Abstract

The 'third space' (Bhabha, 1994) is a way of re-imagining the traditional teacher-student hierarchical relationship. This practitioner research study uses computer-mediated discourse analysis (Herring, 1996) to investigate the potential of email to facilitate such 'third space' communication. It is based on 279 emails exchanged between 10 international ESL students and their lecturer at an Australian university in 2002. The framework for the analysis is the sociolinguistics/pragmatics model of 'positive politeness' (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The study examines the linguistic features of positive politeness evident in the two-way email exchanges and posits that 'claim common ground' and 'share intimate information' are characteristics that indicate movement towards a transcendent third space relationship.

Introduction

According to Nainby, Warren, and Bollinger (2003, p. 198), "one of the greatest challenges facing those of us in the present-day academy is finding ways to educate from, with, and for a multitude of cultural perspectives." Although Nainby et al. (2003), on some levels, question the critical pedagogy of Paulo Freire as articulated in his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), they also acknowledge that "critical educators ... are in part concerned with the breaking down of such taken-for-granted hierarchies as teacher/student [and] expert/novice ... " (Nainby et al., 2003, p. 203).

Freire's concept of 'dialogue' is founded on love, faith, and humility, and leads to a horizontal teacher-student relationship characterized by mutual trust (1993/1970). Freire insists that "education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students" (1993/1970, p. 53, Freire's emphasis). Freire's concept of dialogue potentially provides the foundation for a re-imagining of the teacher-student relationship in a new or 'third' space. It was with this commitment that the email communication task that provides the foundation for the present research was established.

Literature Review

According to Sehlaoui (2001, p. 52), "... the ultimate goal of English as a Second or Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) teachers should not be to provide students with bits of information but rather help them to attain the necessary skills that will enable them to make sense out of the cultural information that they themselves will discover, as critical ethnographers." Sehlaoui's focus is part of a movement to embed intercultural learning in language education (see Byram, 1989; Crichton, Paige, Papademetre, & Scarino, 2004; Liddicoat, 2004; Lo Bianco, Liddicoat, & Crozet, 1999). Most of the literature in this field focuses on facilitating the development of intercultural skills in students. It seems to be taken for granted that teachers (presumably because they are fluent in a second language) are already interculturally competent, and that they transmit this competence to students.

An alternative view of interculturality is that it involves ongoing, mutual development that occurs in the relationship or dialogue between the teacher and learner. It is a matter of mutual transformation rather than transmission, regardless of the socio-cultural-linguistic backgrounds of the teacher or students.

The 'third space,' a term originally coined by Homi K. Bhabha (1994), is a concept used to describe the possibility for a negotiated re-imagining of cultural identity. The third space refers to:

the constructing and re-constructing of identity, to the fluidity of space, to the space where identity is not fixed... [It] is where we negotiate identity and become neither this nor that but our own. 'Third' is used to denote the place where negotiation takes place, where identity is constructed and re-constructed, where life in all its ambiguity is played out. (English, 2002)

In the context of the present research, 'third space' refers to the potential opportunity afforded by the use of email communication for a re-imagining of the teacher-student relationship, which is composed of two very distinct 'cultural identities' predicated on unequal power relations within academia. The third space is an opportunity that opens up and broadens horizons (Hannula, 2001) and challenges ideas of polarity or binary distinctions, replacing either/or with both/and. Negotiating the third space entails listening and giving others the opportunity for self-expression (Hannula, 2001). Importantly, there must be a commitment from both parties to grasping the opportunity.

Ma (1996) analyzed emails between 25 students in East Asia and 20 in North America using a number of propositions relating to the potential for computer-mediated communication (CMC) to facilitate interculturality. In particular, referring to his fifth proposition that "both East Asians and North Americans perceive computer-mediated intercultural communication as a more egalitarian and information-oriented experience than FTF (face to face) intercultural communication" (1996, p. 179), Ma concluded that "in both cultural groups... status difference was unnoticeable" (1996, p. 183). Ma specifically explored the idea that self-disclosure is an indicator of intercultural and intracultural relationships (Jourard 1971, cited in Ma, 1996, p. 179). Having explored intercultural CMC between students, Ma (1996) suggested that an analysis of CMC between students and professors needed to be done.

Sunderland (2002) appears to have accepted the recommendation of Ma (1996). Her research is based on 164 emails from 14 doctoral candidates in Romania to the Program Coordinator (Sunderland) in England over a two-year period (1997-1998). Using language-focused content analysis, Sunderland (2002) coded the emails into two main categories: responding and initiating messages. She concluded that the benefits of email included: its speed, as opposed to the slowness of communication in traditional distance programs; the sense of identity afforded to the students in the new learning community; and the development of computer skills. Furthermore, Sunderland (2002) concluded that email facilitated the development of perceived caring. Important for future CMC research was Sunderland's (2002) assertion that email "bridged the psychological gap inherent in this distance learning doctoral programme in ways which other channels of communication would not have allowed" (pp. 245-246).

In contrast, Crawford and Knobel's 1996 study (cited in Warschauer, 1995, p. 42) of email communication with 26 education students (both ESL and local students) over a 14-week semester concluded that the purpose of the student emails was largely functional and fell into four main tasks: clarifying assessment requirements; sorting out technology issues; administrative or procedural questions; and questions about English as Second Language (ESL) teaching or curriculum. Crawford and Knobel concluded that email increased students' dependence on the lecturer; email was mostly used for functional purposes and ESL students used email communication more than local students (cited in Warschauer, 1995, pp. 45-46).

Columb and Simutis (1996) are also skeptical that CMC creates an egalitarian learning environment or allows students greater freedom of expression (pp. 210-211). Colomb and Simutis (1996) assert that there is little evidence to support these claims, and that students are always mindful of the power hierarchy between teachers and themselves (p. 211). However, based on their research of "at risk" students who used a synchronous form of CMC (Interchange) in workshop writing tasks, Colomb and Simutis (1996) found that this approach enabled students to put aside bad writing habits, feel less threatened, take time to craft their writing, become more engaged, and see themselves as part of a community of inquiry (p. 221).

While researchers are not unanimous about the educational benefits of CMC, it is clear that new technology has the potential to provide opportunities for a new, hybrid form of communication. The present article is a response to recent research (Kim & Bonk, 1996; Ma, 1996; Sunderland, 2002) that argues for the socio-cultural-linguistic benefits of CMC for learners and teachers. The current research adds to the field by using Brown and Levinson's (1987) model of positive politeness to analyze the two-way teacher/student exchange.

