiving, may result in confusion on the part of the L1 reader.
The addressee, therefore, would find herself obliged to look for additional meaning,
``conversational implicature'', so as to be able to get something from the message.
Local politeness strategies

As said previously, another goal of this investigation is to examine the effect of local
politeness strategies on the type of information being conveyed by the letters. The rationale
behind studying such strategies is to shed light on an important aspect which is believed to
be so efficient in hindering intelligibility between speakers of two different cultures, and
which has been completely ignored in the pedagogical, but not in the socio-psychological,
studies of language teaching and learning. Talking of the importance of studying language
and language teaching in relation to culture, Clyne (1981) says that successful com-
munication may require knowledge of culturally bound rules. Sifianou (1989) adds
`ìncluding rules relating to the selection of the appropriate politeness strategy''.
A pilot study of the errors made by the university students in writing English essays
shows that a large number of such errors are due to an ignorance on the part of the writers
of the sociocultural background of the language. And most of such errors can be ascribed,
more specifically, to ignorance of the politeness strategies governing language use. There-
fore, the interactional differences between Arab and British societies, including the
differences in letter-writing interaction, should be taken into consideration in any program
of teaching English as FL and L2.
Differences like these can be clearly detected and explained along the lines of Leech's
maxims (1983) of politeness, which appear to provide a convincing account of the various
ways in which people can convey politeness. Nevertheless, an attempt will also be made to
make use of the Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) model of politeness. As said earlier, this
latter model of politeness distinguishes between positive and negative politeness societies, a
distinction that, as Sifianou (1989: 529) puts it, ``can shed considerable light on the
differences in the social relationships prevailing in different cultures''.
To illustrate some of these differences, observe the example in (7):
(7) This year I try once again to invite you to visit me in Jordan. Last year I invited you but you
declined because you were so busy. But this time you have no choice, you have to come
(accept the invitation) whether you are busy or not.
The writer here resorts to a tactic typical of Arab culture, i.e., friends have the right to
impose things on their friends, without giving them the chance to say no. This can be
implied by using the expression of necessity ``have to''. It is evident that the writer here feels

little need to employ indirectness (a strategy of politeness). In other words, he attempts to

``maximize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other''. Such a tactic seems to
violate the second aspect of the Tact maxim which calls for mitigating the effect of a
request by offering optionality, or ``give options'' as Lakoff (1973) puts it.
What happens here is that the writer attempts to make use of the Generosity maxim
``minimize the expression of benefit to self and maximize the expression of cost to self '', at
the expense of other maxims, namely the aspect of mitigating the effect of a request by
offering optionality. As said earlier, a serious offer and/or invitation, according to the
Arab cultural norms, should be made with more insistence on the part of the inviter so as
to make the target person accept the offer/invitation. So, unless the L1 reader is able to go
beyond the surface meaning of the text to capture the intended politeness which resides in
the use of the expression of necessity ``have to'', and which is, in turn, governed by the
sociocultural background of the user, he would not be able to appreciate the message. It is
worth noting here that the British respondent completely agrees with this analysis.
The writer's expectation of the reader's reaction to the invitation is also another example
in which some of the students infringe the second aspect of the Tact maxim. It has been
observed that more than two-thirds (66 percent) of the collected letters are written in a
mode where the writer expects his invitation to be accepted by the reader without
hesitation. Consider the examples (8, 9 and 10) below:
(8) I'm sure you have already accepted my invitation. I'm looking forward to seeing you in the
airport next week.
(9) I will be glad to meet you on the 16th of this month in the airport. Until then, with all my
love.
(10) Please send me a letter informing me of the time of your arrival. Welcome to Jordan, Jane.
These three extracts are good examples of violating the second aspect of the Tact maxim,
which stipulates that a speaker should mitigate the effect of a request by offering
optionality. The writers still believe that a friend has no right to say ``no''. This method
could be appreciated by Arab people on the ground that the addressee is made to feel very
important to the addresser, and as such her/his acceptance of the invitation is most
welcomed. By contrast, many British people, for example, would see it as a kind of
intrusiveness since they do not appreciate the imposition of things on them by others, even
if an intimate friend makes the offer.
Once again, this method would never have worked had the L1 reader not been
cooperative, i.e., tolerant and quite aware of the sociocultural norms of Jordanian society
and of the fact that what counts as polite behavior in one society may differ substantially in
another.
An examination of the data also shows that two other important maxims (the
Approbation maxim and the Modesty maxim), which vary enormously in their application
from one culture to another, have been violated frequently by the letter-writers, as the
following examples illustrate:
(11) I am writing to you from my lovely country, Jordan, after two years from my last visit to
your town in England.
(12) When you come to my beautiful country, I'll show you many beautiful things that you have
never seen in your country.

