Desperately Seeking Reassurance: Analyzing Requestive Hint Miscommunication in an Email Exchange

Toyogakuen University

57

De rate Se king Re
spe ly e assurance:
Analysing Requestive Hint Miscommunication
in an Email Exchange
Andrew Boon

Abstract

This artic see to de
le ks termine reasons f the misc
or ommunication of a requestive
hint within an authe ntic email exchange be twe two native spe
en akers. It includes
the analy of the inte tion f
sis rac rom the perspec tives of i) spe ch ac theory ii)
e t ,
implicature rele
, vanc , and prior e
e mail history betwe the two inte
en rlocutors,and
iii) politeness.

1 Introduc
. tion

By providing a quic c ap and e ie me
k, he ﬃc nt ans of communicating with family f
, riends,
contacts and colleague re
s gardle of geographic boundaries and time constraints, e
ss al mail has
transforme the way we c
d ommunicate (Sule 20 ; Raine , 20 ; Waldvogel, 20 . As an
r, 03 y 04 02)
asynchronous medium, compose c take the time to care ully craf a me
rs an f t ssage whic c
h ontains
most if not all of the f atures of traditional snail mail text. M ore of
e ten than not, however, to
facilitate spe d of transmission e
e mail writers think in speech-
mode (Grosvenor,1998 ,utilizing
)
more informal, immediate unplanne and f
, d ragmented syntactic and semantic choices to encode
their message and produc writte te
s e n xts which share many of the charac ristic of spoke
te s n
language. Email communication can also support near- nchronous inte
sy raction in situations
where senders be ome aware of the online pre
c sence of recipients via almost-
instant response to
s
se message re
nt- s sulting in the likely increase of speed, brevity inf
, ormality and spontane of
ity
language use in the imme
d diate re . De
ply spite being fast and convenient, email is devoid of the
many nonverbal cues (tone pitc prosody gaze f
, h, , , acial expressions and gesture) whic can aid
h
communication betwee interloc
n utors and email of n reduce inte
te s raction to the exchange of
minimalist (Waldvogel,20 2 51
0 ,p. )messages whic may assume a gre de f
h at al rom the recipient
in the decoding proce Thus, the is a great pote
ss. re ntial f misc
or ommunication between the
intention of the sende and the unde
r rstanding of an email message by its recipient (Kruger,Eple ,
y
Parker & Ng, 20 5
0 ;Raine , 2 0 ;Waldvogel, 20 2)
y 04 0 .

This article seeks to de rmine re
te asons f the miscommunic
or ation of a requestive hint within

NII-Electronic Library Service


Arti l Ti e
c e tl :De rate y se ki re
spe l e ng assuranc :Anal si
e y ng
58 reque ve hi mi ommuni ati i an e
sti nt sc c on n mai e hange
l xc

an authentic email exchange betwe n two native spe
e akers.It includes the analy of the interac-
sis
tion from the perspe tive of i) spe c act the , ii) implicature, relevance, and prior email
c s eh ory
history betwee the inte
n rlocutors, and iii) politeness.

2. Background context

2.1 The interlocutors:
John ( pse
a udony , a new distance doc
m) toral stude at B university has been in re
nt , gular
email contac with his f nd, Ste ( pseudony who is a sec
t rie ve a m) ond- e student on the same
y ar
Applied Linguistic c
s ourse.The interlocutors me while unde
t rtaking a distance learning M aster
s degree with A university Whilst John was se
. nior to Ste at the ﬁ time of meeting in the
ve rst
respec of having ne
t arly completed the M aster s degree the ne course at B university has
, w
reversed this situation with John now being his junior.

2.2 The email e hange:
xc
The email thread has continue be
d twe the interloc
en utors over a numbe of exchanges with
r
regards to the B university course.Being a common practic amongst course participants at A
e
university Ste has agre d to an earlie re
, ve e r quest and sent John his assignment to he him gain
lp
a perspective on the require nts of e
me ssaywriting f the particular course module
or .John has then
requeste to know the grade Ste re e
d ve c ived f the piece of work:
or

Email 1:
From: Steve
Date: Thursday August 17 20 6 6: 8 AM
, , 0 4
To: John

1］Hi John,
2］I think that was my be sc
st oring assignment actually -
3］8 (
5 distinction).
4］I remembe reading somewhe that we nee an average
r re d
5］of credit to advanc ― y ll be able to do that OK. I
e ou
6］got lower grade than y with A university (
s ou Bs) but had
7］mainly distinctions with B university This might change
.
8］soon though ― assignments are getting harder!
9 ］I m writing one now ― c I se it to y some
an nd ou time
］
10 early ne we
xt ek?The deadline is age away -but I
s



