Navigating Hierarchies and Culture: Exploring Greek University Students’ L2 Email Perceptions

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates how Greek university students navigate the complex dynamics of their hierarchical student–faculty L2 email interactions. In doing so, it examines students’ perceptions and metapragmatic judgments of politeness and appropriateness byanalysing authentic emails exchanged in academic contexts. It uses interviews with Greek undergraduate students (advanced learners of English), and, through thematic analysis, it explores the extent and the way in which cultural values and sociopragmatic norms might impact the learners’ metapragmatic judgments regarding email writing. Thematic analysis revealed that the students draw on their own culturally embedded frameworks, shaped by Greek norms of politeness, respect and deference, to guide their email evaluations. They prioritise formality as an essential component of email politeness, linking it to professionalism, clarity and respect. Politeness and respect emerged as intertwined concepts, with students emphasising the importance of acknowledging power dynamics and expressing deference to authority figures through formal framing moves, email mechanics and email structure. Cultural values, particularly the Greek norm of heightened respect for authority and older individuals, deeply influenced learners’ perceptions regarding formal greetings, email mechanics and careful phrasing. Additionally, learners demonstrated a desire to tailor their communication style based on the recipient’s status, age and familiarity, attesting to their sociopragmatic awareness. The findings overall underscored the interplay between cultural values and learners’ pragmatic awareness, offering valuable implications for the teaching of email pragmatics and intercultural communication in academic contexts.

1. Introduction

Email has become a fundamental aspect of modern professional life, and it is arguably the most essential means of digital communication for business and professional interactions (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2024). Within the educational domain, mainly in higher education, student–faculty email interactions play a prominent role. While university students may contact their lecturers and engage with course content through their institution’s Learning Management System (LMS), such as Moodle or Blackboard, they are also expected to communicate with the teaching faculty via email for academic inquiries and administrative matters. More often than not, there is the implicit expectation on the part of the email recipients (i.e., the academic staff), that these young adults know how to compose appropriate emails and can effectively navigate the social hierarchies inherent in these digital exchanges. Yet, along with developed language skills, writing status-unequal emails requires pragmatic sophistication and a critical awareness of how discourse influences and is influenced by factors such as power dynamics and social relationships within the target culture (C.-F. E. Chen, 2006; Nguyen & Pham, 2021), which may be national or institutional. It also requires the ability to successfully balance and effectively weave together the various features of oral and written language that have characterised email as a ‘hybrid’ medium of communication (Baron, 2000; Crystal, 2011; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2024).

While there is little research exclusively on speakers of a first language (L1 speakers) (e.g., Merrison et al., 2012), L2 pragmatics research has highlighted that non-native speaker students often produce status-incongruent emails (e.g., Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; C.-F. E. Chen, 2006; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011, 2016; Zhu, 2012; Wang & Halenko, 2022) which may easily fail pragmatically, potentially causing offence or irritation to their recipients (Lewin-Jones & Mason, 2014; Savić, 2018). Naturally, navigating the intricacies of successful email communication can be challenging for any student, but it is often a more demanding undertaking for L2 users who may lack not only the necessary linguistic proficiency, but also the familiarity with the local and/or institutional norms at play (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023).

Thus, the lack of generally accepted conventions for this hybrid mode of communication—which combines features of both spoken and written language—along with pragmatic and cultural differences, seems to contribute significantly to this challenge. Therefore, gaining a deeper understanding of the discrete aspects of how non-native speaker (NNS) students perceive and evaluate the politeness of email messages and what influences their choices when composing hierarchical emails to their lecturers, is particularly important. Learners’ pragmatic awareness, social judgments and perception of social dynamics and cultural norms are closely intertwined with their pragmatic performance and can shape their linguistic decisions, such as the choice of strategies or level of directness (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023).

Although research on L2 email production—typically focused on how learners formulate and express messages in writing—has been expanding rapidly (e.g., Bella, 2021; Codina-Espurz & Salazar-Campillo, 2019; Economidou-Kogetsidis et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2024, among others), studies of email perception, investigating how messages are interpreted and evaluated by recipients, remain comparatively scarce. Existing perception research has predominantly examined recipients’ perceptions—often lecturers’—to determine what is deemed appropriate or polite in email communication (e.g., Cheng, 2017a; Hendriks et al., 2023; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011; Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Lazarescu, 2020; Savić, 2018). Yet, little is still known about L2 learners’ own perceptions as email writers, as only a handful of studies have explored learners/writers’ perceptions of their own or other students’ emails (e.g., Cheng, 2017b; Economidou-Kogetsidis et al., 2021; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023; Jama & Alnefaie, 2022; Lai & Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2025; Ren & Liu, 2021; Zheng & Xu, 2019). Delving into the rationale for NNS students’ evaluations can provide insights into their underlying assumptions and help mitigate intercultural misunderstandings (Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2021; Wang, 2023). This is especially vital in today’s world of global communications where pervasive cultural stereotypes mean that even subtle cues, such as a sender’s name or cultural background, can significantly influence perceptions, response strategies, and interpersonal dynamics.

Despite a growing recognition of the need to systematically examine learners’ perceptions and judgments, there remains a significant gap in research that adopts a qualitative, interpretive approach. Such an approach, grounded in the interpretivist research paradigm, seeks to understand human experience, meaning-making, and social reality from the perspective of participants themselves (Bryman, 2016; Creswell, 2016; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). It thus offers the potential to yield deeper insights into how learners’ beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and contextual understandings shape their knowledge and evaluations of politeness in digital academic communication.