(13) Jordan is the most beautiful country, come and see it, and I am quite sure that you have not
seen another country like it.
These texts seem to violate the maxims of Approbation and Modesty on the ground that
the writers tend to praise their country without expressing approval of or praising the
addressee's country. No single word of praise of the addressees' country was mentioned in
the three letters discussed above.
Differences between the politeness strategies used in Arab society and those in Britain
may also lead, in cross-cultural communication, to misunderstanding on the part of both
the writer and the reader. This is illustrated in the following example
(14) My sweetheart, I want you to be with me in these nice days. So, please come to visit me, and
you will stay with me in my own room.
This example is taken from a lengthy letter written by a female student to a female
friend. She informs her earlier that she (the writer) is about to get married, and invites the
friend to spend with her these nice days ± the few days preceding the wedding party. She
also promises the addressee to let her stay with her in ``her own room''.
On the face of it, the text appears to be written on the basis of a cultural background
different from that in Britain. It seems clear that the writer was not aware of the
appropriate norm of address that should be used by a female writer in addressing a
female friend. In Arabic letter-writing, it is something usual for a friend to address her/his
friend by using such norms as ?al ?ax ?l Habib `my beloved brother', or Habibati x `my
love x'. As a matter of politeness, these expressions may be repeated several times,
particularly at the beginning of every single paragraph so as to show a kind of solidarity
between the writer and the reader. So, it seems that the method of writing used by this
writer is clearly affected by her sociolinguistic background without taking into considera-
tion the sociolinguistic background of her addressee.
On encountering such a text, an Anglo-American L1 reader may think an inhar-
monious relationship links the addresser to the addressee, as they belong to the same sex
group. This view could also be supported by the last clause in example (14) ``You will stay
with me in my own room.'' But, in reality, the writer here attempts to exploit the maxim
of Generosity from an Arab point of view, i.e., be more generous by minimizing the
expression of benefit to self, and maximizing the expression of cost to self. In other words
she intends to tell her friend that she would not need to take the trouble of staying in a
hotel or somewhere else. This view can be supported by the fact that the writer's offer here
appears to be expressed politely without employing any kind of indirectness. However,
since this offer is made in a letter written to someone who is supposed to have some degree
of mutual understanding of the cultural norms of Arab society, the unpleasant effect is
expected to be very minimal, provided the recipient makes an adequate effort to
accommodate the writer's intentions.
In asking a female American colleague (one of the four respondents) about her reaction
to this letter of invitation, she responded that `Ì would be offended by sweetheart because
it is used in romantic relationships. I would also be concerned about staying with her after
such an implication.'' This view, thus, seems to support the comment which I made earlier
on this letter.