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
reque ve hi mi ommuni ati i an e
l xc 59

］
11 want to knoc one on the head during the holiday
k s.
］
12 all the best
］
13 Steve
( ve pe
Ste , rsonal communication, August 17 2006)
,

Email 2:
From: John
, , 0 5
To: Steve

1］Steve,
2］Thanks f the inf !
or o!
3］Sure ― I also have one due in 2 weeks which I haven t started y !
et!
4］John.
(John, personal communication, August 1 2 )
7, 006

Email 3:
From: Steve
, , 0 5
To: John

1］ y -send it ove
ep r.
( ve pe
Ste , rsonal communication, August 17 2006)
,

2.3 The miscommunication:
In email 2(line 3 ,John use a re stive hint with the intention of see
) s que king reassuranc f
e rom
the more expe nc d Ste that two we
rie e ve eks is indee e
d nough time in whic to c
h omple an
te
assignment. Howe r, in the se
ve cond-
pair part of the re st-
que acceptance adj nc pair (
ace y email 3
-line 1) it be omes c ar that Ste has misinte
, c le ve rpreted the hint as being the same reque he
st
himself has made in email 1 (lines 9-1 , name that of having the c
1) ly omple d assignment re
te ad
through and commente on by a f llow c
d e ourse participant.

3 Analy
. sis

3.1 The utteranc is succ ssfully understood as be
e e ing an indire request
ct
Along with the lite me
ral aning or locutionaryf e,the utterance in email 2(
orc line 3)performs



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
l xc

a number of diff re illoc
e nt utionary acts. Firstly the item s
, ure f tions as a commissive that
unc
pledge compliance to Ste s prior implie re st to read and provide f e
s ve d que e dbac on his assign-
k
ment (Email 1 Line 9- ) The se ond part of the utteranc I a o ha o due in 2 w e s
s 10 . c e, ls ve ne ek,
functions to asse the f t that the write is in a similar situation to Ste of having to write an
rt ac r ve
assignment within a certain time rame and I hav n t s
f e tarte y t! that this assignment is y t
d e! e
to be started.M ore importantly,howe r,the assertive is intende by the write and understood
ve d r
by the recipient to pe orm the f tion of a non-onventional indirect request (
rf unc c Blum-
Kulka,
1987).The recipie s unde
nt rstanding of this illocutionary intent occurs even though the requestive
hint itself is opaque containing neithe re ere e to Steve ( or example: Co
r f nc f uld y u. . .?) nor
o
statement of a future act whic is de
h sired of him (John s intention Te me w the tw w e s
ll he r o e k
is lo e o le n s ignme /Steve s inte
ng nough to c mp te a a s nt rpretation -Re d a p vide f e a k o
a nd ro e db c n
my a s
s ignme a w ll) Ashe and Lasc
nt s e . r arides ( 01 argue that indirec spe
20 ) t ech acts: must be
understood relationally be ause suc e ully pe orming them is logic
, c c ssf rf ally dependent on the
content of an ante de utte
ce nt ranc p. 8 ) e
e( 1 8 .In mail 2(line 3)the use of the additive particle also
by John anaphorically links to the paralle situation of assignme writing asse d by Steve as
l nt rte
his pre- que move in e
re st mail 1 (line 9) ― I m writing one now and the pronoun one (email
2 ― line 3 re
) peats Steves anaphoric re e
f rence (line 9) to the continued topic of a s
s ignments
(email 1 line 8 .In this respec
) t,the position of the utteranc e
e( mail 2-line 3)within the ongoing
email exchange (Indire t re ue t → Ac e ta e →
c q s c p nc / → Ac e
c p-
tanc helps to constrain Ste
e) ves understanding of it functioning as a request.

3.2 The intende pe
d rlocutionary eff c of the re
et questive hint is unsuc ssful
ce
Although understood as an indirec re
t quest, the hint achieve a diff re pe
s e nt rlocutionary
eff t than inte d by the write whic is signalle in the c
ec nde r h d ompletion of the reque ac ptanc
st- ce e
adj ncy pair in email 3 (
ace line 1)in which Ste acc
ve epts the re st y p ,but the dire John
que e n cts
to send it ( implie c
the d omple d assignment)to him rathe than providing the sought reassur-
te r
ance:

Conventionally Indirec Request
t

Steve: c n I s nd it to y u s
a e o ometime e rly ne t w e
a x e k?