Methodology

Practitioner research places the education practitioner (and practice) at the center of the research enterprise, and focuses on practical, "real-life" situations. It is "insider research" done by practitioners using their own site as the focus of study (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994). Practitioner research is an agent for change, "a vehicle for the empowerment of practitioners, students, and communities toward a goal of institutional and social change from the inside" (Anderson et al., 1994, p. 36). As a methodology, it entails articulating a research issue in the teacher's practice, matching it with an appropriate research design, providing the background for the issue, developing a suitable approach to data collection, and analyzing and interpreting the findings (Knobel & Lankshear, 1999).

Practitioner research is also by far the most common approach used by educators working with international ESL students in higher education (see, e.g., Allen & Rooney, 1998; Batorowicz, 1999; Beasley & Pearson, 1999; Bretag & Kooymans, 2002; Chandrasegaran,1994). The current research responds to Ayers and Schubert's (1994) suggestion that practitioner research in education is "experimental, always in search of better teaching, and by teachers as intellectual practitioners best suited to inquire into the subtle problems arising in their own complex and dynamic classroom settings" (Ayers & Schubert, 1994, p. 106). Therefore, it is the personal relationship developed between international students and their teacher (the author of this article), as demonstrated in a 12-week email exchange, that provides the data for this research. In as much as the researcher is also the practitioner/communicator, it is evident that the study could not be described as a neutral investigation. On the contrary, it was framed by the author's personal commitment to intercultural communication, and this is reflected in the results.

Context

Business Communication for Graduate Students was a for-credit course open to international ESL students undertaking a postgraduate program of study in a business faculty at an Australian university. Using a theme approach to content-based ESL instruction, the course aimed to provide students with a solid grounding in the academic and language skills necessary for successful postgraduate study in the students' chosen fields of specialization. In addition to a range of written and oral assessment tasks, students in this course were required to establish ongoing email communication with the Course Coordinator (the author of this article). The following excerpt from the Course Information Booklet details the email communication exercise:

The purpose of this process is to assist you in the development of your written English expression and communication. You will not receive a formal grade for your emails. However, a well-formulated portfolio of regular email communications (one per week) will be considered to be part of the tutorial participation mark of 10%. The following are some suggestions for email topics:

1. Sharing information about yourself and your culture (this would be especially useful in the introductory email)
2. Lessons learned in each class session
3. Reflections on the course content presented
4. Reflection on any relevant experiences that you might have had in the past related to the course material
5. Challenges, "surprises," and reflections about your new life in Australia.

It is intended that this will become an effective form of communication with your lecturer. Please do not use this process to simply ask questions about assessments or content. (Bretag, 2002)

There were a number of reasons for the establishment of the email communication task. First, the task enabled early assessment of students' written fluency prior to the submission of the first piece of graded assessment. Second, the task provided the students with an opportunity to use their English language skills for authentic communication rather than "correct grammar." Third, the task responded to Norton's (2000) suggestion that second language learners need opportunities to use their own experience as the basis for improving their language proficiency. Other ESL researchers also emphasize the importance of allowing second language learners to speak as "experts," particularly in relation to their own personal experiences (Ballard & Clanchy, 1997; Watkins & Biggs, 1996). Most of all, email provided a forum for informal communication outside the constraints of the weekly seminar, using a communication medium that was both familiar (classroom discussions revealed that all communicators used email extensively to maintain contact with friends and family), and yet "strange" (none of the students had ever used email for informal dialogue with a lecturer, although the author had with students in previous study periods). As indicated by the excerpt above, students were encouraged to communicate on any topic they wished, and were not constrained by designated content topics or prompts. The email communication task created a space where each of the communicators could potentially negotiate different subject positions from those usually occupied.

The class was comprised of 10 students ranging in age from early 20s to late 40s. The group as a whole, including the teacher, represented eight countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, Mexico, Iran, India, and Australia. Of the students there were seven females and three males. All students were enrolled in a Master of Business (Administration, Accounting, E-Commerce, or Marketing) degree program at the University of South Australia, in Term 1 (January-April), 2002. All names in the following table (with the exception of the author's) are pseudonyms.

Method

Computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), a relatively new approach to discourse analysis, adapts methods from the fields of linguistics, communication, and rhetoric to create a language-focused form of content analysis that is sensitive to the technological features of computer technologies (Herring, 2004). A common approach to CMDA involves coding and counting linguistic features in a corpus of computer-mediated messages. In this study, 279 emails were analyzed with the objective of identifying the discourse features that facilitate movement towards a third space (Bhabha, 1994) that transcends the traditional hierarchical relationship of teacher and student.

Exploring the communicative function of the email exchange in this research required an analytic framework. Pragmatics, as "the study of meaning... communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader)" (Yule, 1996, p. 3) provided a good starting point, and is one of the theoretical paradigms suggested by Herring (2004) as being suitable for CMDA. Pragmatics provides a functional perspective on any aspect of language and allows discussion of a communicator's "intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions... that they are performing when they speak" (Yule 1996, p. 4).

Although the field of pragmatics includes the study of a wide range of linguistic principles, the current research draws on politeness and interaction, with an emphasis on politeness. This aspect of pragmatics looks at how social relationships are developed and managed by communicators. The seminal work by Brown and Levinson (1987) makes specific assumptions about 'face' or individuals' self-esteem. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), there are three main strategies of politeness: positive politeness (the expression of solidarity); negative politeness (the expression of restraint and the common sense idea of politeness as non-imposition); and off-record politeness (the avoidance of unequivocal imposition). The uses of each strategy are tied to social determinants, specifically the relationship between the communicators, and the potential offensiveness of the message.

Positive politeness is oriented to the positive self-image of the addressee. This is achieved by treating the other person as a friend, a member of an in-group, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked. This pays positive 'face' to the other person, and there are expectations of reciprocity (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The notions of friendship, membership in the in-group, knowledge and acceptance of the other person's needs and wants, and expectations of reciprocity, are all features that suggest movement towards a third space in terms of intercultural communication.

According to Watts, Ide, and Ehlich (1992), Brown and Levinson's (1987) book on politeness is "probably the most influential publication on politeness as revealed in language usage" (p. 2), even though it is potentially ethnocentric. Without suggesting that the Brown and Levinson (1987) model is the best or only framework, this study used the concept of positive politeness strategically, particularly the idea of claiming common ground, to investigate the potential of email exchanges to facilitate third space communication.

Using the qualitative data analysis software Nud*ist (N6), and following eight hours of manual coding with a qualitative research tutor, the emails were initially coded into the categories of Brown and Levinson's model of positive politeness (1987, p. 102). The three core categories of the Brown and Levinson model each have categories and further sub-categories, a simplified version of which is: claim common ground (convey that the other is admirable or interesting, claim in-group membership, and claim common perspectives); convey cooperation (indicate you know other's wants and are taking them into account, claim reflexivity), and fulfill other's wants (give gifts to the other). Additional categories, including 'praise' and 'thanks,' were integrated into the core three sections (claim common ground, convey cooperation, and fulfill others' wants). During a second coding process, the category 'share intimate information' was added to the Brown and Levinson model in recognition of the need to explore communicators' levels of self-disclosure. Other categories that emerged from the data were ultimately filed for future research purposes, as they did not contribute to the purpose of the current study.