DISCUSSION
To provide an adequate description of the conventions governing letter-writing as a
mode of communication between a Jordanian L2 writer and a British L1 reader, we must
first understand the sociolinguistic behavior of the people concerned. At least five basic
questions arise in this regard.
1. From a performance perspective, what is the most remarkable difference between the two
concerned languages, Arabic and English?
2. How does a Jordanian writer behave when talking or writing in a language different from his
own?
3. What elements may affect intelligibility between the writer and the reader?
4. In order to create a kind of intelligibility between the two concerned parties (i.e. the addresser
and the addressee) who should adapt to whom (the writer or the reader)?
5. What linguistic and psycholinguistic inferences, if any, can be drawn about the competence of
our students as L2 learners?
Some of these questions have been addressed sporadically in previous literature since the
1960s (see, for example, Kaplan, 1966, 1987; Doushaq, 1986; Grabe and Kaplan, 1996;
Loulidi, 1997), but no single question of these was considered systematically in pragmatic-
based research. What was, in part, absent in these studies was consideration of the effect of
what are called ``mutual knowledge'' and/or ``shared knowledge'' on intelligibility. These
two factors, considered to be of great importance in studying many linguistic phenomena,
have almost been ignored in the pedagogical, but not in the socio-psychological, studies of
language teaching and learning.
Talking of the importance of these factors in the process of communication, Nystrand
(1986: 52±3) defined ``mutual knowledge'' as the knowledge that two or more individuals
possess in common. ``Shared knowledge'', on the other hand, is the result of people
exchanging whatever knowledge they have, mutual or not. Nystrand sees ``mutual know-
ledge'' as important because it defines the possibilities for establishing a mutual frame of
reference. He adds that with the absence of mutual knowledge the writer would not be able
to write, nor would the reader be able to get much from the text.
The linguistic behavior of Jordanian students was vividly exemplified in the examples
discussed above. For instance, it has been observed that the majority of the subjects (92
percent) tend to transfer a wealth of both cultural and sociolinguistic norms into their
writings. Previous research (see Ostler, 1987) on the written English of Arab students
learning English as a foreign language showed that the rhetorical structure of the writers'
essays would still sound foreign even if there were no mistakes. Ostler argues that this
tendency derives from the rhetorical form employed in classical Arabic. Kaplan (1987: 16),
who also noticed that there is a difference between writing and writing-text composing,
believes that Arabic discourse structure is characterized by a complex series of parallel
constructions. He also reported that Arab writers tend to use co-ordination relying on
conjunctions such as and, but etc. in contrast to English writers where maturity of style is
often gauged by degree of subordination. Put differently, he noticed that Arab students
who were writing in English were seen as writing in a pattern characterized by repetition
(Grabe and Kaplan, 1996). Similarly, Koch (1981) found that repetition is a major text-
building strategy that occurs on all levels in Arabic ± phonological, lexical, syntactic and
semantic.

Evidence from the present study seems also to support this assertion. Repetition and
elaborate parallelism (two examples of indirectness) are found to be two main character-
istics of the material written by our students. I assume that the difference in text-building
strategies between the two languages ± Arabic and English ± is not the only element
responsible for indirectness, but rather that the absence of ``mutual knowledge'' between
the two concerned parties (the writer and the reader) is also another important element in
the process.
A close examination of the data shows that most writers tend to emphasize their ideas by
repeating and paraphrasing them, and sometimes by handling them in an indirect way.
When I checked on the writers' awareness of this phenomenon, the majority of them
reported that this method of writing could be due to their awareness of the fact that they
were talking to somebody of a different sociocultural background. So, they felt that their
ideas would be received more easily if they were to be presented in an elaborated way, i.e.
emphasized by repetition. Habits like these, which were replicated in a large number of
letters, are a manifestation of the students' linguistic behavior while writing in English and
a response to questions (1), (2) and (3) above.
So far, we have seen how intelligibility between L2 writers and L1 readers could be
partially affected by the students' linguistic behavior in terms of either bad learning of the
target language or/and the effect of habits inherited from their mother tongue on their
performance. I have argued earlier that a lack of understanding could be related to
culturally specific patterns of interaction. Among these are the differences between the two
concerned cultures in relation to politeness strategies.
It has been observed earlier that Jordanian society can be classified as a positive
politeness society whereby people value intimacy as an indication of their closeness with
others. Brown and Ford (1964: 236) (reported in Sifianou 1989: 539) believe that ``the
principal factors predisposing to intimacy seem to be shared values . . . and frequent
contact. Among the behavioral manifestations of intimacy, a relatively complete and
honest self-disclosure is important.'' Like the Greeks, who are from a positive politeness
society, Jordanians are likely to see their relatives and close friends every day and to
discuss many personal issues with them. Moreover, they tend to express their views and
opinions voluntarily even to complete strangers on buses or in social gatherings.
Sifianou (1989) has reported that by contrast, the English, showing a more negative
politeness orientation, value distance as an indication of their unwillingness to impose on
others. She also adds that this distance, with its derivative formality, is reflected in the
forms with which they respond over the phone as a means of communication. The same is
also true with regard to letter-writing as a mode of communication. The difference between
Jordanian society and British society in terms of politeness strategies leads to the
conclusion that different values are attached to letter-writing as a mode of communication,
whether in terms of form or content. Differences like these might be the elements
responsible for the lack of understanding between a Jordanian L2 writer and a British
L1 reader.
Having said that, the question which still remains without answer is who should adapt to
whom? The accommodation theory which is basically established on a number of social
and psychological assumptions, assumes that speakers tend, in face-to-face interaction, to
accommodate their speech style to that of their interlocutors in order to win their social
approval (see Giles and Smith, 1979; Al-Khatib, 1988, 1995). Also, Giles and Smith argue
that convergence between speakers may take place on a number of levels ± pronunciation,

