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

Robin Queen 1  and Julie E. Boland 1
  • 1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Robin Queen and Julie E. Boland

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.

    • Supplementary Material
  • Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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: Routledge

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

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

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

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

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Linguistics Vanguard is a new channel for high-quality articles in all major fields of linguistics. Published solely online, the multimodal journal provides an accessible platform supporting both traditional contributions as well as innovative publications featuring interactive content. Linguistics Vanguard publishes concise and up-to-date reports on the state of the art in linguistics as well as cutting-edge research papers.

Search