Ac ptanc
ce e
:
John: Sure ―



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
l xc 61

Hint / Implied Counter Re st
que
( ):
I a o hav o due in 2 w e w h I have t s rte y t!
ls e ne e ks hic n ta d e !

Ac ptanc
ce e
( ):
Steve: yp
e send it over

There are a numbe of possible re
r asons f Ste s interpretation of the re
or ve questive hint:

1］ Assuming that the interlocutors are operating unde the Coope
r rative Principle (Grice 1975 ,
, )
that the utteranc in email 2(
e line 3)is optimally relevant ( rbe & Wilson,1 )
Spe r 986 ,and recognis-
ing that the maxim of quantity is being flouted by John, in terms of being less informative than
required in orde to indire
r ctly re st a f
que uture action of the recipie ( fl which Ste has
nt a out ve
already made use of in email 1 line 9-0 , Ste see to inf r John s inte in ge
s 1) ve ks e nt nerating the
implicature. Howe r, as the re
ve quest in email 2 (line 3)is framed non-
conventionally it cre s
, ate
a range of diff rent plausible interpretations of its relevanc in the ongoing email exchange
e e
(Blum-
Kulka,1 7 .It c be inte
98 ) an rpreted as an assertion (literal meaning),an assertion being used
as a directive to re st f edbac f
que e k rom the recipie on the writers assignme (
nt nt implie meaning)
d
or reassuranc f
e rom the re ipie (
c nt implied meaning),or even as an expressive to complain about
the strictness of the deadline (implie meaning)
d .Sinc the indirec ss of the utterance increase
e tne s
the cost of processing f the re
or cipie as outweighe to the benefi of its succ
nt d t essf decoding,
ul
Steve seeks to fi the quic st route to its implic rele
nd ke it vance. Thus, both contextually and
co- xtually the inte
te , rpretation whic re
h quires the least amount of processing is that the writer
wishes the reciproc ac
al tion of the re st Steve has made in email 1
que :

Background knowledge context: On the M asters degree both inte
, rlocutors have the experi-
e e of providing assignment f
nc eedbac to course partic
k i-
pants.

Co-textual context: a)Ste s implied reque ― Ca I s nd it to y u s me
ve st n e o o time
e rly ne t w e ?
a x ek
b)Anaphoric links to prior reque ― als , one se m to
st o e
imply a similar re st is be
que ing made of the recipient.



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
l xc

Most relevant interpretation: e ks ― If John has agree to
I a o hav o due in 2 w e
ls e ne d
c ck Steve s assignme re
he nt, ciprocation of the ac is to be
t
expec d.
te

2］ Weigand ( 999)states: any diff re
1 e nce in the communicative worlds of the interlocutors may
bring about dive nt unde
rge rstandings ( 76 . In a later e
p. 6) mail (Appendix 1) explaining his
interpretation of the requestive hint, Ste state that he had approache the decoding process
ve d d
with the overriding assumption of interlocutor mutual c ern f providing assignment f
onc or eedback
and due to having greate e rience on the course had f re out (
r xpe ilte d Steve,Personal communi-
cation, August 1 20 ) the time manage nt c
9, 06 me oncerns of the new student, John.

3］ The spee of the e
d mail e hange (
xc Email 2 6: AM / Email 3
51 6 5 AM )contribute to
.2 d
afurther reduction in proc ssing time and sele
e ction of the interpretation requiring the le eff
ast ort
(Appendix 1).

4］ High freque y usage of re stive hints between regular interlocutors can f
nc que acilitate their
interpretation (Rinne & Kobay
rt ashi, 1999;Zagura, 200 . Howe r, in previous emails be
6) ve tween
John and Steve John has te d to c
, nde hoose more conventionally indire ( examples) or direc
ct 6 t
forms ( example whe making requests (
1 ) n Appendix 2 .
)

5］ Emoticons or exaggerate punc
d tuation marks are of n used in e
te mail discourse to compensate
f the lack of nonve
or rbal cues. Exclamation marks, f e
or xample can be use f emphasis or to
, d or
lighten the mood of the message (Sule 2 0 . Although the double exc
r, 0 3) lamation marks in email
2(line 3) were used to subtly imply a sense of conce regarding the assignment de
rn adline ( I
have t s rte y t!! ) the were too individualistic and ambiguous to aff t the dominant
n ta d e , y ec
interpretation.