Prior to beginning the coding process, extensive preparation was required to enter the email exchanges into N6. Every email from a particular student was matched with the author's response and then "stitched together" to form a continuous communication (or "conversation") in chronological order; this was then made into one Word document. This process was completed for all students' communications and then entered in N6 as ten separate documents. The data set included 279 emails, 139 of which were the teacher's replies to students. The total word count for the entire corpus was 36,755, of which the teacher was responsible for 15,680. See Table 2 for a breakdown of the number of emails and a word count for the communication between each student and the teacher.

Note that no separate word document exists for Tracey because her emails were all responses to students' emails, and therefore form part of each communication document as identified by the student name. The text search facility of N6 enabled searches for individual words, phrases, and punctuation (based largely on suggestions by Brown and Levinson, 1987) that were potentially indicative of the different categories. Scores of these searches were conducted, with final reports produced on over 100 words or phrases. The Findings section summarizes some of the key words used to indicate particular pragmatic functions.

Findings

Emails of even one paragraph could be coded in multiple categories depending on the topic, specific words, or linguistic features used. Therefore, even when all categories are included, total percentages do not add up to 100%. Table 3 shows those categories identified during the coding process and relevant to the current study. All ten documents had sections categorized in the 'claim common ground' and 'convey cooperation' nodes, with the author's own email messages representing the largest number of those in both categories, 9% and 6.6% respectively, or 15.6% of the total word count. Of the total number of emails, common ground messages comprised 21% and cooperation comprised 13%, making a total of 34% of the total word count. Although nine out of 11 communicators' messages were coded in the 'fulfill others' wants' category, this type of message accounted for only 1.4% of the total word count.

Eleven per cent of all email communication was categorized as 'share intimate information;' this category occurred in nine out of 10 documents. Intimate information in the teacher's own email messages accounted for 3% of the total communication.

The three broad areas identified by Brown and Levinson as features of positive politeness— claim common ground, convey cooperation, and fulfill other's wants—comprised the largest amount of coded text in the email communications (a total of 35.4%, although other categories are not discussed in this article). The following sections identify the linguistic features that were present in the documents, using and adding to the sub-categories provided by Brown and Levinson (1987).

Claim Common Ground

Convey That Other is Admirable, Interesting

Notice, attend to other's needs, wants and interests. As mentioned above, suggestions by Brown and Levinson were used to identify words/phrases that indicated particular pragmatic functions. The words and phrases indicating communicators' interest in others' needs were "hope," "sounds like," and "I can see." The number of times these words and phrases were used is summarized in Table 4, and it can be seen that "sounds like" and "I can see... " were phrases used exclusively by the teacher, whereas "hope" was used by both students and teacher.

Exaggerate (interest, sympathy, approval). Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest that emphatic words are a linguistic feature of exaggeration. This proved to be the case in the email exchanges, with the main emphatic words including "wonderful," "absolutely," "fantastic," "beautiful," "great," "really," and "so." In addition, punctuation (exclamation marks) was often used to exaggerate a point. The use of exaggeration by each communicator is summarized in Table 5.

Praise. According to Wierzbicka (1991), praise is a "primitive" universal common in all languages. This concept fits well in the Brown and Levinson (1987) model of positive politeness within the subcategory, "convey that the other is admirable, interesting." Sections from all ten documents were coded in this category, representing 2% of the total email communication. Words of praise included "well done," "congratulations," and "excellent," and phrases such as "I am proud of you," "You are the best," and phrases containing the word "love." These are summarized in Table 6.

Claim In-Group Membership

Use in-group identity markers. Indicators of group membership include the use of words such as "we" and "us" (Herring, 2004). Analysis of the emails also indicated that the word "know" played a specific role in claiming solidarity, as did the use of the informal punctuation "... ." These linguistic features are summarized in Table 7.

The first number is the total times this word appeared in the email communication. The numbers in brackets are the uses analyzed as claiming in-group membership, which was determined by going back to each use and determining its function in context. This closer analysis showed that "we" was used to claim in-group membership on 44 occasions, and mostly by the teacher (36 times), who used the collective "we" to include both herself and the students when discussing class matters. On other occasions, "we" suggested agreement and like-mindedness based on other group membership characteristics, for example, similar opinions on the war in Iraq, status as parents, and even as global citizens. As with the use of "we," the teacher was the predominant user or "us" to indicate group membership. However, of the 30 times that "know" was analyzed as indicating group membership, the teacher was responsible for only five, and "... " was only used by the teacher once out of 35 times.

In response to Fernando's nervous apology at the end of a long email exchange discussing controversial issues, including the war in Iraq, Tracey used in-group identity markers, such as "we," "us," and "like-minded" as a means of assuaging his concerns:

I feel like we think very similarly about these issues. Far from being ignorant, you have demonstrated incredible insight and reflection on these very complex issues. Many people would not agree with us, but I am encouraged to find a like-minded person, right here in my own class! (Tracey to Fernando, February 21, 2002, Email 3)

Irene, following a discussion of the war in Iraq, used in-group identity markers such as "our Aussie girl," "each of us," and "we:"

As for the Australians, with the events of Clipsal 500, and also the winning of the Australians cricket as well as our Aussie girl, Nicole Kidman, winning the Oscar would certainly help those who suffered to smile and enjoy the days, rather than thinking what had the world had become these days. It is certainly a time for each one of us to remember that the world will not be the same. As we might be enjoying our life in Australia, it is sad to remembered that there people in other part of the world who suffered with the event of war. (Irene, March 26, 2002, Email 6)

Another way of indicating group membership was to preface comments with "As you know... ," "You know... ," or "We know... ." The word "know" was used 84 times in ten out of ten documents, on 30 occasions to indicate group membership. Table 8 shows which communicators used this expression to indicate group membership, and demonstrates that Lena used the word more than any other student.

