Gender and Politeness in Emails

7/30/2019 Gender and Politeness in Emails

1/32

GENDER AND POLITENESS IN EMAILS: AN INDIAN STUDY

Prof Asha Kaul

Wing 11, Indian Institute of Management,

Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, India

Email: [email protected]

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

Rutgers University,

4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ

Email: [email protected]

We would like to acknowledge the support of Research and Publications Division, Indian

Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, in writing this paper. We would also like to extend our

thanks to Rasika Gaikwad, Academic Associate, Gender Resource Centre, for meticulous analysis

of data.


2/32

GENDER AND POLITENESS IN EMAILS: AN INDIAN STUDY

ABSTRACT

This study extended recent attempts at analyzing and comprehending genderdifferences in emails with respect to cooperation and politeness in Indian businessscenario. Four hundred and ninety four emails were studied, out of which two hundredand fifty emails were written by men and two hundred and forty four by women. Collatedemails related to directives soliciting accomplishment of tasks throughadherence/violation to principles of politeness.

Results revealed that specific forms of politeness will result in cooperation among teammembers/coworkers in email communication; adherence to politeness maxims is higherin women than in men; specific examples of violations of politeness maxims are higher inmen than in women; adherence to politeness maxims in clusters is not gender specificbut is contingent on the needs of the situation or the organization; and finally, indirectives the variations in use of politeness maxims across genders is the highest.

INTRODUCTION

During the last two decades computer mediated communication (CMC) which refers toperson-to-person communication . . . over computer networks (Pickering & King, 1995,p. 479) has gained considerable momentum. Electronic mail, computer conferencing andrelated media all form part of CMC.

Studies have revealed significant differences between the nature of communicationthrough CMC and face to face interaction. (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Siegel,Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). Sproull and Kiesler(1986) argued that the unlike face to face interaction, CMC messages are not guided bysocial context cues, thus leading to differences in the way messages are structured. Thiscues filtered out perspective initially led towards the belief that CMC was less personaland social than face to face interaction.

However, as the number of studies in this area increased, several scholars arguedagainst this perspective. Walther (1996) used the concept of self presentation, asdeveloped by Goffman (1959), to argue that CMC was hyperpersonal in nature.According to Goffman (1959), we present our selves in a particular manner in order tocreate certain kind of impression. CMC makes it easier for individuals to manage theirself presentation and indulge in selective self presentation, which Walther (1986)termed as hyperpersonal communication. According to hyperpersonal theory ofcommunication, two features of CMC reduced cues and asynchronous communication


3/32

- enable the usersto control their verbal and linguistic cues and give them time toconsciously construct their communicative messages, thus helping them manage theirself presentation.The difference between CMC and face to face communication is amply evidenced inelectronic mails (Emails), the most commonly used form of CMC. Significant growth in

the use of emails has considerably changed the views held by researchers about thenature of messages used. In the last few years, researchers (Baym, Zhang, & Lin,2004) have posited that emails are used for fructification of social goals. They havebecome a convenient measure to construct a new type of social interaction beyondspace barriers in which cooperation is desired.

Cooperation between the sender and receiver is a mandate for successful or effectivecommunication/conversation (Grice, 1975). Extending the notion of cooperation andsuccessful communication in task oriented emails, we find that the purpose is to solicitcooperation though use of language/words or non-use of specific languagepatterns/words. Often, politeness and its maxims are used to secure cooperation.Previous studies (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1983) have uncovered the

relationship between politeness and cooperation in face to face communication.

Though impact of politeness on cooperation and vice versa has been studied extensively(Dubrovsky et al., 1991; Goffman, 1955; Brown & Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1983), scantattention has been paid to violations of politeness principles and variations in choice ofprinciples and clusters in emails across genders. Extrapolating the research findings inface to face communication, can we state that the link/interplay between cooperationand politeness is equally relevant in emails? Is there a difference in the structuring ofemails across genders? There are almost no validation studies on emails in the Indiancontext that provide an insight in the above raised questions.

Our goal, in the chapter, is to provide a conceptual understanding that would help us

assess how men and women appraise different situations, initiate dialogue and respondvia emails. The study offers challenging scope for analysis of the level/extent ofpoliteness or type of principles used/abused to solicit cooperation in emails by malesand females.

Emails can be used for both formal and informal transmission of messages. This chapterfocuses on the study of formal, organizational and task related emails written by menand women in which social interaction is studied through adherence or violation ofpoliteness maxims. It applies Principles of Politeness and maxims developed by Leech(1983) to study the use of politeness in emails across genders.

The objectives of the chapter are as follows:

To understand the influence of gender and politeness on writing style in workrelated emails, in the Indian context.

To identify gender based similarities/differences in formal style of email writing.

To examine the relationship between cooperation and politeness in emails acrossgenders

To evaluate instances of adherence and violation of politeness maxims in emails


4/32

BACKGROUND

The Indian context

During the last two decades, the number of women at workplace has increasedsignificantly. As this is a comparatively new phenomenon in India, thecommunication patterns - face to face and emails - have undergone a radicalchange. The emphasis has shifted from cooperation in same sex groups tounderstanding of cooperation and politeness strategies used by men and womenin the organizational context (Kaul and Patnaik, 2006). Unlike the scenario inseveral Western countries, India is still faced with issues of the shrinking pipelineas women traverse up the ladder of success. Hence the need to analyse thecommunication patters oral and written- across genders. Research indicatesthat the face to face communication patterns of men and women are widelydivergent (ONeill, 2004; Wilkins & Andersen, 1991). The phenomenon becomes

more pronounced among Indian managers (men and women), many of whomare not well equipped or trained to work in diverse teams which operates in aunisex work environment and culture. Such uniqueness when translated to emailcommunication makes India an ideal site for studying cooperation and politeness

which would have implications for managerial competence.

Review of research

Politeness:

Theory of linguistic politeness and face gained ground with the seminal work ofGoffman (1955). The formal theoretical construct was provided by Brown and Levinson(1978:87). Brown and Levinson (1987) argued that politeness is governed by a need tobe approved (positive face) and the need for independence (negative face). For anindividual to maintain face, it is important that the face needs of the other individual toobe respected. Holtgraves (2002) stated that the theory of politeness and face saving isextremely important in providing an answer to the different constructs. Politeness theoryhas primarily been applied in face to face communication, barring a few exceptions(Morand & Ocker, 2003; Sussman & Sproull, 1999).