3.3 The requestive hint is framed to maintain face at the e nse of c
xpe larity
As potential f e thre
ac - atening ac (
ts FTAs) reque are of n f
, sts te rame indire
d ctly to increase
politeness, help maintain interlocutor f e and minimize the imposition of the action de
ac sired of
the recipient.In email 1( s 9-0 ,Steve use the conve
line 1 ) s ntionallyindirect Can I..? form to make
his request on record, with re ssive ac
dre tion (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.69)to atte to and
nd
preserve the negative f e of John (
ac and his desire to be f e f
re rom any imposition Brown &
Levinson,1 )byse king pe
987 e rmission to pe orm the ac of se
rf t nding the assignment with the fairly
clear implication that by doing so, John will re through it and provide him with f dback.
ad ee



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
l xc 63

However,by choosing to go offrecord (Brown & Levinson,198 )and use a hint in e
7 mail 2(line
3) John risks the danger of a re st which may lack pragmatic clarity (
, que Rinne & Kobay
rt ashi,
1999) Why not then strive f a greate balanc be
. or r e twe c
en larity and polite ss when making a
ne
request?Rinne and Kobay
rt ashi ( 999)state the more the speake risks loss of f
1 : r ace by perform-
ing a request, the more indire t the strate he or she will use ( 1174 . In the social role of
c gy p. )
university course participant, the asymmetric relationship or relative power betwe John and
en
Steve has been reversed:
John as Senior Ste as Se
ve nior

A B
university university

Steve as Junior John as Junior

Thus,John s re st f re
que or assurance from Steve and its implie admittanc of lac of confi nc
d e k de e
is an act which thre ns John s positive f e ( ne to be respecte as a f llow ac
ate ac the ed d e ademic)and
influenc the c
es hoice of offrec
- ord strate whe perf
gy n orming the FTA (Frase 1990) By using
r, .
a requestive hint, John not only generate an implic
s ature and place a gre r onus on Ste to
s ate ve
arrive at a relevant interpretation but c ates a situation whereby the implied me
re aning c be
an
denied, if nee d, and the write s f
de r ace save For e
d. xample:

1. Hint:
I a o ha e one due in 2 w e s w h I ha n t s
ls v e k hic ve tarte y t!
d e!
2. Possible fac thre ning re
e- ate sponse:
Stop w rry
o ing, y u idio
o t!
3. Canc llability of implicature
e :
I didn t me tha I me nt. . .
an t, a

Conclusion

M imicking the more spontaneous f ature of spoke language and y lacking important
e s n et
nonverbal c s and the ability to gain immediate f dback on whe
ue ee ther the decoding proce has
ss
been succe ul (
ssf Raine ,2 00)
y 0 ,the potential f inte
or rlocutor miscommunication whe perf
n orming
non-
conventional indire spee h ac via email is gre
ct c ts atly enhanc The use of a more conve
ed. n-
tional indirec re st or inte
t que rrogative in email 2 (line 3 by the write
) r:

I als ha one due in 2 w e s w h I have t s
o ve e k hic n tarte y t! Do y think I hav e
d e! ou e nough time?



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
l xc

may not have lengthened the inf ntial path be ond reasonable limits (
ere y Blum-
Kulka, 1 7, p.
98
141)and may have resulte in re
d assurance being give by the re
n cipient. Thus,it is important for
writers to conside more c f
r are ully the cost to face versus the bene t of having a re st
ﬁ que
understood whe c
n omposing emails. Alternatively if miscommunic
, ation prevails, they can
alway re
s sort to using the telephone.