Following are examples of how "know" was used in the emails:

As you know, we have a long history and great culture... (Kyomi, February 5, 2002, Email 1)

This place, you know is quite different from my home. (Narendre, March 4, 2002, Email 5)

Thank you for sharing your culture so freely with me...especially for choosing something that you know I would enjoy so much... (Tracey to Fernando, March 20, 2002, Email 5)

I was so interested to read about the situation in Iran. As you know, I have never been to Iran... (Tracey to Salima, March 13, 2002, Email 6)

Claim Common Perspectives

Seek agreement. Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest that seeking agreement is best achieved through raising safe topics, particularly those that both parties know and can speak about comfortably. In addition, agreement is indicated by the use of words or phrases such as "agree," "yes," and "as you/we know." The table demonstrates that Tracey was the main user of "agree" and "yes" (in all cases). During the term in which the email exchange took place, war was declared on Iraq and this issue, arguably a controversial one, was discussed often both in class and informally. In analyzing the use of the word "war" in the emails, it was found on every occasion to be used as a way of sharing common perspectives (and most often by students— on no occasion did Tracey initiate discussion about war), rather than seeking to provide an alternative view. This may have occurred as a result of extensive discussions in face-to-face situations, wherein all communicators had already established a common perspective on the issue. The use of words demonstrating agreement are summarized in Table 9.

Avoid disagreement. Brown and Levinson (1987) posit that the features of avoiding disagreement include avoiding confrontation and telling "white lies," particularly when the communicators do not wholly agree on an issue. The words used in the email communication to avoid disagreement included "apologize," "but," "maybe," and "however." These are summarized in Table 10. In the case of the multi-functional word "however," the bracketed number indicates how many times the word was analyzed as being used specifically to avoid disagreement.

Circuitous ways of avoiding disagreement were used in the email communication. The word "but" was sometimes used as a way of demonstrating an alternative viewpoint, having established that the first was quite acceptable. "But" was used on 162 occasions in all ten documents. Two examples of the use of "but" to avoid disagreement are as follows:

I sorry for the War, but I think this war has bright side too; it will be end of the story of dangerous dictator in the world. These days world are getting so tight for this kine of governments. (Salima, March 19, 2002, Email 7)

I agree with you about kangaroos...they are not that attractive. But we Australians are still very proud of all our native animals (that's why we put their pictures on our coins!) (Tracey to Janice, March 20, 2002, Email 8)

The word "however" was used 41 times in nine out of ten documents, and as a means of avoiding disagreement (in the same way that "but" was used) on 19 occasions (11 by students). The following is a typical example.

My Australian girls housemate ask me about what men do in house. They said it is not fair if women should do everything to serve men. Interestingly, they said they will not ever merry Indonesian men. Hahahaha..... It seemed to me that they were very shock when I told them about inequality between woman and man in my culture. However, I have never feel hesitate to serve men (my father and my brothers) in my home, because I see my mother have never complaint about it. (Lena, March 11, 2002, Email 10)

Presuppose/assert common ground. Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest that using small talk/gossip to soften requests, switching to the addressee's point of view, and presupposing the other person's knowledge are all means of asserting common ground. In the email exchanges, there was little evidence of gossip (that is, students talking about other students or common acquaintances), although certainly small talk was found in all ten documents. Emails usually began with small talk and included such topics as social events on the weekend, travel experiences, anecdotes about family members, and observations about life in Adelaide. "Family" was mentioned 45 times in nine out of 10 documents (only Narendre did not use the word in any of his emails). As mentioned previously, presupposing the other person's knowledge about the war in Iraq was evident in all documents (although "agreement" was often hedged or mitigated).

Joke. Jokes suggest that a common perspective between communicators is assumed (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Humor was easy to locate in the email data as there were obvious markers such as "ha, ha, ha" (used 10 times) and "he, he" (used 10 times), emoticons (e.g., :), used 13 times), actual jokes and humorous stories, as well as a general playfulness, in a number of the students' emails. The most obvious emails containing humor were those from Lena, although emails from four other students (Fernando, Irene, Pauline, and Peter) were also coded in this category. All attempts at joking were made by students, perhaps indicating the teacher's apprehension at inadvertently causing offence.

Convey Cooperation

Indicate That You Know Other's Wants and Are Taking Them Into Account

Assert knowledge of and concern for others' wants. In addition to demonstrating empathy (as evidenced by the use of the word "know," discussed above) other linguistic features of this category potentially overlap with 'presuppose/assert common ground.' These features include making small talk and providing information about/responding to personal issues.

The end-of-term celebration elicited emails from all attendees (with the exception of Narendre) that claimed common ground, particularly in terms of conveying admiration. Family was a topic raised 45 times in the email exchanges; notably, five students (Christine, Janice, Kyomi, Lena, and Salima) specifically referred to the author's family following the party. In addition, three students (Kyomi, Janice, and Lena) discussed marriage generally and the teacher's relationship with her husband in particular.

Another topic raised was study. This word was used 23 times in eight out of ten documents: 21 times by the teacher, and twice by Lena. On a number of other issues, Lena indicated that she knew the teacher's wants and interests, such as sending an electronic anniversary card.

Claim Reflexivity

Offer, promise. According to Searle (1969, p. 58), a promise "is a pledge to do something for you, not to you" (author's emphasis). A number of promises of gifts were made in the course of the email exchange; these are discussed in the section "fulfill other's wants" below. Promises were generally related to course work, including promises from students such as variations of "I will do my best" (used by Christine five times and Lena once), or promises from the author in relation to helping students with their work. A text search of the word "happy" revealed that the teacher promised students that "I'd be happy to... " help, meet with, discuss, and/or bring additional study materials on 11 occasions.

Be optimistic. There was a general feeling of optimism throughout the email communication. This was evident in the use of the words "happy," "glad," "enjoy," and "will," summarized in Table 11. The bracketed number in the case of "I will/you will" indicates when this term was used specifically to show optimism.

It can be seen that the teacher expressed optimistic confidence in the students, particularly as a means of encouraging them in their new lives in Australia and at the university. A text search revealed that the word "will" was used 175 times in all ten documents, often in conjunction with a range of other words conveying optimism such as "sure," "confident," "right," and "expect." Optimism was evident in 11 emails containing the word "will" from Tracey to the students, as in the following examples:

Strategic Concepts sounds pretty difficult, but having seen a sample of your work already, I'm confident you will get there in the end! (Tracey to Christine, February 4, 2002, Email 3)

I am very confident that if you do a good job of these two assessments, you will pass the course. (Tracey to Irene, April 3, 2002, Email 9)

It takes a while to get used to a new environment, but I'm sure you will start to feel more relaxed over the coming weeks and months. (Tracey to Janice, February 6, 2002, Email 1)

You are doing very well in the course, and I expect you will continue to improve. (Tracey to Lena, March 18, 2002, Email 11)

Optimism in the students' emails was usually related to their study ("I will do my best," "I will concentrate... so I will be able to get a good mark," "I hope you will understand and oblige").

Include both in activity. In addition to use of the word "we" (used 191 times in all ten documents) and "us" (used 46 times) discussed above, "let's" was used in three documents, twice by the teacher ("Let's pray it works out" and "Let's hope it [war] never happens") and once by Lena as an invitation to open an attachment ("Let's have a look... "). Including both communicators in an activity was mostly evident in emails that referred to class activities. As discussed above, the author used "we" 36 times to include both the students and herself when discussing class related matters. A text search showed that "class" was also used 36 times in all ten documents: 21 times by the students and 15 times by the teacher.