Situated within this framework, the present study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist methodology, employing content coding of semi-structured interviews to explore how Greek university students, who are English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, navigate the cultural and hierarchical complexities of student–faculty email communication. Specifically, it investigates how Greek students manage power asymmetries in academic email exchanges and how cultural and sociopragmatic norms shape their perceptions of email politeness and appropriateness. The study rests on the premise that linguistic and cultural practices are inseparable. As Sifianou (2010, p. 27) asserts, “language and culture are inextricably linked” and language cannot be regarded as “a culture-free tool of communication” (Dendrinos et al., 2008, p. 3).

This research is a follow-up to Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study which delves deeper into learner perceptions and metapragmatic judgments. It draws on the authentic student emails previously analysed in Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study and supplements them with individual interviews conducted with ten participants from the same learner cohort. In doing so, it responds to calls for more in-depth email investigations into L2 learners’ evaluative processes (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023; Ren & Liu, 2021), aiming to identify the underlying cultural factors that inform their assessments of (im)politeness and appropriateness in digital academic interaction.

As this study examines participants’ understanding and interpretation of politeness, it adopts the discursive approach to politeness (Watts et al., 1992) as its theoretical framework. This perspective views politeness as a form of evaluation, placing “metapragmatic politeness”—defined as “a concept about what people perceive politeness to be all about” (Eelen, 2001, p. 35)—at the forefront. Politeness is thus conceptualised as a social practice that extends beyond linguistic production to include evaluations shaped by social actions and meanings, grounded in a moral order (Kádár & Haugh, 2013, p. 183). In line with this perspective, the study also draws on Watts’ (2003) first-order politeness (politeness1) which refers to the lay or commonsense notions of politeness — that is, the everyday understandings and evaluations of behaviour as polite or impolite by members of a speech community (Watts, 2003). The present study thus focuses on how participants themselves perceive, interpret, and evaluate politeness in email communication, foregrounding their emic perspectives and prioritising their own interpretations and judgments.

The conceptualisation of politeness also aligns with Spencer-Oatey’s (2000) view of politeness as “a social judgment” and “a question of appropriateness” (2000, p. 3). Therefore, when discussing the issue of email politeness with the interviewees, the terms ‘politeness’/’appropriateness’ were used interchangeably.

2. Background

Students’ Perceptions of Politeness and Appropriateness in Academic Emails

The limited, yet growing body of research dealing with email perceptions, has highlighted the complex ways in which students perceive and evaluate academic email communication, particularly in relation to norms of politeness, formality, and hierarchy. These perceptions are often shaped by cultural expectations, contextual understanding, and varying degrees of pragmatic awareness.

Prompted by anecdotal reports of irritation within their institutional context, Lewin-Jones and Mason (2014) observed dissatisfaction among both native-speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) academic staff and students regarding email communication, which they explored through online questionnaires. A key theme that emerged was the tension between formality and informality as staff associated formality with professionalism and criticised overly informal emails, while students struggled to define acceptable formality, focusing instead on what was too informal. Most students agreed that email should differ from texting and rejected the use of logograms and initialisms. They also expressed uncertainty about appropriate greetings and sign-offs, particularly in relation to power dynamics and cultural background—an issue especially noted by international students. Lewin-Jones and Mason’s (2014) study further highlighted participants’ views on staff-student relationships and email etiquette. While some respondents viewed these relationships as formal, with distinct roles for lecturers and students, others saw them as more personal and shaped by individual interactions. Some students noted a difference in how they addressed lecturers based on perceived seniority, adjusting their email style accordingly. Both students and staff frequently described their communication as “professional” (p. 82) and students themselves were critical of instances where they perceived a lack of professionalism.

Building on such concerns with professionalism in email communication, Wang’s (2023) qualitative study investigated how Chinese and British postgraduate students in the UK build rapport and navigate email communication with academic staff, particularly in request emails. Drawing on focus group discussions, Wang (2023) identified culturally patterned differences in interpersonal sensitivity and perceptions of the socio-moral order. Chinese students, for example, were more likely to include greetings, small talk, and formal address terms in their emails—practices linked to rapport-building and politeness. In contrast, British students viewed such additions as excessive or even uncomfortable. These contrasting perceptions were found to highlight the cultural embeddedness of email norms, and the challenges students face when navigating intercultural academic contexts.

Cultural and contextual influences on student perceptions were also highlighted in Cheng’s (2017b) study on apology emails. Using retrospective verbal reports, Cheng compared native English speaker (NES) and non-native English speaker students (NNES) (Arabic and Chinese) in the US, revealing significant differences in their metapragmatic judgments. NES students demonstrated greater sociopragmatic sensitivity to factors such as severity and social distance, whereas NNES students relied more heavily on formality, politeness markers, and plausible explanations—strategies shaped by cultural conventions and classroom instruction. Notably, NNES students expressed uncertainty about appropriate language and address forms, underscoring their lack of formal training in email pragmatics. “[W]hile NESs largely relied on their intuitions and family upbringing, NNESs either transferred practices from their L1 culture or utilised pieces of information gathered from their English classes” (2017, p. 279).

