Cover not available
Part of
It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research
Edited by Bettina Kluge and María Irene Moyna
[Topics in Address Research 1] 2019
► pp. 253–279

Address negotiations in Dutch emails

This chapter presents a qualitative analysis of address forms in a small corpus of Dutch emails/email chains, in particular their strategic use in moving from a more formal, distant relation between correspondents to a more familiar one. In addition to pronominal address forms, it also considers other linguistic features, including salutations and signing off formulae, and style. Adopting a discursive approach, the chapter identifies a number of different strategies in negotiating address, including avoidance of address forms and the use of the plural familiar pronoun jullie as a transitional form between formal and familiar address. The chapter makes an original contribution to the (currently rather limited) research on address in computer-mediated communication (CMC) and comments on the hybridity of email.
Keywords: address forms, second person pronouns, Dutch, politeness, computer-mediated communication, email, hybridity, discursive approach
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Address in computer-mediated communication
    • 2.2Address in Dutch CMC
  • 3.Methodology for data collection and analysis
  • 4.Address negotiation strategies
    • 4.1Address avoidance
    • 4.2V as opening gambit
    • 4.3Jullie and asking permission
    • 4.4T as opening gambit
    • 4.5Implicit negotiation
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.1.10vis
References (31)
References
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations. Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Sammie Tarenskeen. 2015. It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 163–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, Sandie Michelle. 2003. Breaking conversational norms on a Portuguese users network: Men as adjudicators of politeness? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Address in computer-mediated communication. In Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds.) Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 291–313. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Gains, Jonathan. 1999. Electronic mail: A new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of email. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1). 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, Sage Lambert. 2007. Disagreeing to agree. Conflict (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 742–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap De Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2013. Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In Deborah Tannen & Anna Marie. Tester (eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and new media, 1–25. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jansen, Petra. 2004. “U mag wel jij zeggen hoor!” Een onderzoek naar de talige representatie van de relatie tussen schrijver en geadresseerde in e-mail. University of Tilburg: Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis. [URL]. (22 March, 2016.)
Jansen, Sjoerd. 2011. Aanspreken en e-mailinteractie. Een onderzoek naar aanspreekvormen in meerzijdige communicatie. University of Utrecht: Unpublished master’s thesis. [URL]. (22 March, 2016.)
Janssen, Daniel, & Frank Jansen. 2005. U en je in Postbus 51-folders. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 27 (3). 214–229.Google Scholar
Kretzenbacher, H. Leo. 2005. hier im großen internetz, wo sich alle dududuzen” Internet discourse politeness and German address. Paper given at the 3rd International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE) Amsterdam 2005.
. 2011. Perceptions of national and regional standards of addressing in Germany and Austria. Pragmatics 21 (1). 69–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Denise E. 2000. Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly 34 (3). 397–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postmes, Tom, Russell Spears & Martin Lea. 2000. The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research 26 (3). 341–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prinsen, Lutien. 2007. Het zegt u tegen me! ‘Beleefde’ user interfaces en user satisfaction. University of Groningen: Bachelor’s Dissertation. [URL]. (22 March, 2016.)
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel E. Schlegoff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language 50 (4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stommel, Wyke. 2012. Salutations, closings and pronouns: Some aspects of recipient design in online counselling. Communication & Medicine 9 (2). 145–185. [URL]Google Scholar
van Zalk, Franceina & Frank Jansen. 2004. Ze zeggen nog je tegen me. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 26. 265–277.Google Scholar
Vermaas, Hannie J. A. M. 2002. Veranderingen in de Nederlandse Aanspreekvormen van de Dertiende t/m de Twintigste Eeuw. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Vismans, Roel. 2004. U and non-u: learning to use Dutch second-person pronouns. Dutch Crossing. A Journal of Low Countries Studies 28 (1/2). 142–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Aanspreekvormen in Nederlandse en Vlaamse personeelsadvertenties voor hoogopgeleiden. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 29 (4). 289–313.Google Scholar
. 2013a. Aanspreekvormen in Nederlandstalige banneradvertenties. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 35 (3). 254–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Address choice in Dutch 1: Variation and the role of domain. Dutch Crossing 37 (2). 163–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Negotiating address in a pluricentric language: Dutch/Flemish. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.) Address practice as social action. European perspectives, 13–32. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Jojoën tussen u en je: over de dynamiek van het gebruik van Nederlandse aanspreekvormen in het radioprogramma Casa Luna. Internationale Neerlandistiek 54 (2). 117–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Forms of address in online Dutch and German Q&A fora. Conference presentation, 6th Germanic Sandwich Conference (Münster, 17–18 March, 2017) INAR4 (Helsinki, 8–9 June, 2017).
Waldvogel, Joan. 2007. Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of Computer-mediated communication 12 (2). 456–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan, Jihane Hachimi & Helen de Hoop
2024. Can You Make a Difference? The Use of (In)Formal Address Pronouns in Advertisement Slogans. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 36:2 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Thode Hougaard, Tina, Eva Skafte Jensen, Marianne Rathje, Jonathan White & Camilla Wide
2023. Chapter 3. Variations in opening and closing forms in email correspondence in Danish and Swedish. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Vismans, Roel
2023. Chapter 16. Address and politeness. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.