Give or ask for reasons. Giving reasons most often occurred in the context of a student seeking an extension on an assessment or to justify a particular opinion (on the war, for example); nine out of 10 documents were coded in this category. An apology often preceded or concluded an email that provided extensive reasons. As mentioned in the section 'avoid disagreement,' "sorry" appeared 36 times in eight out of 10 documents, 28 times in relation to course work, and "apologise/apologize" was used seven times.

Four of the five emails sent from Narendre asked specifically for advice on a range of topics (how to improve his grammar, how to find a part-time job, what to do with unwanted household items, and why some people seemed reluctant to help him). Some students (Janice, Kyomi, Lena, Salima) would 'give reasons' as a way of asking the teacher's opinion on a controversial topic (such as the war in Iraq, the treatment of Aborigines, gender and cultural differences, or potentially embarrassing situations).

Claim Reciprocity

Assume/assert reciprocity. Wierzbicka (1991) suggests that "thank you" is a universal primitive. One way of asserting reciprocity is to thank the other person (thereby indicating a mutual obligation). "Thank you" or "thanks" was used 123 times in all ten documents in response to the following: email, time, ideas, thoughts, insights, comments, kind words, kindness, attention, understanding, assignment extension, printed materials, following [up on a] request, offering to help, photos, attachments, gifts, invitation, teaching, hospitality.

The author generally used "thank you" as an opener (e.g., "Thank you for your email" [13 times]); while "thank you" or "thanks" was used by the students as a subject heading, to close (e.g., "Thanks, see you Friday"), or in relation to course work ("Thank you so much for extending time for us"). Lena used "thank you/thanks" more than anyone else in the group (28 times).

Fulfill Others' Wants

Give Gifts To Others

Some students gave the teacher gifts at the end of the term. These included a tape of Mexican music and a book on Mexican architecture, a hand-painted picture frame, an Iranian tablecloth, and a magnet with the words "to teach is to touch a life forever." Other gifts included an invitation from Peter to a home-cooked meal with his family and an electronic anniversary card from Lena. Email attachments containing photos, "chain mail" messages, jokes, or humorous sayings might also be considered "gifts." Seven of the ten students sent at least one "fun" attachment, including Christine, Fernando, Janice, Lena, Pauline, Peter, and Salima.

In addition to tangible "gifts" there was a constant stream of blessings and good wishes throughout the email exchange, in all cases by students, as summarized in Table 12.

Share Intimate Information

According to the Australian Oxford Dictionary (Moore [Ed.], 1999) "intimate" is defined as "closely acquainted; familiar, close; private and personal; essential, intrinsic; friendly; promoting close personal relationships." Gudykunst and Kim (2003) state that intimate behaviors include self-disclosure and expressing emotions. These authors argue that self-disclosure is a key factor contributing to the development of personal intercultural relationships, and that the level of intimacy influences the "communication satisfaction" experienced by the communication partners (2003, p. 344). It is evident, therefore, that the development of intimacy is a potential indicator of communicators moving towards a third space.

Email topics were coded in this category if they either provided detailed, personal information (e.g., about family, social activities, or friends), or insight into the communicator's emotional or mental state. In coding material according to the second aspect, evidence was sought that communicators were "letting their guard down," by sharing personal problems, weaknesses, or concerns. Such communication indicated that trust had developed and along with it a "new" relationship separate from the traditional student/lecturer one. Communication between the teacher and all ten students was coded in this category, accounting for 11% of the total email communication. The author's communications represented 3% of the total.

Personal information about friends and social activities was coded in the category 'indicate that you know others' wants and are taking them into account' (convey cooperation), and will not be discussed again in this section. It can be seen that the Brown and Levinson model focuses largely on how one communicator takes into account the needs/wants of the other, rather than on how one person allows their communication partner insight into him- or herself. By including a category specifically dealing with disclosure of communicators' emotional or mental states, the current research responds to the work of Gudykunst and Kim (2003), who argue that self-disclosure is a vital element of intercultural communication satisfaction.

The frequencies of words identified as relating to emotional states, including "feeling" ("feel," "felt"), "experience," "think," and "believe," are summarized in Table 13.

Discussion

Moving Towards the Third Space: Claiming Common Ground and Sharing Intimate Information

The concept of third space in the context of this research has been adapted to refer to the possibility of imagining (and inhabiting) a new space, where the traditionally hierarchical relationship of English-speaking lecturer/ESL student could be "rewritten." Such an idealistic vision is unlikely to be fulfilled with all students for a range of reasons including but not limited to personality, learning style, cultural expectations, gender, age, and day-to-day issues outside the email communication. However, the coding and counting methodology of CMDA, framed by the theoretical model of positive politeness provided by Brown and Levinson (1987), indicates that the email communication did facilitate movement towards third space through the claiming of common ground and sharing intimate information with nine out of ten students, and with one student in particular, Lena.

The email communication with Lena over 12 weeks was characterized by attention to one another's interests and needs, an obvious and exaggerated interest in and admiration for each other, trust, agreement, and playfulness. Close analysis of the email communication with Lena suggests that the indicators of 'common ground' and 'sharing intimate information' discussed in the Findings section were disproportionately present.

Figures 1 and 2 show the progression of claiming common ground and sharing intimate information in the email communication with Lena. Note that although the term was 11 weeks long, Lena continued to send emails after the term had concluded. Emails were only coded up to and including week 12. It is evident that from week 9 there was a dramatic shift in the relationship with not only many more emails being sent (13 emails and responses in the three-week period), but also a steady increase in the number of times that both communicators claimed common ground and shared intimate information. In total, Lena claimed common ground 26 times during the email exchange, 85% of which occurred in weeks 9-12. A similar pattern is evident with sharing intimate information: Lena did so on 28 occasions, 55% of which occurred in weeks 9-12. The teacher claimed common ground a total of 23 times, 70% of which occurred in weeks 9-12; and shared intimate information 16 times, 38% of which occurred in weeks 9-12.

As the figures clearly demonstrate, the email communication began with only occasional sharing of intimate information. The teacher claimed common ground from Week 2 and Lena began to claim common ground occasionally in Week 5. As the term progressed, this occurred more frequently, so that by week 9, the email communication was characterized by close intimacy, openness, and a willingness to share one another's personal lives. The formality of expression evident in the opening line of Lena's first email: "Thank you for your email. I am very glad. We had a very interesting topic last week" was replaced by the exuberance of the email following the class party: "It was so wonderful!!!" The teacher's first email to Lena was similarly formal and focused on course-related matters: "Nice to hear from you and I'm glad to hear you enjoyed last week's class." The last email to Lena was a very friendly single line claiming in-group membership with her: "I like the idea of bathing with roses and jasmine...I'll give it a go...."