speech rate, and message content ± and that convergence on all three levels is more highly
evaluated by the addressee than it is on merely one or two levels. Although the theory of
accommodation was devised to account for encounters in face-to-face interaction, it could
also be valid to account for cases of the type under investigation (i.e. letter-writing),
particularly if we know that writing, as Nystrand (1986) puts it, `ìs no less interactive than
speech in either principle or practice''.
In view of these assumptions, one might claim then that accommodation has to be
mutual and bi-directional. That is, both the L2 writer and the L1 reader have to adapt to
each other in order for the process of communication to be accomplished successfully. It
should be no more than becoming sensitive to the cross-cultural requirements, which are
applicable to both the L2 writer and the L1 reader, in order for such letters to be
appreciated and perhaps acceptable. If this is the case, then the problem of misunder-
standing some of the expressions is minimal, provided that there is an adequate degree of
mutual desire to accommodate each other's intentions. It should be noted here that when
talking of adaptation on the part of both the L2 writer and the L1 reader, I am not
implying that the letters should be read as though they were written by a British English
native speaker, nor am I recommending that such letters should sound completely British.
Rather what I suggest is that they should retain some indications of the Jordanian local
politeness strategies without jeopardizing the amount of intelligibility between the writer
and the reader. This is because in the absence of such culture-specific expressions,
communication in these letters would be so cut and dry that people would find it less
interesting. Such letters are more likely to be written to people who have some degree of
mutual understanding of each other's culture and way of life.
The answer to the fifth question is partially implied in the discussion of the first four
questions, for, as Grabe and Kaplan (1996: 208) state:
The extent of shared background will influence the writing to a considerable degree; that is,
readers with a high degree of shared background knowledge are likely to influence the writing in
particular ways. Writing for readers who are familiar with current events in certain cultural
context will allow the writer to anticipate general knowledge on the part of the reader, and to
allude to types of knowledge which separate those who know from those who do not.
In like manner, Nystrand (1986: 71) among others (e.g. Brandt, 1990), assumes that:
The expectation for reciprocity in discourse is important because it means that the shape and
conduct of discourse is determined not only by what the speaker or writer has to say (speaker/
writer meaning) or accomplish (speaker/ writer purpose) but also by the joint expectations of the
conversants that they should understand one another (producer±receiver contract).
If these assumptions can be confirmed through empirical studies other than this one,
then the error-based analyses of writing in L2 would have to be taken only as a very partial
description of a very complex phenomenon. Consequently, the hypotheses proposed
therein cannot be considered as convincing explanations of this phenomenon. Rather to
devise an adequate explanation of the phenomenon, we need to integrate the structural
facts with the relevant socio-psychological elements. This can be achieved by taking into
consideration the linguistic data and the socio-psychological factors governing their use.
From the results of this investigation we can draw further inferences not only about the
competence of L2 learners, but also about why, how and to what extent the performance of
such learners is constrained by socio-psychological factors.

