Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

1 Issue per year

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

I think your going to like me: Exploring the role of errors in email messages on assessments of potential housemates

Robin Queen / Julie E. Boland
Published Online: 2015-08-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0011

Abstract

Two experiments explored reader reaction to written errors that were either typographic or grammatical. Errors were embedded in short texts presented as email responses to a housemate ad. In the first experiment, readers evaluated the writer and message on several dimensions (e.g., Was the writer trustworthy? Did the email flow smoothly?). Those dimensions were divided into a “social” scale (e.g. “This student seems similar to me”) and an “academic” scale (e.g. “This email reads well”). Both kinds of error correlated with lower ratings on the academic scale while only grammatical errors correlated with lower ratings on the social scale. In the second experiment, readers were asked to edit the emails. In Experiment 1, paragraphs with either typographical or grammatical errors were both evaluated more negatively than fully correct paragraphs and the cost was mitigated by high levels of electronic communication, such as texting and using Facebook. In Experiment 2, typos were more likely to be corrected than either homophonous grammatical forms or hypercorrected forms. These results suggest that written errors, when they are salient, contribute to the social meaning of text. Furthermore, this contribution is modulated by at least some characteristics of the reader.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: language attitudes; language variation; social meaning; email

References

  • Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Boland, Julie & Robin Queen. in prep. If you’re house is still available, send me an email: Personality and assessing errors in email messages.

  • Cameron, Deborah. 2005. Verbal hygiene. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

  • Curzan, Anne. 2015. Fixing English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ghose, Anindya & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2011 Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 23(10). 1498–1512.Google Scholar

  • Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Axel Bohmann. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91.4. Advance online publicationGoogle Scholar

  • Hucks, R. J. 2015. Voluntary involuntary disclosure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

  • Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A Student’s introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Liberman, Mark. 2008. Prescriptivist Science. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=199. May 30, 2008 (accessed 27 June 2015).

  • Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an accent. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • McGowan, Kevin B. 2015. Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech. http://las.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/early/2015/02/03/0023830914565191 (accessed 7 May 2015).

  • Milroy, James & Leslie Milroy. 2013. Authority in language: Investigating standard English, 4th ed. Oxford: Routledge.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2014. Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language and Communication 37. 60–74.Google Scholar

  • Perales-Escudero, Moisés D. 2011. To split or to not split the split infinitive past and present. Journal of English Linguistics 39(4). 313–334.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven. 2014. The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Denis, 1999. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, Vol. 1. New York: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Sanford, Anthony & Ruth Filik, 2007. ‘They’ as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: Eye tracking reveals a processing cost. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(2). 171–178.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In R. Clyne, W. Hanks & C. Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Squires, Lauren. 2010. Enregistering internet language. Language in Society 39(4). 457–492.Google Scholar

  • Stiff, Chris. 2012. Watch what you write: How errors in feedback influence consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Internet Commerce 11(1). 41–67.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Phrarrell, Chris Harris, Robin Thicke Jr., & Al Yankovich. 2014. Word Crimes. Recorded by Weird Al Yankovic. On Mandatory Fun [MP3]. New York: RCA.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-05-18

Accepted: 2015-07-21

Published Online: 2015-08-13

Published in Print: 2015-12-01


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0011.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in