Politeness has been studied as a principle with a set of maxims, essential for smoothflow of communication between sender and receiver. Geoffrey Leech (1983) in anelaboration on Politeness Principle (PP) identified six Maxims: Tact Maxim (minimizecost to the other and maximize benefit to the other), Generosity Maxim (minimize benefit

to self and maximize cost to self), Approbation Maxim (minimize dispraise of the otherand maximize praise of the other ), Modesty Maxim (minimize praise of self, maximizedispraise of self), Agreement Maxim (minimize disagreement between self and the otherand maximize agreement between self and other) and Sympathy Maxim (minimizeantipathy between self and the other and maximize sympathy between self and other).


5/32

Gender and Language:

Research on language and gender primarily focuses on spoken language which isdeduced from direct observation, interviews, or transcriptions appearing in large-scalecorpora (Baron, 2003, p. 9). Language of women is attributed to be less assertive, thusfacilitating social networking, whereas the language used by men is more informationoriented (Holmes, 1995; Cameron, 1998).

There are multiple studies focusing on the area of gender variations in written language.Baron (2003) posits that some of the data analyzed are historical in nature (relyingheavily upon personal letters), while other data derive from large scale written corpora orexperimental essay composition tasks (p. 11). Graddy (2004) reported multipledifferences in the male and female conversational styles as men tend to be moreadversarial, self-promoting, contentious, and assertive. Attributes associated with menincluded threats to individual expressions, concern with rules, posting of long messages,etc. On the contrary female language was found to be more qualifying, apologetic,supportive, and polite (p. 3).

According to Lakoff (1990), females tend to use more expressive forms than males:adjectives not nouns or verbs and, in that category, those expressing emotional ratherthan the intellectual (p. 204). Herring (2000) stated that gender socialization in face toface interaction is essentially reflected in synchronous and asynchronous mediums ofinteraction.

There are evidences that there are variations in the written communication styles of menand women. Mulac and Lundell (1994) in their analysis of impromptu essays of collegestudents coded the data and suggested male and female language variables. Thedifferences in writing styles of men and women have also been accounted by forlinguists and social scientists. Additionally, socio economic factors influence the writingstyles of men and women, more so in the case of emails which are task oriented innature.

THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS

Issues, Controversies, Problems

Politeness:

Danet (2001) observed that "the relative status of addressor and addressee [influences]

linguistic choice: messages addressed upward tend to be more formal, more polite, andmore conforming with conventional norms" (p. 65). Arguably, emails form an interestingpoint of departure from the accepted and set pattern of analysis. They create anasymmetrical imbalance in the sender-receiver relationship. The sender can transmitinformation and get cooperation under way, but has no guarantee that the recipient hasreceived the message (Riva & Galimberti, 1998) and will respond in a positive manner.Additionally, politeness rules differ depending on the situation in which or for which themessage has been drafted (Argyle, 1992). Differences arise because the communicators


6/32

have a sense of anonymity which could encourage them, for example, to be impolite andexpress their hostility or resentment explicitly (Reid, 1995).

Several researchers (Chen, 2006; Danet, 2001; Herring, 2002) have discussed stylisticdifferences in email communication with different audiences. In other words, presence ofsocial context cues stemming from hierarchy increase the level of formality and

politeness (Spears & Lea, 1992) and "more socially desirable levels of interaction andthe creation of polite speech" (Duthler, 2006, p.18); while absence may cause email

writers to be negligent of social protocol and formalities (Sproull & Kiessler, 1986).Additionally, absence of social context cues gives rise to impoliteness or violations ofpoliteness which gets reflected in the form of flagrancy, hostility and inhibitions (Kiesler,Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Sproull &Kiesler, 1986).

In this context, two questions come to the fore: in situations where cooperation isuncertain, do the recipients respond with the same degree of politeness as initiated bythe sender? Does the level/extent/degree of politeness affect the level of cooperation?Bunz & Campbell (2003) argued that messages with verbal and structural politeness

indicators elicited the most polite responses. They observed that email recipients detectpoliteness indicators, and accommodate this politeness by including similar politenessindicators in their email responses. In other words, cooperation in emails can beachieved by politeness markers and indicators.

Holtgraves and Yang (1992) defined politeness as phrasing ones remarks so as tominimize face threat (p. 246). Extrapolating the definition to an understanding of thepoliteness phenomenon in written communication, we can postulate that the sender, byexercising care and being selective can minimize face threat and construct carefully

worded messages which adhere to principles of politeness.

Emails which are an extension of the form of written communication similarly follow a

planned process in which the sender gets ample time and opportunity to compose,review, and edit. One can state that securing of cooperation through emails depends onthe communicators ability and desire to construct polite emails. Words like please,kindly, sorry, relax , also referred to as politeness indicators and markers (Trip,1971), have positive, polite connotations and their choice heralds a message whichsolicits and gains cooperation. At the same time, researchers have also stated that emailstyle is reflective of the organizational culture and cultural differences. This argumentfound support in the study by Gains (cited in Murray, 2000) who examined 116 workrelated emails. In his study, differing styles of writing emails supported the view that theprocess of writing emails was dependent on multiple factors.

Gender, Politeness and Emails:

Politeness as a tool adds an important dimension to the study of gender and language inemails. The term gender, as any other terminological choice, is laden withassumptions built on cultural roles and stereotypes developed over centuries andgenerations


7/32

Politeness in email exchange across genders has been extensively studied byresearchers. According to a study by Holmes (1995) on speech patterns of men and

women and their relationship to status and power, there are differences in politenesspatterns between men and women. The study noted that high amount of politeness in

womens speech is often associated with submissive social roles.

In an experiment by Fishman (1980) one-third of the questions that women asked weretag questions. Other questions were requests for information or clarification. The studyalso revealed that women said ''you know'' five times more often than men. Impolitemessages, it was found, were usually authored by males, while females were theperceived authors of the polite messages (Jessmer and Anderson, 2001).