Similar findings were reported by Zheng and Xu (2019), who explored Chinese EFL learners’ evaluations of email requests. Although learners showed awareness of pragmalinguistic strategies—such as using internal and external modifiers—they struggled with sociopragmatic appropriateness, particularly regarding power asymmetries and contextual expectations. Learners often perceived highly mitigated requests as appropriate even in contexts where the very act of requesting (e.g., asking to change a grade) was viewed as inappropriate by native speakers. This revealed a tendency to over-rely on formal or polite language forms without fully grasping the contextual or relational implications, indicating a gap in their ability to map linguistic choices onto social context appropriately.

Along similar lines, Ren and Liu (2021) investigated Chinese students’ production and perception of phatic communication in English gratitude emails addressed to university faculty. Their perception study employed a judgment task using Likert scales, along with open-ended questions prompting participants to explain the reasoning behind their evaluations. The findings revealed several culture-specific choices shaping the students’ email production, such as “expecting future meetings” or “promising hard work”, which were intended to display involvement and enhance the writer’s positive face (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987), that is, their desire to be liked, appreciated, approved of, and included. For example, students included statements like “I will study hard to make you proud of me” (Ren & Liu, 2021, p. 143), highlighting the influence of Chinese culture which treats the student-teacher relationship as a hierarchical yet deeply personal, often conceptualised as part of the immediate family. Notably, not even advanced learners demonstrated “sufficient metapragmatic awareness to effectively detect any inappropriateness” (p. 143), suggesting that their evaluations were shaped more by cultural values than by language proficiency.

Within the Greek context, the influence of L1 cultural norms was similarly emphasised in Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2016) study, which compared the views of British lecturers and Greek Cypriot university students on direct and unmodified student emails (i.e., lacking closings, greetings or softening devices). The findings revealed a significant mismatch between the two groups’ perceptions of politeness. While lecturers assessed appropriateness in relation to factors such as recognition of imposition, expressions of appreciation, recipient autonomy, and indirectness, the students focused more narrowly on surface-level formality, such as using polite phrases (’please’, ’thank you’, ‘dear’) and avoiding informal address forms. Crucially, students did not appear to recognise the potential impoliteness of direct requests or the absence of softening strategies, suggesting a gap in sociopragmatic awareness. The influence of L1 cultural norms found in this study was in line with Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2021) study which examined the effect of L1 pragmatics on L2 email performance. Although her research focused on production rather than perception, it similarly revealed the transfer of culture-specific pragmatic patterns from the learners’ first language into their English emails. The study showed that learners’ L2 email performance often mirrored the stylistic and pragmatic tendencies of Greek native speakers, indicating a convergence with L1 norms and an approximation of native speaker behaviour.

Economidou-Kogetsidis et al. (2021) further demonstrated the influence of L1 cultural norms on email style and pragmatic evaluations. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data from a discourse completion questionnaire and a perception survey, the study compared native-speaker lecturers (NSLs) and non-native EFL teachers (NNSTs), the majority of whom were of Greek origin. The two groups held contrasting views on what constitutes politeness in academic email communication. Compared to NS lecturers, NNSTs viewed informality more negatively—an orientation linked to their cultural backgrounds, as many participants came from high power-distance societies (e.g., Greece, China, Russia, Romania, Turkey), where clear hierarchical distinctions between professors and students are the norm. More specifically, NS lecturers viewed appropriate email communication—particularly in contexts marked by unequal power relations—as dependent on multiple factors, including demonstrating awareness of imposition, expressing appreciation, offering flexibility to the recipient, maintaining their autonomy by avoiding directness or urgency, and employing indirect, mitigating language. In contrast, NNSTs placed much greater emphasis on email epistolary format and surface-level formality, associating email politeness primarily with structural elements such as formal address terms and closings. Their main concern was the use of informal address forms (e.g., first names), which they perceived as disrespectful. However, they appeared less attuned to other pragmalinguistic elements, such as the directness of requests, the use of imperatives, or the absence of softening strategies, all of which could significantly affect how polite an email is perceived.

Perhaps most directly informing the present study is Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study, which the present investigation builds on. Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study sought to explore Greek EFL learners’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic considerations underpinning their perceptions of (in)appropriate email communication, with particular emphasis on their pragmatic judgments and metapragmatic reasoning in the context of student–faculty emails. The study’s findings indicated that the students demonstrated limited sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic awareness when assessing status-incongruent emails, along with a reduced capacity to integrate and balance the significance of both email content and form. Their evaluations were largely shaped by surface-level features, particularly framing elements and degrees of formality associated with address terms and sign-offs. In contrast, they gave minimal attention to content-related aspects, such as whether status-preserving pragmalinguistic strategies were present or absent, as well as to broader sociopragmatic and contextual factors.

Taken together, previous research indicates that NNS students’ perceptions of politeness in academic email communication are influenced by a range of intersecting factors, including cultural values, perceptions of power relations, limited sociopragmatic awareness, and a strong dependence on formal surface-level markers. Yet, a more systematic investigation of these factors, particularly through qualitative methods, can yield richer insights and, as Economidou-Kogetsidis (2023, p. 29) argues, it can “allow for a more in-depth analysis of the learners’ evaluations and metapragmatic judgments.”

Responding to this call, the present study aims to foreground Greek learners’ perspectives by engaging them in one-to-one interviews, thereby bringing their voices and interpretations into sharper focus. Specifically, the study explores how Greek university students (EFL learners) navigate the cultural and hierarchical intricacies of student–faculty email communication, with particular attention to how they manage power asymmetries in academic interactions. It further examines the cultural and sociopragmatic norms that might inform and shape their perceptions of email appropriateness. More specifically, the research questions this study aims to answer are as follows:

How do Greek university students (EFL learners) navigate hierarchical relationships in academic email communication, and what guides their perceived politeness and appropriateness in student–faculty email communication?