CONCLUSION
The main objective of this study as set out in the introduction was to shed light on the
problems encountered by Jordanian university students of English in communicating in
writing with native speakers of the language. Unlike most previous research, this paper
attempted to handle the difficulties encountered by the subjects in terms of the cultural
background of both the L2 writer and the L1 reader.
I have demonstrated that some of the difficulties encountered by the students in writing
English personal letters were due to ignorance on their part of the cultural norms
governing the use of language. Moreover, it has been shown that, in addition to the
primary function of communicating a particular message, the letters communicated a great
deal of information about the writers, their style of writing, and the socicultural norms of
their society as well. Such information was found to be encoded in both the linguistic and
structural features of the letters. In light of the account presented earlier of the ways in
which Jordanians can express their politeness, one may claim that Arab people in general
and Jordanian people in particular, tend to utilize politeness strategies different from those
used by the British. The above findings, then, clearly illustrate the variability of presenting
ideas and politeness due to contextual influences. In particular, they suggest that the
content and the form of the letters are culturally shaped by interactional elements that
should be taken into consideration in the process of language teaching and learning.
This study reveals that the data (the collected letters) dealt with here can be understood
clearly only by readers and writers who have a certain degree of mutual knowledge, and
therefore, highlights the need for L1 speakers to be more tolerant in order for the intended
message to be received and appreciated by them. This has some implications for socio-
linguistics, pragmatics and language teaching and learning.
Finally, further research into the writers' awareness of the effect of culture and other
socio-psychological issues on letter-writing could shed additional light on the mechanism
of language teaching in general, and teaching English as a foreign language in particular.
Although this study has contributed to a better understanding of conversational interac-
tion in general, further research is still needed if we want to reach a more thorough
understanding of the nature of human interaction. Answering questions pertaining to the
absent, but important paralinguistic cues, which are usually present in face-to-face
interaction, can help achieve this.
NOTES
1. This paper is based on my plenary talk given at the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied
Linguistics (`Language Across Boundaries') held at Homerton College, Cambridge, England, in September
2000. The author is grateful to Dr. Brenda Refa'i and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments
on an earlier draft.
2. In both cases the students were third or fourth year English majors. The rationale behind choosing the
respondents from these two universities was to see whether the type of education that they received (private or
public) had any influence on their performance. No significant difference between them was observed,
particularly in terms of letter-writing (i.e., content); however, the performance of the public university students
was better in terms of language use and composition.

REFERENCES
Al-Khatib, Mahmoud A. (1988) Sociolinguistic change in an expanding urban context: A case study of Irbid city,
Jordan. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Durham.
Al-Khatib, Mahmoud A. (1994) A sociolinguistic view of the language of persuasion in Jordanian society.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 7(2), 161±74.
Al-Khatib, Mahmoud A. (1995) The impact of interlocutor sex on linguistic accommodation: A case study of
Jordan radio phone-in programs. Multilingua, 14(2), 133±50.
Apt-Mahadev, L. (1985) Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. London: Cornell University Press.
Bentahila, Abdelali and Davies, Eirlys (1989) Culture and language use: A problem for foreign language teaching.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 99±112.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, J. C. (1994) Language relationship to language in the teaching situation. In
Academic Discourse. Edited by Pierre Bourdieu, J. C. Passeron and M. Saint Martin. Cambridge: Polity Press,
pp. 1±34.
Brandt, Deborah (1990) Literacy as Involvement: The Acts of Writers, Readers, and Texts. Carbondale and
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University press.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Questions
and Politeness. Edited by E. N. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 56± 280.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roger and Ford, M. (1964) Address in American English. In Language in Culture and Society. Edited by
D. Hymes. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 234±44.
Clyne, Michael (1981) Culture and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 61±6.
Clyne, Michael (1983) Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: Contrastive studies: English and
German. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 3, 38±49.
Clyne, Michael (1987) Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211±47.
Conner, Ulla (1995) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge, England
and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Conner, Ulla and Kaplan, Robert B. (1987) Writing Across Cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cory, Hugh (1996) Advanced Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doushaq, M. H. (1986) An investigation into stylistic errors of Arab students learning English for academic
purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 5(1), 27±39.
Downes, William (1984) Language and Society. London: Fontana Paperbacks.
Dundes, Alan (1971) A Study of Ethnic Slurs: The Jew and the Polack in the United Analysis, vol. 2. London:
Academic Press, pp. 137±57.
Farghal, Mohammed and Shakir, Abdullah (1993) Gulf jokes in the Jordanian streets: A socio-semantico and
pragmatic perspective. Journal of Arabic and Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, 1, 15±25.
Ferguson, Charles A. (1959) Diglossia. Word, 15, 325±40.
Giles, Howard and Smith, Philip (1979) Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In Language and
Social Psychology. Edited by H. Giles and R. St. Clair. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 45±65.
Goffman, Erving (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays and face-to-face behavior. New York: Garden City.
Grabe, William and Kaplan, Robert B. (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. London: Longman.
Grice, Paul. H. (1975) Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts. Edited by P. Cole and
J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41±58.
Hill, Jane H. and Irvine, Judith T. (1993) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hinds, Joyce (1983) Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: contrastive studies: English and
Japanese. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 78±84.
James, Carl (1980) Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
Jones, Carys, Turner, Joan and Street, Brian (eds) (1999) Students Writing in the University: Cultural and
epistemological issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kachru, Braj B. (1986) The Alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. London:
Pergamon. (Reprinted 1986, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.)
Kachru, Braj B. (1992) Meaning in deviation: Toward understanding non-native English texts. In The Other
Tongue: English Across Cultures. Edited by Braj B. Kachru. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, Yamuna (1994) Monolingual bias in Second Language Acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4),
795±800.
Kachru, Yamuna (1997) Cultural meaning and rhetorical styles: toward a framework for contrastive rhetoric. In
Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Edited by G. Cook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171±85.
Kaplan, Robert B. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1±20.
Kaplan, Robert B. (1987) Cultural thought patterns revisited. In Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 text.
Edited by U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan. Workingham, England and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 9±22.