Smith et al, 1997, (cited in Herring, 2000), have found that women are more likely tothank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness: they arealso more likely to challenge offenders who violate online rules of conduct. Incontinuation with online rules of conduct, Herring (2000) noted that conventional stylesof gender create a climate on the Internet which is more amenable to men than women.Her research reveals how men in online groups make strong assertions, disagree

vehemently and quite frequently use profanity, sarcasm and insults. In contrast womenuse controlled assertions, polite expressions, offers and suggestions.

Gender differences in emails can be explained by the research findings that men andwomen tend to use and understand language in different ways (Gefen and Straub,1997). Womens discourse also tends to be more tentative and socially oriented incontrast to men, who tend to be more categorical (Preisler, 1986). Witmer and Katzman(1997) found that women tend to use graphical accents more than men, whichsuggested an emotional tone in their messages. Furthermore, women show a proclivityto highlight cooperation in their discourse while men tend to be competitive (Coates,1996).

Literature (Trip, 1971) on politeness studies these words in the context of negative orpositive politeness. According to Vine (2001) using directives in the context of workplaceis neither straightforward nor simplistic. Vine (2001) states that people use differentstrategies for directives, depending on the context. Trip (1971) categorized directivesinto five components imperatives, embedded imperatives, statements of need,questions directives and hints. He claimed that in directives, the communication involvessome sort of an action on the part of the recipient, which may involve varying levels ofeffort.

Based on the issues presented above we have raised the following propositions:

Proposition 1: Specific forms of politeness (e.g.: tactful requests, agreements) will

result in cooperation among team members/coworkers in email communication.

Proposition 2: Individuals writing emails are aware of gender centricorganizational acceptance and the composition of the emails is a reflectionof the same.

Proposition 2a: Specific examples of adherence to politeness maxims arehigher in women than in men.


8/32

Proposition 2b: Specific examples of violations of politeness maxims arehigher in men than in women.

Proposition 3: The choice of politeness maxims reflected in language usein emails is gender and task specific.

Proposition 4: In directives, typically identified as task oriented, variationsin use of polite expressions across genders occurs: this choice providesimportant cues regarding the use of language by males and females inemails.

These propositions were tested in the Indian context by analyzing task oriented emailssent out at workplace.

Method:

We sent emails to various organizations in India soliciting samples of work relatedemails. Additionally, students and colleagues were requested to share task orientedemails. 494 emails were received out of which 250 were written by men and 244 by

women. All names were deleted from the emails. The gender, male or female, of thesender was written on top of the mails to facilitate coding on the basis of gender.

We manually segregated the emails on the basis of gender. Subsequently, emails werecut and pasted on a word document file and a number assigned to them for ease ofidentification. This was followed by the coding process. An independent coder, who hadearlier experience of coding transcripts on gender and upward influence for the authors,completed the task of coding all the 494 emails.

All these emails were divided into two categories: directives and non-directives. Thepurpose of dividing the emails into these two categories was simple. The linguisticconnotations of the word directives have a commanding/ordering note which is notbound by politeness but is intrinsically status or hierarchy specific. Thus under thecategory of directives we clubbed emails in which the sender assigns a task to therecipient. Emails that contained messages which were of the nature of seekinginformation or seeking tasks to be accomplished were assigned to the non-directivescategory.

The measurement process was conducted in two stages. In the first stage the mailswritten by men and women were divided into directives and non-directives. Under thesetwo categories the text was further coded by identifying words or clauses that weremutually agreed by the researchers as measures for politeness. The criterion forcategorization of emails into different categories was based on adherence to differentmaxims of politeness. The mails were coded on the basis of the politeness maxims astact, approbation, generosity, agreement, sympathy and modesty. The mails that did notfall in any of these categories were labeled as others which were then analyzed by theresearchers and different labels assigned.


9/32

We checked the initial coding of 58 random mails for authenticity. When 100%agreement on the coding process was arrived at, the remaining emails were given to thecoder who completed the task.

Once all emails were categorized, we again carried out a random check to ensure thatthe coding was done as per the requirements. It was found that in four cases, there was

an error in identification of the gender of the sender. A re-run of the emails with thegender of the sender was conducted to ensure that the separation of the emails in themale and female category was accurate.

To make the study robust we followed a two pronged approach. In the first stage wemanually counted the politeness markers. To validate our findings, in the second stage,

we conducted chi square tests for assessment of frequencies of politeness use inlanguage by men and women in email exchange

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Results

As the data involved frequencies of emails across groups, chi square tests were carriedout to test if men and women differed significantly in the way they used language inemails. As the N for both men and women is comparable, analysis was done byconsidering equal expected frequencies across categories. The hypotheses pegged theexpected frequencies at equal numbers in categories tested.

There were significantly more non-directive responses than directive ones in the male aswell as the female category. For males the directive/non-directive analysis yielded a chi-

square value of 193.6 (df=1) with a significance of 0.000, and for females the chi-squarevalue was 163.93 (df=1), again significant at the 0.000 level. Gender, however, did notseem to play a significant role in the distribution of responses across the directive andnon-directive categories between sexes.

Females were observed to use significantly more tact than males. Chi-square value of4.263 (df=1), was significant at 0.03 level. However, ones gender did not affect thenature of responses pertaining to a-tactfulness, information seeking or task seeking.

Gender also did not seem to matter when it came to use of maxims or use of clusters.

Maxims of politeness have been used in varying degrees across genders. For men, the

chi-square value of 132.63 (df=5), was significant at 0.000 level. For women too, the chi-square value of 121.55(df=5), yielded similar significance. What is interesting to notethrough this analysis is that the breakup in terms of use of maxims is similar acrossgenders.

While analysing the use of individual maxims, the maxim of approbation yielded asignificant gender difference. The chi-square value of 4.24 (df=1) was significant at the0.03 level, with men making greater use of the maxim than women.


10/32

Table : Chi Square values for Directives and Non Directives

Chi-Square df Sig.

Directive vs. Non-DirectiveMales 193.60 1 0.000

Directive vs. Non-Directive

Females 163.93 1 0.000Tact 4.26 1 0.039

Approbation 4.24 1 0.390

Maxims-Males 132.63 5 0.000

Maxims- Females 121.55 5 0.000

Contrary to the results reported by Holmes (1995), paper, this study failed to confirm thelink between politeness and submissive role of women in society. Instead, the Indiandata when extracted out of a large data pool supported the presence of politeness in allemails, though there was a perceived difference in terms of degree and form.