To what extent and how do cultural values and sociopragmatic norms impact their metapragmatic judgments of politeness in hierarchical email exchanges?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

As a follow-up to Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study, the present study interviews ten Greek/Greek Cypriot undergraduates drawn from the original cohort of 67 students who had completed Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) perception questionnaire. That initial cohort comprised 32 males and 35 females, aged 18–30, all enrolled at a private, English-medium university in Cyprus. During the initial questionnaire, students had been asked to provide their email if willing to join a follow-up interview; thus, recruitment for the present study was based solely on this self-selection, without additional exclusion criteria.

The interviewees were all advanced L2 learners of English (CEFR C1–C2) with Greek as their L1 and an average of 9.3 years of formal English instruction. They were all Greek/Greek Cypriot undergraduate students enrolled at the same private higher education institution in Cyprus, ranging in age from 19 to 30. Most participants were in their early twenties—five females (ages 20–22) and five males (ages 19–25)—reflecting the typical undergraduate profile. One male participant (Stephanos, age 30) stood out as an older outlier relative to the rest of the group, offering a perspective that may be shaped by age and/or professional experience. The roughly equal representation of students from Greece and Cyprus remained demographically and linguistically representative of the larger group, while the diversity in age (with this single older participant) ensured the sample could offer insights into any variation that age diversity might introduce in perceptions of academic email communication.

3.2. Data Collection

Data were collected through ten semi-structured interviews conducted after participants had completed the perception questionnaire in Economidou-Kogetsidis (2023). All interviews were held in Greek (the participants’ L1) to facilitate rich, in-depth responses and minimise language-related constraints. Together, the interviews generated 6 h, 8 min, and 54 s of audio data (average duration: 36 min 52 s per interview). Each session was audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim in Greek, and subsequently translated into English. Transcripts were anonymised to protect confidentiality.

The interview protocol was crafted to investigate the interviewees’ perceptions of politeness, formality, and hierarchical relationships in academic email communication, while also delving deeper into students’ own questionnaire evaluations. In Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) questionnaire, participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of various email samples on a five-point Likert scale to provide brief comments via open-ended prompts. To enrich these findings qualitatively, the present interviews invited participants to elaborate further on their earlier ratings and comments. The interview therefore began by exploring general email practices (frequency of emailing professors, ease or difficulty in composing messages, time spent planning an email, prior instruction with email writing, and factors such as language proficiency or concerns about hierarchy), and then visited each email sample (from the questionnaire) without leading questions about specific changes; instead, open-ended prompts encouraged learners to reflect freely on why they judged a message as (in)appropriate and how it might be improved (i.e., “What led you to find this email appropriate or inappropriate?” and “Why did you rate this email a 3, and how could it be improved?”). This approach allowed for more nuanced insight into their metapragmatic reasoning and a systematic, interpretivist exploration of the cultural and sociopragmatic norms shaping their email perceptions and practices.

3.3. Research Ethics

The study complied with established ethical standards to protect participant privacy, obtain informed consent, and safeguard data. Prior to participation, individuals received a full explanation of the research objectives and procedures and provided written consent. To preserve anonymity, all identifying details were removed from the transcripts and replaced with pseudonyms. The data were stored in a secure manner and access was restricted exclusively to members of the research team.

3.4. Data Analysis

Thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework, was employed to analyse the interview data. Thematic analysis is appropriate for interpretivist research as it allows for the exploration of participant meaning in context (Nowell et al., 2017). The process began with familiarisation, involving repeated reading of the transcripts to identify key patterns and initial observations. Next, initial coding was conducted to label meaningful data segments, focusing on participants’ judgments of politeness, (in)formality, and (in)appropriateness in email communication. Related codes were grouped into broader themes, which were then reviewed, refined, and defined to ensure they were coherent and representative of the dataset. Final themes were labelled concisely to accurately represent the emerging patterns in the data. The codes, themes and subthemes, along with representative examples, are shown in

Table 1. Codes, themes and examples identified in the dataset.

Theme	Descriptor	Subthemes	Example
Politeness as Respect	Politeness being essential in email communication, fostering positive rapport and demonstrating deference to professors.	Politeness as a sign of respect	“Respect and politeness go hand in hand in email writing; without them, the email doesn’t seem appropriate.” (Nikos)
		Respect for authority figures	“First of all, it’s a matter of respect. It’s a professor standing in front of me, teaching me.” (Demetris)
		Email structure and politeness markers	“If it’s someone in a position of power, like a professor, I always add phrases like ‘thank you for your time’ or ‘I appreciate your help.’” (Stephanos)
Formality in Email Communication	Formality associated with professionalism, clarity, and respect.	Maintaining a professional tone	“I always make sure that it’s more professional and that I don’t have slang or words that I wouldn’t use in a professional setting.” (Sandra)
		Polishing emails to avoid mistakes (for grammar, spelling)	“I will always make sure to write it correctly. I am careful to avoid mistakes” (Vasilis)
		Use of formal openings and closings	“I prefer using formal openings like ‘Dear Professor’ and proper closings to make the email look professional.” (Demetris)
		Mechanics of writing (capitalisation, punctuation)	“…they should have used (in the email) “I am” not “I’m.” (Irene)
Cultural Values and Sociopragmatic Norms	Cultural norms influencing email composition, reinforcing respect for authority and shaping linguistic conventions in academic communication.	Cultural emphasis on respect for authority	“In Greece, respect for authority figures is very important, so I think this influences the way I write emails.” (Stavros)
		Language as a reflection of cultural expectations	“The way we are taught to write emails, with formal greetings and polite closings, reflects cultural expectations.” (Maria)
		Age and respect	“Our style needs to be more serious towards a professor or a person we don’t know or is older than us, so we need to respect our elders.” (Irene)
Navigating Hierarchical Relationships	Sociopragmatic awareness—Adjusting email tone and content based on the recipient’s status.	Adjusting tone based on relationship	“If I haven’t talked to the person before, I need to be more formal because I don’t know how they prefer to be addressed.” (Stephanos)
		Adapting to the recipient’s tone	“It’s important to match the professor’s tone to show you respect their way of communicating.” (Vasilis)