Refe nces
re
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. ( 001 . Indire spee ac Sy
, 2 ) ct ch ts. nthe e, 128 ( ) 183 228
s 2, - .
Blum-
Kulka, S. (1987) Indirec
. tness and politene in re sts:Same or diﬀ nt?J urnal of Pragmatic 11,
ss que ere o s,
131 146
- .
Brown, P. & Le
, vinson, S. (1987) Polite s : Some unive als in la
. ne s rs ngua us
ge age. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fraser, B. (1990) Pe
. rspectives on politeness. J urnal of Pra
o gmatic 14, 21 236
s, 9- .
Grice H. (
, P. 1975) Logic and c
. onversation. In P. Cole and J. M organ (Eds) Sy
, ntax and Semantic 3: Spe c
s eh
Ac ( 41- ) Ne York:Academic Press.
ts. pp. 57 . w
Grosvenor, L. ( 998 . Hy
1 ) brid language A study of email and miscommunic
: ation. Soc ty o Te hnic
ie f c al
Communication Co e nc Proc e
nf re e e dings (1998). Re ved Se
trie ptember 1, 200 f
6 rom
http: /
/ www. . /
stc org confproce /
ed 1998 PDFs/ 90 PDF #search＝%22hy
/ 000 . brid%20email%20grosvenor%22.
Kruger,J.,Epley ,Parker,J.
,N. ,& Ng,Z.( 5)
200 .Egocentrism ove e
r mail:Can we communicate as well as we
think?J urnal of Pe o
o rs nality and Soc Ps hy
ial c ology 89 ( ) 925 936.
, 6, -
Rainey,V.( 0)
200 .The potential f miscommunic
or ation using email as a source of communication.So ie f
c ty or
De ign a
s nd Pro e s Sc nc 4 ( , 2 43. Re ved Se
cs ie e, 4) 1- trie ptember 1, 200 f
6 rom
http: /
/ www.sdpsnet. /
org vol4- htm.
4.
Rinnert, C. & Kobay
, ashi, H. ( 999) Requestive hints in Japane and English. J
1 . se ourna of Pra
l gmatic 31,
s,
117 12
3- 01.
Spe r, D. & Wilson, D. ( 6) Re v e Communic tion a
rbe 198 . le anc : a nd cognition. Oxford:Blackwell.
Suler, J. ( 03) Email c
20 . ommunication and relationships. The Ps c
y hology of Cy e p e. Re ved September
b rs ac trie
6 rom http: /
1, 200 f / www.rider. / suler/ cy /
edu psy ber emailrel.html.
Waldvoge J. ( 02 . Some f ature of workplace emails. Ne Ze land Englis J
l, 20 ) e s w a h ournal 16. 4 52. Re
2- trieved
Se r , 00 rom http: /
ptembe 1 2 6 f / www.vuw. nz/ /
ac. lals publications/ s/
pdf nzej pdf / 02- s/
- s 20 pdf NZEJ%20 02-
20
Joan%20Waldvoge pdf
l. .
Weigand, E. ( 999) M isunderstanding:The standard c . J urnal of Pra
1 . ase o gma s 31, 76 785
tic , 3- .
Zagura, N. ( 6) The f
200 . unctional and formal aspec of the communic
ts ative act of request in interlanguage:
English and Estonian in institutional context.Unpublis d Mas rs the is.Retrie d Septe
he te s ve mbe 1,20 f
r 06 rom
http: /
/ www.utlib. /
ee ekollekt/ /
diss enne/mag/ 30/
08 zaguranatalj /
a zaguranatalj pdf
a. .

Appendix one
From: Steve
Date: Saturday August 1 2
, 9, 006 10 37 AM
:
To: John

］
1 Hi John,
］
2 I think it s because I read your email very quickly,
］
3 and I d be thinking how good it will be to give
en
］ eedback to eac other on assignme
4 f h nts.



Arti l Ti e
e y ng
l xc 65

］
5 Also, on the discussion threads with B university I ve read
］ ople writing many times that the have two
6 pe y
］
7 assignments due in only 1 we etc -so it might have
ek
］ ust
8 j got ﬁltere out -I didn t see any ne to reply
d ed
9 ］to it.
］
10 So I was j f
ust ocuse re
d ally on the ide of us helping
a
］ ach other on f
11 e eedback content rathe than any thought
r
］
12 to how y ll do time manage nt. I know that y ll
ou - me ou
］
13 have no problems getting the essay done in time -
］ specially be
14 e cause y re on holiday
ou .
(Steve, personal communication, August 19, 2006)

Appendix 2
Example of previous e
s mail requests made by John to Steve:
1. Conventionally indire re
ct quests:

1］ Can I be cheeky and ask what y got f it?
ou or
(John, personal communication, August 16, 2006)
2］ I was wondering if I could take a pe at what y wrote f the module assignment.
ek ou or
3］ Can y give me some more inf about Nagano?
ou o
(John, personal communication, January 17, 2006)
4］ Can y send a re . & page no. when it is published so I can update the old CV?
ou f
(John, personal communication, October 22 2 )
, 005
5］ Can I j chec that we re mee
ust k ting at the station?
6］ Can y remind me of the date again f the me
ou s or eting?
(John, personal communication, July 4, 2005)

2. Direc requests:
t
1］ Keep me in the loop and if I don t make it, I ll see y at the conf
ou erence
(John, personal communication, June 6, 2005)


Desperately Seeking Reassurance: Analyzing Requestive Hint Miscommunication in an Email Exchange

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Desperately Seeking Reassurance: Analyzing Requestive Hint Miscommunication in an Email Exchange