Cooperation and Politeness

Emails in our corpus were all task oriented. The task compliance focused on a request(pertaining to work) to be made, job/task to be assigned, or information to be solicited.While all emails were task oriented, they varied in politeness indicators and markers.Some adhered to explicit expressions of politeness in the interest of securingcooperation, some indicated presence of more than one maxim of politeness, and somemade use of politeness indicators as Please, Thank you, while others directly violatedthe politeness maxims.

Emails written by both males and females sought cooperation by using politenessmaxims in accordance with the first proposition

Specific forms of politeness (e.g.: tactful requests, agreements) will result in cooperationamong team members/coworkers in email communication.

The finding is in tune with the research conducted by Blum-Kulka (1987) who posit that ifthe requester seeks compliance, a certain degree of politeness is required. There are nogender differences in politeness, hedges, pre- and post-request face work. In theorganizational context, the nature of the task, that is, request precedes gendervariables related to language. This code switch is evident in the writing styles of welleducated female professionals who use the male interactive styles to soundindistinguishable from their male counterparts (Lakoff, 1990, p. 202).

Gender and Politeness:

Out of the 250 written by men, 121 used different maxims for the purpose of seekingtasks to be accomplished by members in the organization. Tact and approbation weretwo principles that were followed extensively by men, followed by agreement. Ninetythree mails by women made use of maxims in which tact was adhered to maximumamount of time. Approbation and agreement were other maxims which were extensivelyobserved.


11/32

Fig. 1 Use of Maxims - Males

Fig. 2 Use of Maxims - Females

While the frequency of count among the three maxims is almost the same in men andwomen, there is a significant difference in the use of approbation between men andwomen.

Adherence to Maxims:It was interesting to note that there was a difference in adherence to politeness maximsby both men and women. The analysis of emails led to the following observations:


12/32

Approbation and Tact were two positive politeness maxims used frequently in emails byboth men and women. However, it was found that there was high persistence ofApprobation maxim among males.

Fig. 3 Use of Approbation in Males and Females

Men used flattery more than women in their emails. The emails communicated praiseand approval of the recipients actions. However, this finding contradicts the existingliterature which points towards the fact that as compared to men, women tend to praiseand appreciate the recipient more (Herring, 1994). This again could be attributed to thecultural backdrop in which the emails were written where men take on the patronizingrole and compliment frequently to motivate the team players/members.

Differences in use of approbation can be a result of the individual and cultural psyche of

the writers, where praise and dispraise is essential for securing cooperation andpromoting motivation in the Indian context. Triandis & Singelis had noted in 1998 (citedin Guodong and Jing, 2005) that in East Asian countries there is a greater eagerness tosustain harmonious relationships which is in sharp contrast to individualists in USA whofocus primarily on sounding opinions. The reason thus for adopting specific forms ofpoliteness for securing cooperation can also be conceived as a feature typical of the

workings of employees in the Indian sub-continent. Emails written by women showed ahigher degree of adherence to some maxims of politeness than those written by men.

Fig. 4 Use of Tact in Males and Females


13/32

Males

Females74%

26%

The emails written by women showed hesitancy to openly contradict or disagree. Themails were more appeasing and tentative rather than firm and clear. The findingcoincides with the existing literature that women tend to justify their assertions,apologize, express support of others, and in general, manifest an aligned orientationtowards their interlocutors. (Herring 1993:1996b; Savicki et al. 1996)

The findings thus validate proposition 2a, namely, specific examples of adherence topoliteness maxims are higher in women than in men.

Violations of Maxims:

An interesting finding from the analysis of the emails was the tendency or desire to bondwith the recipient through written communication. A variation in this bondingtechniquewas found in the mails written by men and women. It was found that

Men attempted bonding through the use of Approbation

Women attempted bonding by making Inane talk.

Men in the Indian culture play the role of the head in a patriarchic society, praising andmotivating, and women indulge in relationship building. This cultural variant is clearlyevident in the writing style of men and women in our corpus. Adoption of this tactic is inline with the nurturing role assigned to women by researchers (Tannen, 1990).

I hope this finds you well. Haven't heard from you for some time now. Waswondering what is happening on the book front. In your last mail we hadagreed on a February deadline.

While the email has clearly been written to inquire about the adherence to a deadline,

the author makes a point to inquire about the well being, instead of coming straight tothe point. Such kind of inane talk was used more frequently by women in our study. Inthe emails sent by men, while there was adherence to the politeness principle, violationsof maxims were also witnessed. Instances of violations were in the nature of sarcasticpoliteness or camouflaged politeness. In such emails, there was a dichotomybetween the words used and the intent of the message. While the words indicatedadherence to politeness maxims, the tone and the intent proved contradictory. Forinstance,


14/32

I can't make a scrapbook as I am not comfortable with the idea. I have notdone anything in this regard so far and I would be grateful if you could askthe professor to excuse me from this.

In this example, while the words I would be grateful if you could suggest politenessand tact, there is a clear violation of the agreement maxim. The author is not willing to

agree to the concept of writing/preparing a scrapbook. Clearly, the word grateful, inthis context, is not being used in the literal sense. The author has expressed dissent anddisagreement, albeit in a positive manner, by superficially or textually adhering to thetact principle.

We found that such violations, though rare, were present primarily in emails written bymen.

This validated proposition 2b, namely, Specific examples of violations of politenessmaxims are higher in men than in women.

This is typical of the findings by researchers (Herring, 1994) that aggression is

characteristic of the communicating pattern and style of men.

Clusters:

Many emails revealed use of more than one maxim. In emails where the size of writtencommunication or the number of words used to communicate a message is much less,

we found more than one politeness maxim operational. In our study we refer to them asclusters. Interestingly all groupings of politeness maxims had tact as a necessarysecond part to the cluster. Both men and women used tact in combination withapprobation + agreement.

This finding validates the third proposition that clusters are not gender specific, but are

contingent on the needs of the situation or the organization.

Explicit Expression of Politeness through Words (EEPW):

In the analysis of our corpus we found that Politeness Principles and maxims could wellbe expressed through EEPWswhich by their presence in a directive utterance changethe impact of the message and make it more polite.

