1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 6, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that dividing a broad register into sub-registers may reduce its internal variability. Building on this phenomenon, this study analyzes out-of-office emails, a sub-register of academic emails. We identify the communicative functions of 329 emails from 44 universities. We then describe the intra-register variability of the sub-register and use its situational characteristics along with politeness theory to help explain the observed communicative functions.

We found 10 primary communicative functions, with and being the most common. The sub-register appears largely internally consistent in that a majority of the emails relied on the same limited set of communicative functions. The (unknown) relationship among participants seems particularly helpful for understanding the functional strategies employed by the authors of these emails. Through this study, we hope to shed light on this overlooked sub-register and contribute to our understanding of intra-register variability.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
2025-07-31
2026-03-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, J.
    (2014) Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context & Media, 4–5, 62–73. 10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2018) Register variation online (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2023) What is a register?: Accounting for linguistic and situational variation within — and outside of — textual varieties. Register Studies, 5(1), 1–22. 10.1075/rs.00004.bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00004.bib [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2022) The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003087991
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087991 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biesenbach-Lucas, S.
    (2007) Students writing emails of faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and nonnative speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 59–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bitterly, T. B.
    (2022) Humor and power. Current Opinion in Psychology, 431, 125–128. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. W.
    (2004) Politeness accommodation in electronic mail. Communication Research Reports, 21(1), 11–25. 10.1080/08824090409359963
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409359963 [Google Scholar]
  11. Callahan, L.
    (2011) Workplace requests in Spanish and English: A case study of email communication between two supervisors and a subordinate. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 27–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chejnová, P.
    (2014) Expressing politeness in the institutional e-mail communications of university students in the Czech Republic. Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 175–192. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, J., & Terkourafi, M.
    (2017) Pragmatic Approaches (Im)politeness. InJ. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp.11–39). Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_2
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Duthler, K. W.
    (2006) The politeness of requests made via email and voicemail: Support for the hyperpersonal model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 500–521. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2006.00024.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00024.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.
    (2015) Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 69(4), 415–424. 10.1093/elt/ccv031
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv031 [Google Scholar]
  16. Edstrom, A., & Ewald, J. D.
    (2017) “Out of the office”: Conveying politeness through auto-reply email messages. Language@Internet, 14(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2019) Characteristics of effective auto-reply emails: Politeness and perceptions. Technology in Society, 581, 101112. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Egbert, J., & Mahlberg, M.
    (2020) Fiction — one register or two?: Speech and narration in novels. Register Studies, 2(1), 72–101. 10.1075/rs.19006.egb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19006.egb [Google Scholar]
  19. Egbert, J., & Gracheva, M.
    (2023) Linguistic variation within registers: Granularity in textual units and situational parameters. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 115–143. 10.1515/cllt‑2022‑0034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2022-0034 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gains, J.
    (1999) Electronic mail — a new style of communication or just a new medium? : An investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 81–101. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00051‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00051-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goffman, E.
    (1967) Interaction rituals: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Anchor.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grundy, P.
    (2000) Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gumperz, J. J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haugh, M.
    (2010) When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 61, 7–31. 10.1515/jplr.2010.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hober, N., Dixon, T., & Larsson, T.
    (2023) Towards increased reliability and transparency in projects with manual linguistic coding. Corpora, 18(2), 245–258. 10.3366/cor.2023.0284
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2023.0284 [Google Scholar]
  26. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
    Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2021) The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, 2021 EditionBloomington, IN. Available athttps://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  28. Larsson, T., Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L.
    (2020) Inter-rater reliability in Learner Corpus Research: Insights from a collaborative study on adverb placement. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(2), 237–251. 10.1075/ijlcr.20001.lar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20001.lar [Google Scholar]
  29. Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M.
    (2023) On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064. 10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064 [Google Scholar]
  30. National Endowment for the Humanities
    National Endowment for the Humanities (2022) What are the humanities?January19https://www.neh.gov/about
     [Google Scholar]
  31. National Humanities Center
    National Humanities Center (2022) What are the humanities?January19Humanities in actionhttps://action.nationalhumanitiescenter.org/what-are-humanities/
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Tyler, J. R., & Tang, J. C.
    (2003) When can I expect an email response? A study of rhythms in email usage. InK. Kuutti, E. H. Karsten, G. Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW 2003 (pp.239–258). Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0068‑0_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0068-0_13 [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhu, W.
    (2012) Polite requestive strategies in emails: An investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43(2), 217–238. 10.1177/0033688212449936
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212449936 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
Loading
“I’m on retreat and will respond to messages after 7/6”
Register Studies 6, 175 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): communicative function; intra-register variability; out-of-office emails; politeness theory; situational characteristics

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error