rules of email interaction
"Rules" of email interaction | Pinkie | August 8th, 2000
Jonathan: are you going to do your TDA assignment on email discussion-group "rules"? Fascinating topic! The question of how-to-disagree-politely strikes me as particularly interesting: clearly, in email discussion we can't use the nonverbal signals that we'd use face-to-face. And in face-to-face interaction, we express disagreement in highly convoluted and "evolving" ways ("Yes, I see what you're saying, but don't you think that...") that simply can't be directly transferred to email, apart from anything else because of the requirement for ambiguity-elimination in written communication (no real-time feedback). Anyway, if you go ahead with this, please keep us informed!
Best,
Pinkie
Spain
PS Talking of email etiquette is the sign-off "Best" specific to Aston, or is it widely used? I haven't come across it in any of the other virtual circles I move in!
"Rules" of email interaction | Jonathan Clifton | August 8th, 2000
Pinkie,
In fact I have just finished this TDA assignment. What I looked at was not so much to try to find out the "rules" of email interaction but to analyze what was actually happening - descriptive rather than prescriptive. For those of you who have already done the TDA bear with me, but the assignment in a nutshell is this:
Basically when we interact there is always the possibility of the hearer's face being threatened (i.e. being rude). To avoid this we can use several strategies:
1. Avoid threatening face by not saying something.
2. Using hints or being vague.
3. Using negative politeness i.e. showing the hearer that we don't want to impose on them (e.g. excuse me sir, but if it is not too much trouble would you mind awfully if....).
4. Positive politeness, which stresses solidarity.
5. And finally being direct which we can use with close friends or if the imposition is very small.
Anyway, in email discussion, because we assume the role of critical friends the positive politeness seems to prevail e.g. use of first names, anecdotes, in-group membership is shown by use of jargon, the register is low, we claim common points of view and show empathy, show interest in others comments, avoid overt disagreement, some small talk from time to time etc.
Also when we do make a claim it is usually done with hedging e.g. 'I think' or 'I believe' which leaves the door open for others to hold differing opinions and avoids making the claimer look big headed.
As I say, I think these observations are probably very similar to the kind of politeness found in a face-to-face seminar, but I haven't made a comparison - it's just a hunch from my experience of both forms of interaction.
I see little evidence of negative politeness (apart from hedging). This I think is because as critical friends we are equal and there is no notion of distance or differing levels of power and status.
Pinkie your point about paralinguistics, real time interaction and ambiguity I think is borne out because on the emails I looked at there was no hinting or being vague (Off record FTAs).
Anyway it's a little difficult to put it all in a couple of hundred words, if anybody is interested I could email a copy of the assignment to them.
Best
Jonathan
PS I don't know if this signing off is specific to Aston. Thinking about it I used to end "best wishes" but then unconsciously I seem to have gone with the flow. Stressing my solidarity with the group or just being a sheep????
Re: Rules of email interaction | Tom Bloor | August 9th, 2000
By the way, Jonathon, in linguistics the word 'rules' does not necessarily imply prescription as it does in popular usage (grammar as social control) though the term is generally avoided in discourse analysis and especially in SFL.
Tom Bloor
with 
and 