Men and women use EEPWs differently while writing directives in emails for securingcooperation. While women made more use of EEPWs with reiterations of please andkindly, men communicated the task more directly with phrases rather than EEPWs like:as mentioned, we are running late I hope you check this mail ASAP and get thingsdone etc. While men did use EEPW like hope, the message conveyed more asense of urgency rather than explicit politeness.

In request research, direct strategies, presence of intensifiers and aggressive movesspecifying urgency have been projected as lack of politeness (Blum-Kulka, 1987). Theuse of intensifiers (right now, asap, terribly) is typically a male writing style and has beenfound in our corpus as well.


15/32

Interestingly we found that EEPWs were also used together with clusters, thus validatingthe fourth proposition. This finding validates the function of task assignmentemails. To secure cooperation from members in the team or the organizationfor accomplishing a certain task involves adherence to politeness principle,maxims and EEPWs. Use of EEPWs ensures that the request is loaded withpoliteness and chances of refusal are minimal.

Use of Directives

Directives were in the nature of assigning tasks. The data revealed some interestingconclusions. While assigning tasks, men and women were both tactful and atactful oruntactful. Women however, were more tactful while assigning tasks and men moreatactful.

Fig. 5 Directive vs. Non-Directive - Males

Directive

Non-

Directive

94

6%

Fig. 6 Directive vs. Non-Directive Females

Directive

Non-

Directive

8%

92%

Both men and women made use of EEPWs, like requested, kindly, sincerely,please, can we, may we, suggested, grateful, etc. at the time of assigning tasksin their tactful mails, but as most of the emails written by women were tactful in nature,obviously the use of EEPWs by women was significant and greater. Men did not focus


16/32

on being polite through EEPWs (they used EEPW only in five instances) but were moreoriented towards the task at hand in their atactful mails.

Thus, the fourth proposition, variations in use of politeness maxims across genders arehighest in directives,was also validated.

This finding however, contradicts the validation of the third proposition in which menwere extremely polite while seeking tasks. Not only were clusters used but together withclusters EEPWs were also used. The difference is a result of the nature of cooperationthat is attempted. In the case of clusters, the nature of the interaction was task seeking,but in the case of directives, it was a case of assigning tasks.

The analysis revealed that politeness and cooperation are essential for communication,more specifically, computer mediated communication in which the physical absence ofthe sender and receiver begins a process rich in assumptions and perceptions. Theaccuracy of the assumptions and perceptions is translated into cooperation between theinteractants. Use of politeness markers and indicators enhances the quality ofcommunication making it easy to secure cooperation.

Recommendations

Researchers (Abdullah, 2003; Markus, 1994; Waldvogel, 2007; Zmud & Carlson, 1999)are unanimous in their discussion of the use of emails as a medium of conveying richinformation. However the quantum of information which is shared among the participants

who deploy the electronic resources is dependent on the relationship between theparticipants, the manner of communication and the organization to which they belong.Abdullah (2003) in her research demonstrates that workplace emails are capable ofaddressing affective as well as transactional work. According to her research, emailsprovide writers leeway to personalize their messages.

In a study on corporate exchange via email, it is difficult to assess the feasibility ofadoption of personal styles to writing. In this chapter we have made broadcategorizations and presented the divergent communication content presented in emailsacross genders, with the use of politeness maxims and markers.

Differences across gender style of writing emails highlight the necessity to conduct in-depth research on the workplace culture and its impact on the employees. Researchsupports the notion that workplaces tend to develop their own unique email style,reflecting organizational cultural differences. Fraser and Nolen (1981) argued over twodecades ago that "no sentence is inherently polite or impolite It is not the expressionsthemselves but the conditions under which they are used that determines the judgmentof politeness" (p. 96). Hence it is important for organizations to introduce a culture in

which politeness is grafted in the medium through which messages are transmitted.

Lakoff (1990) reported women to be more expressive than men and men to use moreintensifiers than women. In her study, in which instructions had been given by theinstructor she found men used fewer intensifiers and occurrences of expressive andemotional language by women was lower. One of the reasons attributed by Lakoff(1990) to this finding is that when there is a code switch in highly educated professional

women, they adopt a language pattern which is symptomatic of the masculine culture.


17/32

With the higher growth rate of women within organizations and a change in the men andwomen ratio in organizations, it is important to study the language used by men andwomen, language used by men and women in emails and politeness constructs whichare favourable across genders. Creation of a language culture which is more neutral andunisex is the most desirable strategy.

Perhaps the best approach organizations can take is to create email training programsfor management and staff to establish rules of "netiquette." (Turnage, 2008). Create anawareness on the significance of email contact, conduct studies on what can and cannotbe achieved through politeness in emails. Finally companies can advocate that if nothingelse works, employees should be advised that they spare some time prior to hitting thereply button as it ensures that content is not written and sent in the heat of the moment

which they may live to regret (Cleary & Freeman, 2005).

FUTURE TRENDS

As the data comprised emails collected from Indian employees working in an Indian

environment, claims made and findings posited are reflective of a select audience. Theresearch thus provides a fresh perspective on the understanding of politeness used inemails across genders through application of principles and maxims, specificallycooperative and politeness principles in India. In future it may be possible to annotate aset of principles typical of an organization (multi national) for securing cooperation

which are not bound by gender or culture but are symptomatic of the needs of theorganization.

Study of emails in the context of gender and politeness is still a fertile ground for futureresearchers. Considering the comparative novelty of the medium, the options and thepossibilities of research and analysis are multiple.

Future researchers can concentrate on these similarities and dissimilarities. One virginarea for research in oral communication is the disparity between the intent of the senderand the message transmitted. The same can be studied with respect to emails where theinternal meaning of the message or between the lines message can be compared withthe explicit rendering of the intent. How frequently is this means adopted? What is theimpact of this dichotomy on the receiver? In the absence of the nonverbal clues is thereceiver able to comprehend the magnitude of the disparity? Is the message suitablycomprehended? Does the reader go by the written or the unwritten message? Thestudy can be well related to Grices theory of conversational implicature and theviolations of maxims.