Koch, Barbra J. (1981) Repetition in Discourse: Cohesion and Persuasion in Arabic Argumentative Prose. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lakoff, Robin (1973) The Logic of Politeness; or minding your P's and Q's. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leki, Ilona (1991) Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(1), 123±43.
Lippman, William (1922) Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Loulidi, Rafik (1997) Language Contact and Language Conflict in Morocco: A Survey of Language Use and
Attitudes Among School Bilingual Learners. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ulster.
Low, David R. (1978) Effective Speaking and Writing. England: Career Institute, Inc.
Mauranen, Anna (1992) Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text linguistic study. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Birmingham.
Mauranen, Anna (1993) Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish±English economics texts. English for
Specific Purposes, 12, 3±22.
Nelson, G. L. (1997) How cultural differences affect written and oral communication: The case of peer response
groups. In Approaches to Teaching Non-native English Speakers Across the Curriculum. Edited by David
L. Sigsbee, B. W. Speck and B. Maylath, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 76±84.
Nystrand, Martin (1986) The Structure of Written Communication. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
Ostler, S. E. (1987) English in Parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. In Writing Across Cultures.
Edited by U. Conner and R. B. Kaplan. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 169±85.
Oxford, Rebecca (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury
House.
Reynolds, D. W. (1993) Illocutionary acts across languages: editorializing in English. World Englishes, 12(1),
35±46.
Rommetveit, R. (1974) On Message Structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London:
Wiley.
Rubin, Brent D. (1984) Communication and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Saville-Troike, Muriel (1989) The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sifianou, Maria (1989) On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behavior: England versus Greece.
Language in Society, 18, 527±44.
Shouby, E. (1951) The influence of the Arab language on the psychology of the Arab. The Middle East Journal, 5,
284±302.
Tannen, Deborah (1979) Processes and consequences of conversational style. Dissertation, University of
California at Berkeley.
Tannen, Deborah (1984) Cross-cultural communication. CATESOL Occasional Papers, 10, 116.
Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.
(Received 30 June 2000.)

The Pragmatics of Letter Writing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pragmatics of Letter Writing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

c:/3weng/20-2/05-khatib.

3d ± 9/6/1 ± 17:33 ± disk/mp

World Englishes, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 179±200, 2001. 0883±2919

The pragmatics of letter-writing

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on personal letter-writing as a mode of communication between an L2

180 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

restricted communication is possible without a shared knowledge of the sociocultural

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 181

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

182 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

Leech's Politeness Principle

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 183

The notion of stereotype

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

184 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

The significance of this phenomenon in linguistics, especially in the study of conversa-

DATA AND METHOD

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 185

LETTER-WRITING IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC

Having provided an overview of previous literature, and the theoretical background of

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

186 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 187

A personal letter may sound informal, then, by using such techniques:

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

188 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

Gender-segregation stereotypes. In Arab society the gender of the addressee in relation to

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 189

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

190 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

(4) Dear Mary,

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 191

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

192 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

Local politeness strategies

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 193

little need to employ indirectness (a strategy of politeness). In other words, he attempts to

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

194 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 195

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

196 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 197

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

198 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

The pragmatics of letter-writing 199

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

200 Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib

(Received 30 June 2000.)

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

You might also like