Formality as defined by reference to interpersonal relations

In yet a number of studies formality is associated with various interpersonal factors that seem to be related to its usage. According to the literature, a variety of types of interpersonal relations appear to affect the linguistic choices of formality and might appear to make a situation formal or informal. Examples are relations of hierarchical power, social distance, intimacy, power distance, and rapport management (Bjorge, 2007; Chen, 2006; Crystal, 2006; Gains, 1999; Morand, 1995). In addition, the relation between novice and more experienced members has also been discussed in terms of the formality of the interactants (Chen, 2006; Erickson, 1999). Although the above interpersonal relations are frequently discussed in discourse studies, they surface sparsely in relation to formality indicating a lack of systematic investigation into the way they affect the formality of the interactants.

The above are particularly relevant to the second part of this study, which focuses on the way organisational and interpersonal situations of formality affect and are affected by the linguistic features in workplace emails. In this context, a discussion follows on the way social distance, power and socialisation are viewed in past studies and the discourse analysis of the written samples (see chapter 5):

Social distance

Social distance (SD) has often attracted the attention of discourse researchers preoccupied with aspects of style. It has primarily been investigated in terms of its evolution through time and the way this is reflected in the style of the interactants. For example, in her longitudinal study of one student‟s emails throughout her studies Chen

(2006) attributed her main subject‟s varying formality to the level of familiarity with her addressees. However, degree of familiarity is only occasionally reported alongside other factors (e.g., power) to affect formality in literature whether in discussions on greetings in business correspondence guide-books (Ashley, 2003; Taylor, 2012) or scholarly books (e.g., Crystal, 2006). SD is also frequently confused with power. For example, although companies‟ external communication has been seen to cause a shift in formality (Gains, 1999), it remains unclear whether it is because the interactants may not know each other or because they differ in hierarchical level. At the same time, changes in SD can also be observed to lead to changes in power relations. When two parties make their initial contact to enquire about the possibility of a future agreement, they are merely in high SD. As they approach or reach agreement, they begin to know and become more dependent on one another as they develop mutual power relationships by binding contracts. The two have, however, been discussed as opposites (Bremmer, 2006;

Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). An often-cited comment is “If status is the vertical of social relationships, solidarity is the horizontal” (Brown, 1965, p. 57). Although there is some merit in viewing distance as the horizontal aspect of relationships and power as the vertical one, this may lead to an oversimplification of highly complex social relationships; SD has been seen to have a number of different faces, which are not explicated in the studies in which they are investigated (Spencer-Oatey, 1996;

Wierzbicka, 1991). Addressing this point, Spencer-Oatey (1996) talks of the following distinct but often interrelated and covarying components of distance: social similarity, frequency of contact, length of acquaintance, familiarity, sense of like-mindedness and positive/negative affect (p. 7).

It follows that the explanation of what is meant by SD in the present study should be placed in the organisational context in which it is investigated. Foregrounding an insider‟s understanding of the world, participants were asked which aspect of SD they saw affect formality. Researcher observations and participants‟ reports pointed to a view of SD as frequency of contact and familiarity i.e., how well people know each other mostly depending on who is in whose direct communication line and on the proximity of the physical premises where work was conducted. The data suggested that friendship, affect, like-mindedness, and socialising with colleagues outside office hours did not influence the style of the interaction. This study is an attempt to disentangle SD from power and delineate the way it interacts with power, whether the two are seen to affect

formality in opposite or parallel directions, or to override each other (see chapter 5, extracts I and II).

Power

Power has been a central issue for many workplace discourse analysts, and this is not without reason. The workplace setting is known for being power laden and for providing an ideal site for investigating power both in its inherent stable hierarchical aspect and its other more relative flexible or local and temporary aspects. It has been widely discussed in the enactment of politeness in workplace written (emails inclusive) and oral discourse.

With the exception of possible implications of power relations in studies of newcomers‟

socialisation in academic and workplace settings (e.g., Chen, 2006; Erickson, 1999), the enactment of formality by people holding different types and/or degrees of power does not appear to have been explored yet.

However, like social distance, power seems to have a number of distinct but interrelated aspects which need disentangling. The most common but still broad aspect is its

„vertical‟ one, seen as the degree of imposition of one‟s authority over another.

Examples of multiple unequal relations include leader-member of a group, boss-employee, student-teacher, doctor-patient, parent-child (Spencer-Oatey, 1996, p. 11).