.

4. Results

As summarised in Table 1, four key themes emerged from the interviews, namely Politeness as Respect, Formality in Email Communication, Cultural Values and Sociopragmatic Norms, and Navigating Hierarchical Relationships.

Politeness as Respect emerged as one of the most prominent and recurring themes across all interviews. It was perceived as inextricably linked to politeness and regarded as essential in the power-asymmetrical context of student–faculty email communication, where the professor was positioned both as an authority figure and a valued source of knowledge, thereby warranting respectful and formal communication. The students’ responses revealed that respect was understood not only as tied to politeness, but also as a means of fostering positive rapport and signalling appropriate deference toward professors. As one participant, Maria, explained about emails: “Politeness shows respect towards the person that you are addressing because the written word is impersonal”. Similarly, Nikos noted: “Respect and politeness go hand in hand in email writing; without them, the email doesn’t seem appropriate”. Gabriella also explained: “…you can’t address the professor with their first name… you should exercise politeness generally in the way you write, because they are your professors and you need to show respect”. Respect was thus strongly associated with communication involving authority figures and was deemed particularly relevant in formal, hierarchical email exchanges.

Consistent with this theme, participants emphasised that Formality in Email Communication was especially important when addressing authority figures. Participants also commented on the importance of epistolary email structure and the use of politeness markers as ways of expressing respect, formality and deference. Almost all interviewees referred to the importance of a clear email structure and paragraphing, often highlighting the absence of a greeting, a closing, or the professor’s name as important infelicities. Irene, for instance, when discussing Email 3 (see Appendix A)—a request for late submission that received the lowest mean evaluation in terms of appropriateness in Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study, justified her low score of 1 out of 5 by saying: “Um… in the third one, after ‘Mrs I’m Mary’, they [the student] should have made a different paragraph, added a space for example… after ‘Mrs’ there should be the name of the professor, their surname…” Along the same lines, Demetris, when asked how important it is for an email to close with phrases such as ‘Best regards’ or ‘Yours sincerely’, replied: “It’s just a formal closing… We’re talking to a professor… Some respect doesn’t hurt.” This response illustrates the role of such framing devices in expressing respect and maintaining formality.

The importance of including politeness markers—mainly gratitude expressions—as part of the email structure was also a salient theme. When asked about what it is important to think about when composing an email to their professors, Maria noted: “to be able to make my request in a nice way so it’s not abrupt or offensive… to thank the professor for the time they will dedicate…” and “…always to close the e-mail it’s necessary to thank them for the time that they dedicated, usually what I write is ‘sorry for any inconvenience’ if I have caused a problem…”. Stephanos similarly explained: “If it’s someone in a position of power, like a professor, I always add phrases like ‘thank you for your time’ or ‘I appreciate your help.’” Similarly, Vasilis noted: “When I write an email to a professor, I make sure it’s polite by starting with their title and surname and ending with a proper closing, like ‘Sincerely.’”

Formality in Email Communication was closely linked to both politeness and professionalism, with participants emphasising that maintaining a formal tone ensured their emails were appropriate and helped them construct their identities as responsible, professional students. Maria explained: “Whenever I write an email, I avoid using abbreviations or overly casual phrases because I want it to appear formal…”. Sandra similarly stated: “I always make sure that it’s more professional and that I don’t have slang or words that I wouldn’t use in a professional setting.” Orestis added: “Even if I use the chat on Moodle, I still write it like an email to ensure it looks professional.”

Students also repeatedly emphasised the importance of formal framing moves (openings, closings) and forms of address, which they saw as being tightly linked to email politeness. Formal greetings and sign-offs were perceived not only as conventional markers of deference, but also as essential to establishing a respectful tone from the outset and ensuring that the message was framed appropriately within academic conventions. They also associated formality with the mechanics of email writing, highlighting their sensitivity to subtle stylistic choices such as punctuation, capitalisation, contractions, and paragraphing. These were viewed as markers of appropriate or inappropriate tone, with potential implications for the perceived level of formality and politeness. Sandra, for instance, when asked to elaborate on why she rated email 2 a ‘2 out of 5’ (see Appendix A) of the perception questionnaire (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023), explained

“Well… s/he used the first name of the professor rather than the last. S/he also did not use a closing or a greeting. Yes… because you don’t know them personally nor are they your friend for example so you need to be more polite. Also, …s/he should have used ‘I am’ NOT ‘I’m’…. Anyway, this email needs to be more serious.”