Making Sense of the Pattern: Entering a New Space?

Using Merton's (2003) idea that third space may be conceptualized as the process of "becoming," it could be argued that the email communication with Lena (and to a lesser extent with eight of the other students) enabled the communicators to become something other than traditional lecturer and student. This "new" relationship was in stark contrast to the modest academic identity that Clark and Ivanic (1997) suggest students need to assume in academic writing. Subject positions were manipulated so that the initial binary relationship (teacher-student, cultural adviser-cultural initiate, mentor-mentee) ultimately became a relationship based on reciprocity as equals (political correspondents, interested and caring friends, women exploring gender roles, mutual motivators and colleagues).

Corresponding to Brown and Levinson's (1987) suggestion that positive politeness is "a kind of metaphorical extension of intimacy" (p. 70) is Walther's theory of hyperpersonal communication (1996). Walther argues that communicators are better able to express themselves via computer-mediated environments than in face-to-face settings. In particular, communicators may overestimate the qualities of their conversational partners, and confirming messages from each person reinforce the behavior of the other. Figures A and B corroborate this idea by showing that the more the teacher claimed common ground, the more Lena was likely to do so, and vice versa. Confirming messages resulted in more confirming messages so that by Week 9 both communicators were more open and positive with multiple instances of claiming common ground and sharing intimate information.

A Common Pattern of Communication

The movement towards third space, as indicated by increased instances of claiming common ground and sharing intimate information, occurred, to a greater or lesser extent with nine of the ten students (and in particular with Lena, Peter, and Kyomi). The number of instances of both claiming common ground and sharing intimate information shows a general upward trend, with most instances of both categories occurring towards the end of the 11-week term (see Figures 3 and 4 below).

Is Third Space Communication Achievable With All Students?

The communication with one student, Narendre, did not show evidence of moving towards the third space, with only six emails exchanged during the term, most of which showed little evidence of claiming common ground or sharing intimate information from either communicator (see Appendix 1B for an example of an extended email between Narendre and Tracey). Narendre's lack of engagement may be explained by Greenholtz (2003, p. 123), who suggests that students from traditional educational backgrounds that emphasize the product rather than the process of generating knowledge "may not recognize what is happening in a Socratic classroom as legitimate pedagogy." Jarvis (1986, cited in Fitzgerald, 1999, p. 1129) also points out that if the disjuncture between a learner's old set of beliefs and the new experience is too great, this may produce "passive resistance." While these ideas go some way toward understanding the failure of Narendre and the teacher to develop a new communication space in either face-to-face or email settings, there are other elements that may also have had an impact. As Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p. 348) maintain, "whether or not we want to act differently depends on our motivation." The authors argue that communicators need to make a conscious choice about communication styles that goes beyond relying on unconscious patterns of behavior. The findings suggest that, for a range of reasons almost impossible to determine, both communicators lacked the motivation to move towards third space dialogue.

Kramsch (1993) warns against attributing communication breakdown solely to culture. She refers to the multitudinous differences between people, in addition to so-called culture: "age, race, gender, social class, generation, family history, regional origin, nationality, education, life experiences, linguistic idiosyncrasies, conversational styles, human intentionalities" (1993, p. 1). Communicating over three months with ten different people, both men and women, from seven different countries, ranging in age from early 20s to late 40s, of differing faiths, families, socio-economic, linguistic, and educational backgrounds, and who were studying in Australia with a range of short and long-term goals, required that the teacher viewed each student as a unique individual. The task for the teacher in communicating with students via email was not to focus on communicators' differences (as in cross-cultural comparisons or assumptions about age or gender, etc.), but to find a way to claim common and possibly even "new" ground. According to Kramsch (1996) and other recent critical theorists such as Monceri (2003), Nainby et al. (2003), and Phipps (2003), such a focus requires a commitment (by both communicators) to ongoing dialogue.

However, the time required to establish ongoing and regular email communication with individual students is an issue of concern. With ten students sending emails each week, some sending just a paragraph or two, others sending long attachments with hyperlinks and commentary, and others sending multiple emails, the time spent working on the email task required about half a working day per week. This estimate is based on 10 minutes to read each email and another 10 minutes to respond. An examination of the email log reveals that most of the emails were responded to during the teacher's own time (late at night, on the weekend, before 9 a.m.); clearly this has implications for workload. While the email communication task is viable with small groups of postgraduate students, workload limitations would prevent the task being incorporated into large classes.

In the course of analyzing the emails and discussing the concept of developing third space through email communication, a number of colleagues have expressed concern that this type of relationship is inappropriate, and that "professional" boundaries should be maintained rather than broken down. The following encapsulates some of the opinions expressed:

1. Is self-disclosure and sharing intimate information appropriate between students and teachers?
2. How does this help the students with their "real" work.
3. What has this got to do with teaching?
4. The email task is culturally insensitive, because the ESL students would have been used to a hierarchical teacher-student relationship and this could have made them uncomfortable.

When Lena wrote, "God loves you" or "I love you," was this inappropriate, or simply her attempt to convey the depth of her feeling using the language available to her, and in the context of her Christian upbringing? According to Biggs and Watkins (2001, p. 282) use of the word "love" is not uncommon in describing the relationship between Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) students and their teachers, although the word carries different connotations than Westerners' perceptions of the word. Biggs and Watkins (2001) state that love in the context of the CHC student/teacher relationship refers to the pastoral care provided by teachers outside of the classroom, and stands in stark contrast to the classroom/personal divide evident in Western education (p. 282).

Was it "appropriate" for Lena to discuss such personal issues as her housemates having noisy sex, or her fellow student passing wind in class? Who else could she have approached to provide insider cultural knowledge, secure in her ongoing, trusting relationship with her teacher? Certainly no offence was caused, and in fact, the emails provided the teacher with enormous pleasure, despite of or because of the fact that at times her own sense of the world was challenged (for example, when Lena asked if Australian women were "lazy"). The following quotation from Lena encapsulates much of what the email communication task set out to achieve.