Different interpretations of power, however, have also been discussed as dual roles of mutual needs, responsibilities and ties (Spencer-Oatey, 1996, p. 21). Although such interpretations are possible and of interest to investigate in workplace settings, they did not emerge in the real life data investigated here.

Other types of power have also been discussed: for example, reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert/informational power (French & Raven, 1959; Thomas, 1995). Similarly Spencer-Oatey (1996) talks of legitimate power (where interactants have the right to impose themselves on others by virtue of their position/role), referent power (acquired by virtue of being referred to or admired), expert power (acquired by virtue of their expertise), connection power (dependent on who knows whom) and information power (acquired by virtue of the information they know). Using the term

„status‟, Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1996) make a broader distinction between inherent and relative status; although inherent status results from the acknowledged hierarchical differences between the members, relative status is acquired more

interpersonally between groups or departments (p. 637) and may have a more temporary effect (Thomas, 1995). The two can conflict as well as co-exist in the same individual or group and can be mutually exclusive.

In this study, the notion of power is seen in a more general sense as control over another person‟s behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987) thus it is not restricted to only the legitimate right to control it according to employees‟ hierarchical divides or the legitimate right to make company decisions. In this way more specific hierarchical and

„relative‟ aspects of power can be investigated as they emerge in the data. In particular, its hierarchical aspect is investigated quantitatively in the differences between managers and post holders; the types of documents they write, the collaboration they engage in, the importance they ascribe to the written documents, and the writing problems they encounter (Part A). The functions of email (Part B) are similarly investigated with regard to the employees‟ different levels of post. Against this backdrop, the construction and negotiation of power relationships in both its inherent and relative aspects is qualitatively analysed in the enactment of formality in workplace emails (see Part B, extracts III and IV). In particular the relative aspects of power that are discussed in the enactment of formality are expertise, connection power, and more temporary activity based power¹⁴.

Socialisation

Although notionally different from SD and power, the employees‟ socialisation in the organisation can also be reflected in the stylistic choices they make. In the context of the present study organisational socialisation is seen as the process by which newcomers gradually learn and use the discourse of the CofP they enter. Although there seems to be a common understanding among discourse scholars on what socialisation is (see section 2.1.2.), this is examined in various ways and very few see it in relation to formality. A number of authors discuss the developmental stages of their subject‟s socialisation in their self-reported data (Bremmer, 2012) in relation to politeness, others investigate allocation of writing tasks to newcomers and old-timers according to complexity and importance (Beaufort, 2000; Gunnarsson, 1997), and the types of knowledge employed during socialisation (Beaufort, 2004). Few researchers trace changes in participants‟

14 This type of power is acquired in the activity rather than automatically accruing to it by virtue of one‟s role e.g., the role of a decision maker (see further discussion in Extract V).

written discourse (including formality) pre- and post-socialisation (Chen, 2006).

Erickson (1999) is possibly the only example of the way formality is enacted in discourse of newcomers albeit in oral interactions. He discusses the way the identity of an intern is orally negotiated vis-à-vis his interacting preceptor by alternating between the formality of medical terminology to show competence in the profession and the informality of everyday lay language to indicate collegiality. Despite the interest in socialisation, its enactment through the investigation of formality is largely under-researched.

The present study investigates socialisation in two ways: first quantitatively in Part A by framing it in terms of the years of experience employees have in the company they are employed in; newcomers and old-timers are examined with regard to the types of documents they are assigned, the importance they ascribe to the written documents, the type of collaboration they engage in, and the difficulties they encounter when writing.

Second, primarily qualitatively in Part B, by investigating the different way newcomers and old-timers use formality in their emails and the different perceptions they have of socialisation according to the type of knowledge they perceive they bring to the organisation (see extracts V and VI).

Overall, in light of the above, two characteristics of the above three interpersonal factors should be foregrounded: first, their distinctness and, second, their interrelation. Although conceptually they are different types of relations, they can be interconnected in a variety of ways. High SD may place one in a powerless position when making a request. Close SD may reduce the legitimate power relationship between two interactants. An old-timer in most cases is also a gatekeeper and likewise a newcomer needs sanctioning prior to becoming a fully fledged member. Similarly, two conflicting identities (e.g., old-timer and subordinate) may be present in the same person at a particular moment in the interaction or one may predominate over the other.

In this context, the study investigates the way the interpersonal factors interrelate with each other as well as with the organisational factors. Organisational norms and exigencies and interpersonal relations comprise the context that help understand what formality is, how it is enacted, and when it is appropriate in workplace emails according to the interactants. For a full discussion and analysis see chapter 5.