Another area of interest can be a study of sarcastic politeness or camouflaged

politeness where the writer does not explicitly violate politeness principles. Throughsarcasm or cryptic remarks which are politeness indicators accomplishes the purpose ofcommunicating an unpleasant or unacceptable message. There is further scope ofanalyzing the clustered approach for future study of politeness in emails. More workneeds to be done to ascertain if specific patterns in clusters can be found in emailauthors across the globe or if these patterns are restricted to a specific area ordemographics.


18/32

Researchers interested in studying gender variations in emails can extensively study therole and impact of inane talk which can, with substantial data be an extension on themaxims of politeness. Securing a certain level of cooperation through inane talk can wellbe niche area for study in the language used by women in emails.

The chapter relates to researchers and scholars as it provides considerable room forfurther research. Professionals too interested in comprehending the differing patterns oflanguage in email exchange, reflected through violations or adherences to politenessacross genders will benefit from a reading of the text. Additionally, researchers will alsobe able to use the literature review for a comprehensive understanding of the differentvariables used for analysis.

CONCLUSION

Differences in communication patterns between men and women are a known fact. Theextent to which the variations translate in written organizational communication, morespecifically emails, and impact productivity, is a crucial issue and needs considerable

thought.

Essentially emails which can also be referred to as intellectual shorthand are acompressed form of what may be termed as directives and non-directives. In the fistcategory we have emails which issue orders or request for an order to be complied with.In the second category, we have emails which are more transactional in nature and donot seek compliance by ordering. The thrust of the chapter is on the process by whichdirectives and non directives are translated in emails and across genders for seekingcooperation.

Cooperation per se necessitates interaction at the level of a minimum of two interactantswho move towards a common goal. In the linear progression of communication through

which cooperation is sought, politeness forms an integral part of the process.Cooperation without politeness or vice versa is difficult to achieve in formal interactions.

Emails are an interesting point of departure from face to face communication. While thegoal in both forms is/can be the same, the difference in medium intensifies theapplication of principles, be it cooperative or politeness. The observation gains furthermomentum when we weave in the gender variable. Known differences in languagestyles across genders are reflected in written communication, be it in the form of simple

written messages or emails.

Our findings corroborate with the existing literature on higher politeness incommunication patterns of women to seek cooperation and greater violations of

politeness by men even in instances of seeking cooperation from peers. Instances inwhich there are variations in the choice of politeness maxims for cooperation acrossgenders are highest in directives. In the chapter while variations across gender choicehave been evidenced, it is majorly the need of the situation which determines the choiceof either a maxim or the clusters in which maxims occur.

Finally, the chapter raises several issues related to emails, gender and its effect on useof Cooperative and Politeness Principle.

1. Extent to which emphasis should be laid on intent and explicit expression.


19/32

2. Significance of use of specific/certain words3. Universality of principles for writing emails4. Relation between gender patterns in written language and emails5. Role of politeness in defining the quantum of cooperation in emails.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, N. A. (2003). Relational Communication in Organisational Email: A MalaysianCase Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Language and Linguistics,University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Argyle, M. (1992). The Social Psychology of Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

Baron, N. S. (2003). Why email looks like speech: Proofreading, pedagogy and public

face. In J. Aitchison & D. M. Lewis (Eds.), New Media Language (pp. 85-94). New York:Routledge.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M. C. (2004). Social interactions across media:Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone, and face-to-face. New Media &Society, 6, 299-318.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131-146.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in language usage: politenessphenomena. In E. Goody, (Ed.), Questions and politeness: strategies in social

interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage.Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4: Cambridge University Press.

Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. (2003). Accommodating Politeness Indicators in PersonalElectronic Mail Messages. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers3rd Annual Conference Maastricht, The Netherlands. Retrieved March 1,2009, fromhttp://bunz.comm.fsu.edu/AoIR2002politeness.pdfLinks

Cameron, D. (1998). Gender, language, and discourse: A review essay. Signs: Journal

of Women in Culture and Society, 23, 995- 973.

Chen, C-F. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers towriting to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35-55.

Cleary, M., & Freeman, A. (2005). Email etiquette: Guidelines for mental health nurses.International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 14(1), 62-65.

Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
http://bunz.comm.fsu.edu/AoIR2002politeness.pdfhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/reflink?object=TYPE%3DJCIT%26BIBID%3D4%26SNM%3DBunz%26SNM%3DCampbell%26FNM%3DU.%26FNM%3DA%26JTL%3DAccommodating%20politeness%20indicators%20in%20personal%20electronic%20mail%20messages%26PYR%3D2002-10%26ADOI%3D10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00333.x%26EVIEW%3DY%26ENABLEISI%3DN%26ENABLECAS%3DY%26ENABLEPM%3DYhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/reflink?object=TYPE%3DJCIT%26BIBID%3D4%26SNM%3DBunz%26SNM%3DCampbell%26FNM%3DU.%26FNM%3DA%26JTL%3DAccommodating%20politeness%20indicators%20in%20personal%20electronic%20mail%20messages%26PYR%3D2002-10%26ADOI%3D10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00333.x%26EVIEW%3DY%26ENABLEISI%3DN%26ENABLECAS%3DY%26ENABLEPM%3DYhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/reflink?object=TYPE%3DJCIT%26BIBID%3D4%26SNM%3DBunz%26SNM%3DCampbell%26FNM%3DU.%26FNM%3DA%26JTL%3DAccommodating%20politeness%20indicators%20in%20personal%20electronic%20mail%20messages%26PYR%3D2002-10%26ADOI%3D10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00333.x%26EVIEW%3DY%26ENABLEISI%3DN%26ENABLECAS%3DY%26ENABLEPM%3DYhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/reflink?object=TYPE%3DJCIT%26BIBID%3D4%26SNM%3DBunz%26SNM%3DCampbell%26FNM%3DU.%26FNM%3DA%26JTL%3DAccommodating%20politeness%20indicators%20in%20personal%20electronic%20mail%20messages%26PYR%3D2002-10%26ADOI%3D10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00333.x%26EVIEW%3DY%26ENABLEISI%3DN%26ENABLECAS%3DY%26ENABLEPM%3DYhttp://bunz.comm.fsu.edu/AoIR2002politeness.pdf


20/32

Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating online. Oxford: Berg.

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon:Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(2), 119-146.

Duthler, K. W. (2006). The politeness of requests made via email and voicemail: Supportfor the hyper personal model.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2),500-521. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/duthler.html

Fishman, P. (1980). Conversational Insecurity. Language: Social PsychologicalPerspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Publications.

Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.

Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations 18, 3, 213-231

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.

Graddy, D. B. (2004). Gender and online discourse in the principles of economics.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 3- 14.Retrieved March 27, 2006, from ttp://www.sloan-c.org/publications/aln/v8n4/v8n4_graddy.asp

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, In P. Cole., & J. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax andSemantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Guodong, L., & Jing, H. (2005). A Contrastive Study on Disagreement Strategies forPoliteness between American English & Mandarin Chinese.Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 1-12.

Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication.Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 (2). http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.txt

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

Herring, S. (2000). Gender Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications. CPSR

Newsletter18(1). Retrieved 1, March 2009 fromhttp://www.cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring

Herring, S. (2004). Gender and Politeness in CMC: A decade of new evidence. Plenaryspeech, International Conference on Language, Politeness and Gender: The pragmaticroots, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved 1, March 2009, fromhttp://www.nord.helsinki.fi/clpg/CLPG/Susan%20Herring.pdf

Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Longman.
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.txthttp://www.cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herringhttp://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.txthttp://www.cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring


21/32

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies:General principles and differences due to culture and gender.Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 62(2), 246256.

Holtgraves, T. (2002). Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language

Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jessmer, S. L., & Anderson, D. E. (2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on userperceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 331-346.

Kaul, A., & Patnaik, E. (2006). Gender Differences in the Use of FTAs when ReportingIncidents of UI: An Indian Study. TheInternational Journal of Interdisciplinary SocialSciences,1, 2006, 3-17.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication.American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York: HarperCollins.

Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L.(1994). Effects of gender-linked language differences in adultswritten discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Language and Communication,14, 299-309.

Malley, S. B. (2006). Whose digital literacy it is, anyway? Essential Teacher, 3(2), 50-52.

Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. OrganizationScience, 5(4), 502527.

McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediateddiscussion effects in risk decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52(5), 917930.

Morand, D. A., & Ocker, R. J. (2003). Politeness theory and computer-mediatedcommunication: A sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages.Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-36). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press. Retrieved January 28, 2006, fromhttp://csdl.computer.org/comp/ proceedings/hicss/2003/1874/01/1874toc.htm

Murphy, M. (2006). Towards a Practical Approach for Assessing Politeness inIntercultural Email Communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Griffith University,

Australia.

Murray, D. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediatedcommunication. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 397423.

ONeil, J. (2004). Effects of gender and power on PR managers upward influence.Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(1), 127-144.

Pickering, J., & King, J. (1995). Hardwiring Weak Ties: Inter-organizational Computer-
http://webpub.alleg.edu/employee/d/danders/Research/EmailPoliteness.pdfhttp://webpub.alleg.edu/employee/d/danders/Research/EmailPoliteness.pdfhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/2006-03-04.htmlhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/2006-03-04.htmlhttp://csdl.computer.org/comp/http://webpub.alleg.edu/employee/d/danders/Research/EmailPoliteness.pdfhttp://webpub.alleg.edu/employee/d/danders/Research/EmailPoliteness.pdfhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/2006-03-04.htmlhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/2006-03-04.htmlhttp://csdl.computer.org/comp/


22/32

Mediated Communication, Occupational Communities, and OrganizationalChange. Organizational Science, 6, 479-486.

Preisler, B. (1986). Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: social variation in theexpression of tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Reid, E. (1995) Virtual Worlds: Culture and Imagination. In S. Jones (ed.) CyberSociety,(pp. 164-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (1998a). Computer-mediated communication: Identity andsocial interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social and General PsychologyMonographs, 124(4), 434-464.

Savicki et.al. (1996) Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groupsusing computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 12( 4), 549-565.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in

computer-mediated communication. Organizational behavior and human decisionprocesses, 37, 147-187.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" incomputer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediatedcommunication (pp. 30-65). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail inorganizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Sussman, S., & Sproull, L. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electroniccommunication. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 150167.

Tannen, D. (1990).You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. NewYork, NY: William Morrow/Ballantine.

Trip, S. E. (1971). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives.Language in Society, 5, 25-66.

Turnage, A. K. (2008). Email Flaming Behaviors and Organizational ConflictJournal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 4359

Vine, B. (2001). Getting things done in a New Zealand workplace. New Zealand EnglishJournal15, 47-51.

Waldvogel, J. (2007). Greetings and Closings in Workplace Email.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 456477.

Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-44.

Witmer, D., & Katzman, S. (1997). On-line smiles: Does gender make a difference in theuse of graphic accents.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line], 2 (4).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632


23/32

Retrieved on March 20, 2005 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/witmer1.html

Wilkins and Andersen, (1991) Gender differences and similarities in management,Management Communication Quarterly5 (1), 635.

Zmud, R. W., & Carlson, J. R. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential

nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153183.

KEY TERMS

Camouflaged Politeness: There is a discrepancy between message and intent ofmessage. When the spoken/ written words follow structural politeness, but the tone of

the message implies sarcasm.Cooperation: Seeking compliance and reciprocating in an equal measure.Directives: Issuing an order for completion of a taskEEPW: Explicit Expression of Polite Words. Use of structural and linguistic markers toconnote politeness.

Inane talk: Babbling; talk which is not designed for securing a result, outcomePoliteness: Use of words, clauses and syntactical and semantic structures whichaddress the positive face of the recipient.

Sarcastic Politeness: There is a variation in the text and subtext of the message.While the text is structured using polite structural and syntactical markers, the subtextimplies sarcasm.

APPENDIX I

Breakup of Emails in Different Categories

Categories for Women and Men


24/32

Task Oriented Emails(N 494)

Men 250Women

244

Non Directives235

Task Oriented Emails(N 494)

Please

Kindly

Hopefully

Tact 59

Approbation19

Agreement12

Sympathy 11

Generosity 4

Modesty 3

Women 244Men 250

Directives 22

AssigningTasks

Non Directives222

Tactful14

a tactful8

Informationseeking 37

EEPW

Task Seeking 185

Use of Maxims 108 Use ofClusters 77

EEPWs14

Directives 15

AssigningTasks

Tactful 5

Use ofClusters +EEPWs 69

ASAP

Kindly

Hope

Tact 61

Approbation34

Agreement10

Sympathy 11

Modesty 4

Generosity 1

EEPWs5


25/32

atactful10

Informationseeking 45


26/32

SomeEEPWs

Task Seeking 190

Use of Maxims 121


27/32


28/32

APPENDIX II

Select Excerpts of Emails

Table 1. Emails with directive force

Directives(assigning tasks)

Males Females

Tactful No. of instances 5Example Please let meknow who would like toparticipate. I will be happyto provide some pointers on

preparing for the debate.