You know Tracey, this weekly email influences me. I feel like I have someone who want to hear my experiences and feeling. I think this is an excellent idea, especially for international students. This experience is very new for me, because in my country we have never talk or chat with our teacher/lecturer like this. Never! Email you every week makes me feel more relax and more comfortable. Because I can share so many stories with you. This is good for my study. And you can see, I could show my feeling to you last Friday, which is not allowed to do in my country. (Lena, March 15, 2002, Email 11)

Clearly, communicating directly with the teacher on a regular basis is an activity unlikely to be familiar to students coming from other learning backgrounds. In fact, the task is unlikely to have been encountered by Australian students, who, despite the more open and supposedly student-centered approach in the Australian education system, have also been acculturated not to challenge traditional student-teacher boundaries. This idea was well articulated in Peter's first email:

I'm also pleased that you've included a weekly email correspondence as part of the Course work. Otherwise I would have "stupidly" assumed that you were too busy to bother... (Peter, January 29, 2002, Email 1)

Ho (2001, p. 99) argues that, contrary to the evidence from previous research that teaching in the Confucian tradition (the background of six of the students) is teacher-centered and authoritarian, recent studies suggest that there are also elements of student-centeredness in the Confucian education system. While interaction in the classroom is limited, research by Chan (1993) and Biggs (1996b) (both cited by Ho, 2001, p. 108) has revealed that "warm" teacher-student interaction is more likely to occur outside the classroom in informal discussions and activities. Ho's 1999 study (cited in Ho, 2001) demonstrated that both Hong Kong and Australian teachers emphasized the importance of developing good relationships with students "characterised by mutual respect, understanding, and the student perceiving care and concern on the teacher's part" (p.108). Encouraging international students to communicate through regular informal email with their teacher is not culturally insensitive, but is possibly unsettling for all students, regardless of nationality or ethnicity. It was this unsettling which, this paper has argued, potentially enabled both the students and teacher to inhabit an alternative communication space, free from preconceived notions of what was appropriate or "required."

Conclusion

Without comparative data it is impossible to speculate on whether the email communication enabled third space communication to develop differently or more than in face-to-face interaction. What this research has demonstrated is that email communication played a role in facilitating the shifting of the relationship between a number of the students and their teacher, so that topics that might otherwise have been considered inappropriate or even taboo, were now available for exploration. Furthermore, subjectivity (emotions, personal reactions, daily anecdotes, dreams, and longings), not usually valued in academia, was given a new status and value via the email communication. This third space used a hybrid communication with distinctive discourse features that was both spontaneous and crafted (Ivanic, 1998). However, it is clear from the findings that moving towards the third space requires individual motivation and mutual movement, and that the teacher has an important role to play in modeling this behavior. In addition to claiming common ground, communicators need to be willing to share intimate information if the traditional teacher/student relationship is to be re-imagined.

Palmer (1998) asks educators to have the courage to show students that the subjective self is valued and real and that we will listen to and honor their inner truths. Not to do so, Palmer argues, is to risk disenfranchising both students and teachers from the transformative potential of education. In the same vein, Priest and Quaife-Ryan (2004, p. 302) call for the "re-enchantment" of education, wherein the "utilitarianism" of contemporary higher education is replaced by the "true engagement and true transformation" of students and teachers. It is the contention of this research that email communication, in combination with regular face-to-face contact, provides an opportunity for educators to engage in such engagement and transformation with their students.

Limitations

The present analysis was limited to the email communication between a small, specific group of postgraduate business ESL students and one teacher during communication over an 12-week period in South Australia. Further research is needed to ascertain if Brown and Levinson' model could be applied to communication between native speaking students and their teachers, in different subject areas, with undergraduates, or using other computer mediated communication media other than one-to-one email.

References

Allen, R., & Rooney, P. (1998). Designing a problem-based learning environment for ESL students in business communication. Business Communication Weekly, 61 (2), 48-56.

Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying Your Own School: An Educator's Guide to Qualitative Practitioner Research. California: Corwin Press Inc.

Ayers, W., & Schubert, W. (1994). Teacher lore: Learning about teaching from teachers. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Teachers Thinking: Teachers Knowing (pp. 105-121). Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). Teaching International Students: A Brief Guide For Lecturers and Supervisors. Deakin, ACT: IDP Education Australia.

Batorowicz, K. (1999). A fair go? The problems and needs of international and non-English speaking background students at Australian universities. Youth Studies Australia, 18 (3), 37.

Beasley, C. J., & Pearson, C. A. (1999). Facilitating the learning of transitional students: Strategies for success for all students. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (3), 303-321.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

Bretag, T. (2002). Business Communication for Graduate Students. Course Information Booklet, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Bretag, T., & Kooymans, R. (2002). Internationalisation and the role of TESOL in tertiary business education. TESOL in Context, 12 (1), 10-14.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987 [1978]). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byram, M. (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multlingual Matters.

Chandrasegaran, A. (1994, November). Integrating Content-Course Tasks Into the Teaching of Writing Skills for Academic Purposes. Paper presented at the Integrating the Teaching of Academic Discourse into Courses in the Discipline Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). The Politics of Writing. London: Routledge.

Colomb, G. G., & Simutis, J. A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In R. Ma (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 203-222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Crichton, J., Paige, M., Papademetre, L., & Scarino, A. (2004). Integrated Resources for Intercultural Teaching and Learning in the Context of Internationalisation in Higher Education. Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education, University of South Australia. Retrieved February 17, 2005 from http://www.unisa.edu.au/staff/grants/archive/2003-integrated-report.doc

English, L. (2002, May/June). Third Space: Contested Space, Identity, and International Adult Education. Paper presented at the CASAE/ACEEA 21st Annual Conference: Adult Education and the Contested Terrain of Public Policy, Toronto, Canada.

Fitzgerald, H. (1999). What culture do we teach? In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural Competence Through Language Education (pp. 127-142). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Freire, P. (1993 [1970]). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). London and New York: Penguin.

Greenholtz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: Examining the benefits and pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3 (2), 122-130.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hannula, M. (2001). Third space: Merry-go-round of opportunity. Kiasma Magazine, 12 (1). Retrieved July 8, 2006 from http://www.kiasma.fi/www/viewresource.php?lang=en&id=3LoHIn6PkQfTgv09

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behaviour. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ho, I. T. (2001). Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In D. A. Watkins & D. A. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 99-114). Hong Kong: CERC & ACER.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. C. (2002). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration. Retrieved November 3, 2004 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/kimandbonk.html

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (1999). Ways of Knowing: Researching Literacy in the Classroom. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1996). The cultural component of language teaching. Zeitschrift f＿r Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 1 (2). Retrieved February 17, 2005 from http://www.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg-01-2/beitrag/kramsch2.htm

Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). The conceptualisation of the cultural component of language teaching in Australian language-in-education policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25 (4), 297-317.

Lo Bianco, J., Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (Eds.). (1999). Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural Competence Through Language Education. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 173-185). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Merton, J. M. (2003, November/December). Diversity Discourse/Diversity Experiences: Teaching for and with Cultural Diversity. Paper presented at the Research in Education Conference, Auckland, Australia.

Monceri, F. (2003). The transculturing self: A philosophical approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3 (2), 108-114.

