Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Politeness and Hedging
in Email Requests among Male and Female Friends Gisela Redeker & Kyra van Ingen University of Groningen (The Netherlands)
Abstract Research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) has consistently shown gender differences between women and men in participation and in interactional style, especially politeness and hedging. Most of this research, however, concerns communication between strangers or members of online-communities and usually involves male and female participants. This raises the question if the gender differences found in CMC may be mediated by those contextual factors instead of reflecting essential language use characteristics of the men and women involved.
1
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
We analyzed the formulation and embedding of requests in 66 personal emails from two groups of (ex-)students: 11 male friends and 11 female friends (each person contributed three mails). We found no gender differences in the formulation of the request (direct or indirect, with or without mitigation), in the bolstering with motivations and justifications, or in the use of hedges. This finding suggests that the genderspecific interactional styles found in mixed-gender email discussion lists and online chats may contain traces of gendered self-presentation that are absent in our sample of emails among same-gender friends.
Supposed Differences Between “Men’s Talk” and “Women’s Talk” Men
Women
Task-oriented
Relation-oriented
Dominating
Facilitating, supportive
Assertive
Tentative, uncertain
Direct
Polite, indirect
2
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Gender Differences in CMC Men
Women
Long contributions
Shorter contributions
Assertions
Questions
Aggressive (‘flaming’)
Supportive, polite
No/short greetings
More elaborate greetings
Expectations and Findings Politeness of requests Hedges in requests Pre/post-request face work Greetings
Men
Women
Finding
Less
More
No
Fewer
More
No
Less
More
No
Minimal
Elaborate
Yes
Sample: Two groups (one male, one female) each with 11 close friends (academics) contributing three mails p.p. (total = 66 mails)
3
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Example from Male Group Xxxx, dinner was nice last week. finally got to see your house. looks nice. I do still owe you money for the dinner. but I don’t have your account number yet. Can you just mail it then I’ll transfer it right away. [let’s] eat and drink in haarlem sometime soon greetings from a stressed-out Yyyy [translated from Dutch]
Example from Female Group Hi xxxx, Unfortunately, it wasn’t possible to make a background :-( Have put it in a table now, so that there is a background visible, but it is not on the whole page (sigh) Have a look on the intranet what you think about it, if you don’t like it I’ll take it off and just try something different. Greetings, Yyyy [translated from Dutch]
4
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Topics 20
Count
15
10
5
men 0
women ?
leisure
work/study
friendship
TOPIC
Purpose of Request 20
Count
15
10
5
men 0
women Planning
Action
Information
Contact Info
Purpose of Request
5
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Allocation of Initiative in ‘Planning’ Requests 16
14
12
Count
10
8
6
4
men
2
women
0
elicit reaction
elicit proposal
Beneficiary of Request 20
Count
15
10
5
men women
0
Sender
Both
Recipient
Beneficiary
6
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Politeness of Request 20
Count
15
10
5
men women
0
unmitigated
mitigated
indirect
off record
Politeness of Request Proper
Embedding of Requests preceding following Introduction
X
Pre-request
X
Reason
X
X
Motivation
X
X
Justification
X
X
Thanks
X
7
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Use of Embeddings 25 20 15 10 5 0
men
ks if i ca t io pr en re qu es t
ju st
th an
iv at
io n
so n re a
m ot
in tr
od uc t
io n
women
Number of Embeddings 20
Count
15
10
5
men women
0 0
1
2
3
4
NUMBER OF EMBEDDINGS
8
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Use of Hedges 20
Count
15
10
5
men women
0
No hedge
Mitigation
Uncertainty
HEDGES
Initial Greeting 30
Count
20
10
men 0
women none
greeting or name
greeting + name
INITIAL GREETING
9
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Leave Taking 30
Count
20
10
men 0
women
none
neutral
future contact
LEAVE TAKING
Final Greeting 40
Count
30
20
10
men 0
women none
name or greeting
greeting + name
FINAL GREETING
10
Redeker & van Ingen
IGALA 2003
Conclusions •
No gender differences in politeness, hedges, pre- and post-request face work, and [not shown here] in topic, purpose, and beneficiary of request.
•
More elaborate greeting and leave taking in women’s group.
•
Men and women both oriented to the relationship with their friends and not just to the business at hand. The two groups were about equally polite in requests, but used different greeting routines.
•
The gender-specific interactional styles often found in mixed-gender email discussion lists and online chats may contain traces of gendered self-presentation that are absent in our sample of emails among same-gender friends.
11