[direct translation from Greek]

Her comments reflect a strong awareness of both structural and stylistic expectations in formal academic correspondence.

Similarly, Maria noted: “In formal letters, if you know the name of the professor, then we write ‘Dear Dr.’ and the surname, or ‘Dear Sir or Madam’ or ‘To whom it may concern’ if it’s impersonal and we don’t know. Always ‘Yours sincerely’ at the end of the email… ‘Thank you in advance for your time.’” She further emphasised: “I always start with the professor’s surname so that it’s very formal. I never begin [an email] without it being formal.”

For Orestis, email closings carried particular weight: “Closings are extremely important. They can turn a casual email into a much more professional email. And the signature is the last thing that the reader will see… I think it’s a good impression at the end, a nice conclusion”. Collectively, these reflections illustrate students’ heightened metapragmatic awareness of how formal framing moves function not only to convey respect but also to position the writer as professional and competent within academic hierarchies.

Importantly, several participants associated linguistic accuracy—particularly grammar and spelling—with both formality and politeness. Vasilis remarked: “I always make sure to write it correctly. I am careful to avoid mistakes”. Gabriella echoed this view: “I revise my emails to avoid any informal expressions or mistakes, especially when writing to a professor”. Their comments illustrate the nuanced judgments students made regarding both the framing moves and the mechanics of email writing in this power asymmetrical context, and how minor choices could influence their perceptions of tone, politeness, and appropriateness. Such careful attention to detail reveals students’ view that even small deviations from expected email etiquette may undermine the overall impression of formality and respect.

The theme of Cultural Values and Sociopragmatic Norms was also salient, particularly in students’ emphasis on deference to age and authority. In Greek society, respect for older people is a deeply ingrained social value, and this was reflected in the participants’ sensitivity to how they addressed and interacted with professors via email. As Irene remarked, “Our style needs to be more serious towards a professor or a person we don’t know or is older than us, so we need to respect those who are older”. Participants consistently highlighted the need for formal and deferential communication, particularly when writing to professors, who were perceived not only as institutional authorities but also as older, more knowledgeable figures deserving of special respect.

Demetris, when asked why formality mattered in email writing, elaborated:

“First and foremost, it’s a matter of respect. I mean, the professor in front of me is teaching me, and not only that—they’ve spent years of their life doing two or three master’s degrees, if not a PhD, in order to come and teach me. They’re older than me, and I think it’s extremely rude to address a professor using the singular form or to speak to them as if they’re a friend or some buddy I only met yesterday or today.”

[direct translation from Greek]

Demetris’s detailed reflection powerfully underscores this intersection between formality, respect, and hierarchical positioning. His emphasis on age and academic status as markers of authority provides insight into how Cultural Values and Sociopragmatic Norms informed students’ perceptions. Demetris’ response encapsulates how students did not merely view politeness as a linguistic choice, but also as a social and moral practice, deeply rooted in acknowledging hierarchy, expertise, and age-based respect.

This cultural emphasis aligns with Hofstede’s (2001) characterisation of Greece as a high-power distance society, where power asymmetries are accepted and respected, and where hierarchical relationships are expected to be marked by formality and deference. Stavros expressed this clearly: “In Greece, respect for authority figures is very important, so I think this influences the way I write emails”. Maria similarly noted: “The way we are taught to write emails, with formal greetings and polite closings, reflects cultural expectations”. These comments illustrate how students’ email behavior is not merely a matter of individual preference but is culturally situated, shaped by broader societal norms that dictate what constitutes polite and appropriate interaction with figures of authority.

Finally, the theme of Navigating Hierarchical Relationships was evident in participants’ adaptive strategies for managing tone based on familiarity and relational context. Participants’ comments also demonstrated sociopragmatic awareness in their ability to navigate hierarchical relationships by adjusting tone and content based on the status of the recipient, the degree of familiarity and the unfolding of the conversation. Stephanos explained: “If I haven’t talked to the person before, I need to be more formal because I don’t know how they prefer to be addressed”, while Irene similarly noted: “When emailing someone for the first time, I think about how I can make it appropriate and polite to avoid any misunderstanding…. Depending on the professor, I adjust my tone to either be more formal or slightly more relaxed if I know them better”. Vasilis also added: “It’s important to match the professor’s tone to show you respect their way of communicating”. Such comments highlighted the students’ attentiveness to power differentials and contextual factors, showing how they strategically managed politeness to uphold culturally appropriate behaviour in academic contexts.

While students showed clear awareness of cultural expectations surrounding formality and respect, the data also suggested that they were less attuned to more nuanced pragmalinguistic aspects of email communication, such as the directness of requests, the use of imperatives, or the absence of softening strategies. These elements received little explicit attention in the interviews. For instance, there was limited mention of how phrasing requests as conventionalised, query preparatory questions (“Would it be possible…”) or using hedging expressions (“I was wondering if…”) might influence the perceived tone or politeness level of an email. Similarly, there was no mention of the use of the ‘please + imperative’ structure (e.g., “Please let me know”) in email 4 (Appendix A), which was the email that was rated most positively in Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2023) study.

In sum, the thematic analysis revealed that the Greek students consistently foregrounded respect and formality, articulated through structural framing moves and strict adherence to epistolary conventions as their principal means of enacting politeness and deference in faculty email exchanges. Their metapragmatic insights further reflect deeply ingrained cultural values and sociopragmatic norms around deference to authority, age-based hierarchy, and formal email etiquette.

