Greetings and Closings in Workplace Email

This article reports on a study of the use and form of greetings and closings in the emails of two New Zealand workplaces: an educational organization and a manufacturing plant. Using discourse analytic techniques, 515 emails were analyzed and a number of differences were identified. In the educational organization, where restructuring has resulted in low staff morale and a mistrust of management, indirect and socially distant styles of communication prevailed and greetings and closings were not widely used. In the manufacturing plant, the more extensive use of greetings and closings reflected and constructed the open and positive relationships between staff and management and the direct, friendly, and familial workplace culture. The findings suggest that workplace culture is a more important factor accounting for the frequency and form of greetings and closings than are relative status, social distance, and gender.

[1]  S. Herring.  Gender differences in CMC: findings and implications , 2000 .

[2]  P. Eckert,et al.  Language and Gender: Introduction to the study of language and gender , 2013 .

[3]  J. Sherblom.  Direction, Function, and Signature in Electronic Mail , 1988 .

[4]  Joan Waldvogel,et al.  The Role, Status and Style of Workplace Email: a Study of Two New Zealand Workplaces , 2005 .

[5]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions , 1999 .

[6]  David Crystal,et al.  Language and the Internet: The language of the Web , 2001 .

[7]  M. Markus.  Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice , 1994 .

[8]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication , 1995, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[9]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[10]  D. Murray.  Protean Communication: The Language of Computer-Mediated Communication , 2000 .

[11]  Kirk W. Duthler.  The Politeness of Requests Made Via Email and Voicemail: Support for the Hyperpersonal Model , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[12]  Eric Williams.  E-mail and the Effect of Future Developments , 1999, First Monday.

[13]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[14]  R T Watson,et al.  Can a lean e-mail medium be used for rich communication? A psychological perspective , 1998 .

[15]  S. Herring.  Two variants of an electronic message schema , 1996 .

[16]  Brenda Danet.  THE LANGUAGE OF EMAIL , 2002 .

[17]  E. Goffman.  Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .

[18]  Sherri L. Jessmer,et al.  The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. , 2001 .

[19]  Ralf D. Brown,et al.  THE PRONOUNS OF POWER AND SOLIDARITY , 1968 .

[20]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[21]  Joan Mulholland,et al.  E-mail: uses, issues and problems in an institutional setting , 1999 .

[22]  Janet Holmes,et al.  Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work , 2003 .

[23]  J. Holmes.  Women, Men and Politeness , 1995 .

[24]  Anne Kankaanranta,et al.  “Hej Seppo, Could You pls Comment on This!”—Internal Email Communication in Lingua Franca English in a Multinational Company , 2006 .