Moore, B. (Ed.). (1999). The Australian Oxford Dictionary. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Nainby, K. E., Warren, J. T., & Bollinger, C. (2003). Articulating contact in the classroom: Towards a constitutive focus in critical pedagogy. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3 (3), 198-212.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phipps, A. (2003). Language, identities, agencies: Intercultural lessons from Harry Potter. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3 (1), 6-19.

Priest, A., & Quaife-Ryan, M. (2004, June). Re-Enchanting Education: The Recovery of Teaching as a Sacred Activity. Paper presented at the Lifelong Learning Conference: Whose responsibility and what is your contribution? Yeppoon, Queensland.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sehlaoui, A. S. (2001). Developing cross-cultural communicative competence in pre-service ESL/EFL teachers: A critical perspective. Language Culture and Curriculum, 14 (1), 42-57.

Sunderland, J. (2002). New communication practices, identity, and the psychological gap: The affective function of email on a distance education doctoral program. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2), 233-246.

Walther, J. B. (1996). CMC: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1), 3-43.

Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual Connections: On-line Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press

Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (1996). The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological, and Contextual Influences. Melbourne: CERC & ACER.

Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (Eds.). (1992). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Appendix

An Example of Extended Email Communication Between Lena and Tracey

Lena and Tracey did more than simply notice each other's needs and interests. The following is one of Lena's last emails to Tracey, following a class BBQ held at Tracey's home to celebrate the end of the term. It is reproduced here in full. Words, phrases, or other linguistic features that denote claiming common ground are bolded and then summarized in Table A1.

Hi Tracey,

It was so wonderful!!! I really enjoyed everything include your house, pond, pikachu (the dog), trampoline, especially lunch and being in your home with your family and my friends. I had never had lunch like yesterday. I think I ate too much because I was so excited. I wanted to try all. You know, I almost fell in sleep. So full. He...he...he.... And...the best thing is you have a beautiful and warm family. I really missed my family and my dog now.

Actually, yesterday I wanted to play volley. But my left hand just became better yesterday. Before I could not use my left hand properly, because my hand's bone is very pain. Yesterday it was hurt again because when I jumped on trampoline I did not landing properly. But it was nothing if I compare with what I had yesterday.

By the way Tracey, yesterday I want to ask you something but because I think it was not a right time for this question so I keep it until now. My question is: Is it true that Australian men do almost all house work and have to serve themselves? Because the women refuse to do all house work and refuse to serve them. Australian women really want equality in their home, besides they are 'lazy.' My friends (they are Australian men) told me those, but I did not really believe it. Surprisingly, yesterday if I have not mistaken (please correct me if I am wrong), I heard Philip said that he always do everything and Australian men always do house work. And I saw yesterday he did BBQ by himself. Is it true Tracey? :-) :P

You know Tracey, yesterday when I was in master room (after came back from your house) I met Terry and Sandro (do you remember them? they are your ex students). They were really surprised and jelous when I told them I just backed and had a wonderful lunch in your place. He...he...he....They told me that you took them to the restaurant after finishing class. When their friend (David) ask who is Tracey? Sandro said Tracey is a wonderful person that you should know. I really agree with him. You are the best. Keep shining Tracey....I love you. I think all of your student love you.

Okay Tracey, thank you so much for everything. And also thank you for allowed me to put your name as reference. Please give my regards to Philip, Lin and Rhis (she is a wonderful pianist). God bless you all :P

Best Regards,

Lena

Following is the email Tracey sent prior to receiving Lena's email above, and demonstrates the conversational and inter-related nature of the email exchanges. Table A2 details the features of claiming common ground in the email.

Wasn't yesterday fun!? I really enjoyed myself. Thank you so much for offering to help, but it was very easy and making everyone lunch gave me pleasure. Yes, of course you can put me down as your reference. I'd be honoured.

Good luck!

Tracey.

An Example of an Extended Email Between Narendre and Tracey

Emails from Narendre were largely complaints about his living conditions and difficulties adjusting to the new environment. He was clearly having orientation problems and in need of a sympathetic friend or mentor, as evidenced by the following excerpt from his third email:

As you know that I have been in Australia only for about 20 days. It is not easy for a single person to do everything in a new country. On top of that there are constraints of money and adjustment. I think I will do all right but still a person has to have an advisor who he can turn in cases of need. (Narendre, 11 February 2002, Email 3)

Narendre's use of the phrase "As you know" invited Tracey to empathize with his situation, and the words "I think I will do all right" was an attempt at being optimistic— both indications that he was, at the very least, conveying cooperation. On the other hand, Narendre's movement between first (informal, personal) person to the third ('polite,' formal) person in this email suggest that he is not quite sure how to express his thoughts, and that the concept of emailing a lecturer is possibly unsettling.

Tracey's response, while an attempt to offer assistance, was not optimistic in tone. Tracey's use of the words "I wish I could advise you... " implies that she was not a willing adviser, even though Narendre had clearly indicated that this is what he needed:

I wish I could advise you about work. Restaurant work is a good idea, as the pay is reasonable and the hours usually after class. Unfortunately, Adelaide is a small city, and there is always a lot of competition for the limited number of jobs. (Tracey to Narendre, 12 February 2002, Email 3)

In each of the five emails from Narendre, he greeted Tracey with the very formal "Respected Maam," although at no time did Tracey invite him to address her by her given name. This is in stark contrast to Tracey's communication with Salima, who also began the exchange by addressing Tracey very formally, "Dear Teacher." By the second email Tracey provided the following information and invitation: "By the way, in Australia, we don't usually refer to each other by title (eg. 'Teacher'). I'd be very happy for you to address me simply by my first name, 'Tracey.'"

In Week 6 of the term, Narendre sent Tracey a joke, therefore claiming common ground (Brown & Levinson, 1987). He asked if Tracey would like to be included in receiving further jokes in the future. As Tracey had not established a relationship with him prior to this, and his work and attendance had been unreliable, Tracey regarded this request as evidence that Narendre wanted to fulfill his course obligation by simply forwarding email from his friends. Tracey responded:

Thanks for thinking of me. However, as I already receive literally hundreds of emails everyday, it is probably not appropriate to clog up my email box further with jokes and forwarded email. (Tracey to Narendre, 6 March, Email 6)

This response, coupled with the previous emails that had also done little to claim common ground, may have prevented the opportunity for further exchanges and the potential to move towards 'third space.' In light of the analysis of other emails, it is apparent that when students put their lecturer on their friends' list, a change in the relationship potentially occurs. Narendre did not email Tracey again during the term, possibly having felt rebuffed.

About the Author

Tracey Bretag, Ed.D, coordinates the core communication course for both ESL and local students in the School of Management at the University of South Australia. Managing Communication in Business is taught in Adelaide, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. Bretag's research interests include educational integrity, teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), computer-mediated communication, interculturality, and gender equity.
Address: University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001, AUSTRALIA