No. of instances 14Example: Could youplease discuss the textsagain with your groupmembers and let

me know the preferenceand a list of groupmembers.

a-tactful No. of instances 10Example Ask the studentto send a passport sizepicture of him along withthe answers either byemail, or he could send it toour office.

No. of instances 8Example I would like toknow why the Tue reviewmeeting on 19th was notorganized.

Use of EEPW (in tactfuldirectives)

No. of instances 5Example - However, since

we have an early deadlinetoday, I would reallyappreciate it if you couldplease get this done latestby 4.00 pm

No. of instances 14Example Would

appreciate it if you couldplease let me have yourviews so that I couldforward the same to thePGP office.

Table 2. Emails with non directive force

Non Directives Males 235 Females 244

Information Seeking No. of instances 45 No. of instances 185

Task SeekingUse of maximsUse of clusters

No. of instances 190 No. of instances 37

Table 3. Information seeking emails


29/32

Information Seeking a-tactful(EEPW)_

Males Females

Please/Kindly/Hopefully/Gratefully

No. of instances 45Example Thank you foryour reply. As requested,

please find enclosed thefollowing for your use.

No. of instances 185Example Kindly do letme know if you would be

interested to review any ofthese books.

Table 4. Task seeking emails with use of politeness maxims

Task Seeking(Use of Maxims)

Males 121 Females 108

Tact No. of instances 61Example Though the CPsystem does encouragepeople to talk in class, stillit cannot supplement a full

course and concentratedeffort.

No. of instances 59Example I would simplyneed 15-20 minutes ofyour time in filling inthis questionnaire.

Approbation No. of instances 34Example The materialreads well and is full ofinformation thatprofessionals and students

would find very useful.

No. of instances 19Example You were easilythe most impressive andmost effective of thefaculty who spent time

with us during theprogram.

Agreement No. of instances 10Example Yes, the

February limit seems fine

No. of instances 12Example Life has

become, as you rightlysaid one big meetingdeadlines issue.

SympathyNo. of instances 11Example Now that youmention it, I do rememberyour name (and IIM) fromthe program. Israel (notonly Eilat but also Tel Aviv,

where I spent a night afterthe conference) wasfabuloustoo bad you

missed it.

No. of instances 11Example I am saddenedby the devastation thatyour country and so manyothershave suffered.

Modesty No. of instances 4Example In case thereare some concerns pl feelfree to share them with ussothat we can improve on thequality of the program

No. of instances 3Example Hence it [my

writing] is not of besteditorial quality


30/32

Generosity No. of instances 1Example If you have anyqueries or need anyadditional informationplease feelfree to contact me.

No. of instances 4Example I m ready tohelp in any case

Table 4. Task seeking emails with use of clusters

Task Seeking

Use of Clusters

Male 69 Female 77

EEPW + Apology No. of instances 5Example

No. of instances 3Example Firstly, I am sorryfor the inconveniencecaused. If it's okay with you

we can meet at 8.30 todayat CR-4.Just mail me andlet me know if it'sconvenient for you. Thankyou for considering myrequest.

EEPW + Generosity No. of instances 0Example

No. of instances 2Example Please do let usknow if there is anythingthat you would require interms of multi mediaprojector etc.

Apology + TactNo. of instances 16Example Sorry to haveread the message late

No. of instances 10Example I apologize for thisinconvenience

EEPW + TactNo. of instances 10Example It ishence suggested to theCommunity Members tokindly use the ResidentialGate after 6 P.M. to avoidinconvenience.

No. of instances 12Example In the meantime

we will be extremelygrateful if you do not followup with any further salesactivities and approaches.

Apology + Approbation No. of instances 0Example

No. of instances 4Example Thank you for theupdate. I apologise for thedelay in response.


31/32

Bonding + Inane TalkNo. of instances 15Example Nice to see yourmail. I was sure theprogramme would begood.

No. of instances 35Example Do get in touchnext time you are inAhmedabad.

Approbation + EEPWNo. of instances 0Example

No. of instances 8Example You have beenextremely kind andunderstanding

Approbation + Agreement No. of instances 5Example Fine, I lookforward to hearing fromyou about your availability

No. of instances 0Example

EEPW + Agreement No. of instances 1Example


Inane Talk + TactNo. of instances 3Example Good to hearfrom you after a break.Happy to note that you areintensely pursuing yourresearch work. Research

work has its challenges ingetting timely andrelevant data .


Agreement + TactNo. of instances 3Example Ok. Keeping thispoint in view, please dothe needful.

No. of instances 1Example Thank you somuch for your mail.We will wait for yourresponse. Look forward to

further interaction with you.Altruistic Tact/ Humility No. of instances 1

Example BTW, when can Iexpect to receive thecover page designs & infoon number of pages.


Sarcastic Politeness No. of instances 1Example Sorry but i do notunderstand what is thispersuasion scrapbook.Can you define it becausei do not even start to work

on this ? Thanks you verymuch.


Bonding + Agreement No. of instances 0Example

No. of instances 1Example Yes, that will befine. Oh, thanks forincluding me in all themails.

Agreement + Tact + No. of instances 1 No. of instances 0


32/32

Sympathy + Apology Example I had submittedthe hard copy in time andhave also placed a softcopy onthe submissions server.While I agree that this can

not serve as an excusefor the error, I sincerelyrequest you to considermy case. May I requestyou to grant me anappointment fordiscussing the same.Once again, I apologisefor any inconvenience thatI might have caused.

Example

Approbation + Tact No. of instances 8Example Thanx radhika

for such an informativemail.I will definitely try andcontact Krishnendu, if he

will be helpful then I willclear many of my doubts.


]

Gender and Politeness in Emails

Documents

Transcript of Gender and Politeness in Emails