5. Discussion

The present study aimed to examine how Greek university students (EFL learners) navigate hierarchical relationships in student–faculty email communication, and what guides their perceived politeness and appropriateness judgements. It further sought to investigate how their cultural values and sociopragmatic norms might impact their metapragmatic judgments of politeness in such hierarchical email exchanges.

The qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed that the Greek students’ metapragmatic judgments revolved largely around email structural elements and writing mechanics, particularly framing moves such as formal openings and closings. Politeness markers emphasising gratitude also emerged as a salient theme, in line with Bella’s (2021) study which investigated the performance of email requests by L1 and L2 Greek university students to faculty, and found that both groups consistently used thanking expressions in the closing moves of their emails.

Yet, the Greek students in this study paid considerably less attention to content moves such as request directness, mitigation strategies, sociopragmatic rights and obligations, and the downplaying of personal needs. This pattern mirrors previous findings with the same population (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023) and with Greek native-speaker English teachers (Economidou-Kogetsidis et al., 2021; Savvidou & Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2019). For example, Economidou-Kogetsidis (2023, p. 27) found that “learners’ perceptions focused primarily on email framing devices and format, rather than on content moves”, while Savvidou and Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2019) study showed that Greek EFL teachers’ understanding of email politeness emphasised structural elements such as layout, salutations, and closings, and register features like tone and formality over pragmatic content choices.

The students’ low attention to email content moves also resonates with Cheng’s (2017b) study, in which Chinese students demonstrated low sociopragmatic sensitivity to factors such as severity and social distance, relying instead on email formality and politeness markers, strategies shaped by cultural conventions and classroom instruction. Similarly, the Greek students’ focus on these elements appears to be largely the result of classroom-based learning. Indeed, when asked whether they had been taught how to write a professional email, all participants referred to their English academic writing courses, where email writing was covered with an emphasis on the mechanics and structural conventions of emails, such as paragraphing, appropriate forms of address (e.g., Ms vs. Mrs), and formal closings such as ‘Best regards’.

Nevertheless, the fact that the students placed particular emphasis on the use of appreciation tokens, such as expressions of gratitude, suggests a heightened awareness of the time, effort, and support provided by their lecturers. This attentiveness to the interpersonal dimension of email communication highlights their sociopragmatic awareness, as it reflects an understanding of the relational norms and expectations governing this hierarchical academic correspondence. By explicitly acknowledging the lecturer’s effort and time, students not only observe formal politeness conventions but also help co-construct respectful and harmonious teacher–student relationships. Moreover, their recognition that email tone should be calibrated to the nature of the relationship—and adjusted as the exchange unfolds—indicates that they regard email not merely as a transactional tool but as an interactional event shaped by evolving relational dynamics.

However, this interactional function appears to be realised primarily through adherence to structural conventions, such as formal greetings, closings, and overall formatting, rather than through the nuanced use of content moves and syntactic mitigation strategies (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2023). This finding contrasts with Zheng and Xu’s (2019) results, which showed that their learners demonstrated a good awareness of pragmalinguistic strategies, such as the use of internal and external modifiers. Nevertheless, it supports the same authors’ observation that learners often over-rely on formulaic polite expressions without fully understanding their contextual or relational implications, highlighting a gap in their ability to map linguistic choices appropriately onto social context. The current findings also echo earlier research on L2 email pragmatics (e.g., Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011, 2016), which similarly revealed that learners tend to overlook the pragmatic impact of directness and the social consequences of using unmitigated requests. Moreover, they align with studies involving learners from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, which reported a general tendency to favour lexical over syntactic mitigation strategies (e.g., Alcón Soler, 2013; Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; C.-F. E. Chen, 2006). Taken together, these patterns may point to interlanguage developmental factors rather than exclusively culture-specific influences. They also seem to suggest that while deference to authority was clearly internalised, students may not have developed a fully context-sensitive awareness of pragmatic strategies.

The findings of the present study further confirm that email style and culture are inextricably linked (Y.-S. Chen, 2015; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2021; Ren & Liu, 2021), highlighting a strong interplay between students’ cultural backgrounds and their emic perceptions of email politeness. As cultural insiders, students’ understandings, experiences, and evaluations of politeness are shaped by their own social norms, values, and expectations. Consequently, their perceptions of email appropriateness are often driven by culture-specific motives. In this study, the Greek students’ comments revealed that respect and deference were perceived as closely intertwined with politeness, and that politeness itself was strongly associated with formality, particularly within the power-asymmetrical institutional context of academic communication.

Respect for authority, older individuals, and social hierarchy appear to be salient values in Greek society, a view supported by Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions and the World Values Survey (WVS, 2018) (https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp, accessed on 1 May 2025). Specifically, Greece scores relatively high (60) on Hofstede’s (2001) Power Distance Index (PDI), suggesting a society where inequalities in power are more readily accepted and expected, and where hierarchical relationships are more pronounced compared to lower PDI cultures such as the United States. As Hagan (2013) further notes,

In Greece it is important to show respect to the elderly from the youth, especially with children towards their parents. In companies there is one boss who takes complete responsibility. Within their culture there are signs and symbols that show one’s power in order to prove social position and the respect that should be shown.

(https://jhagan92.wordpress.com/)

This cultural orientation may help explain why participants in the current study equated email politeness with the use of formal and deferential language, and why such expressions of politeness were often framed in terms of showing proper respect to authority figures, particularly university professors.

Along similar lines, Koniordos’ (2018) report on Greece, based on the World Values Survey (WVS), provides specific data on attitudes related to obedience and deference to authority, captured through values such as υπακοή (obedience) and καλοί τρόποι (good manners). In response to the question regarding which qualities are important for children to learn at home, 25.6% of Greek respondents identified υπακοή (obedience) as a desired trait—suggesting that deference to authority retains a significant place in Greek cultural values. Furthermore, καλοί τρόποι (good manners) were selected by 77.1% of respondents (Koniordos, 2018, p. 26), reinforcing the importance placed on respectful and socially appropriate behaviour in child-rearing practices. These findings further support the interpretation that formality and respectful language in email communication are not only pragmalinguistic preferences but also culturally grounded expressions of politeness and social order in Greek society.

These culturally grounded expressions of politeness and social order in Greek society help explain the participants’ tendency to equate politeness with formality—a pattern consistently observed in both L1 and L2 email perception and production studies (e.g., Bella & Sifianou, 2012; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2016, 2023) as well as non-email pragmatics research with L1 Greek participants (e.g., Bella, 2025; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2005). In these investigations, Greek speakers either employed overtly formal language in their productions or rated such formality—and their frequent coupling with high linguistic directness—most positively. It has been argued that this particular combination serves as a marker of negative politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987), signaling social distance and deference (Bella & Sifianou, 2012; Bella, 2025; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2005; Economidou-Kogetsidis et al., 2021). The perceptions of the participants in the present study thus align with prior findings involving Greek speakers, strongly pointing to the influence of L1 culture and language, as well as the high-power distance orientation of Greek society (Hofstede, 2001), which favours formality and distance in hierarchical relationships. It also reinforces the argument that email pragmatics cannot be fully understood without considering the sociocultural and linguistic backgrounds of learners.

Importantly, however, it must be noted that the Greek participants in the present study operate within an English-as-a-lingua-franca (ELF) environment, frequently communicating with lecturers who are themselves native speakers of Greek and who, like the students, use English as their L2 and as the working language of the institution. In such ELF contexts, it is highly likely that students’ metapragmatic judgements are shaped by considerations that allow them to preserve and express their L1 sociocultural identity even more. As Ren and Liu (2021, p. 131) argue, “the legitimacy of using L1 pragmatic norms and cultural values should be acknowledged, providing new perspective and avoiding the approach of evaluating students’ L2 pragmatic performance against native-speaker models”.

Finally, limitations should also be acknowledged in order to contextualise the findings and clarify the scope of the study. This research is limited by its relatively small sample size, which may affect the generalisability of the results. Additionally, the self-selecting nature of the participants may introduce bias, as those with particular interest or confidence in email communication may have been more likely to volunteer. The study was also conducted within a single institutional context, potentially reflecting localised norms rather than broader academic practices. Furthermore, the researchers’ position as a faculty members within the institution may have influenced how participants expressed their views, despite assurances of confidentiality and voluntary participation. Future research could address these constraints by employing larger, more diverse samples, incorporating cross-cultural or comparative designs, and considering researcher positionality when examining variations in email communication practices across different educational and cultural contexts.

6. Conclusions and Final Thoughts

The thematic analysis of Greek students’ email judgments and perceptions revealed that students drew on their own culturally embedded frameworks to guide their email evaluations. They made strategic pragmatic choices to negotiate power differentials in student–faculty communication, reflecting an awareness of hierarchy and an effort to position themselves as respectful, responsible, and professional individuals. These identity constructions were not merely linguistic but socially meaningful acts that reflect how students navigate institutional expectations and relational dynamics in context.

More specifically, formality and respect were what primarily guided the students’ perceived politeness and appropriateness in student–faculty email communication and helped them navigate this hierarchical relationship. Such respect and formality have been found to be realised through structural framing moves, politeness markers, formal forms of address, and adherence to epistolary conventions—as the cornerstone of polite academic correspondence. These strategies reflect deeply held cultural values and a high power-distance orientation, whereby deference to authority and age-based hierarchy shape both perceptions and productions of email politeness.

However, while students demonstrated some sociopragmatic awareness in managing hierarchical relationships, their limited attention to pragmalinguistic strategies, such as hedging, mitigation, and conventional indirectness, revealed an underutilisation of the full spectrum of politeness resources. This gap suggests that, without targeted instruction, learners may run the risk of treating email writing primarily as a formal transaction, rather than as a dynamic, interactional event that benefits from nuanced language choices. To address this gap, instructional practices could include comparative analysis of email tone, explicit teaching of pragmalinguistic strategies, and role-play activities to help students practise adapting their language to varying levels of formality and social distance.

Thus, pedagogically, these findings point to the need for L2 email instruction that goes beyond structural conventions to incorporate explicit training in request strategies, hedging devices, and context-sensitive pragmatics, particularly in contexts where learners come from high power distance cultures and where politeness may be viewed more through the lens of status and formality than through interpersonal negotiation and face sensitivity (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). By broadening learners’ awareness of both interactional and interpersonal dimensions, students can be helped to develop more flexible and context-appropriate email competence, ultimately fostering more effective and culturally attuned academic communication. Moreover, while the study is situated in a specific institutional and cultural context, the findings may offer insights for other educational settings where similar hierarchical dynamics and cultural conceptions of politeness shape academic discourse. However, their generalisability remains limited by the small, culturally homogeneous sample, and further comparative research would be valuable in exploring their applicability across diverse international contexts.