Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:6 (2023) ► pp.824–843

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Examining the use of reflexive metadiscourse in the construction of affiliative communication in group email requests

ORCiD logo with link | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Published online: 6 April 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21006.mck
Abstract
This qualitative study examines how male-identified and female-identified individuals use reflexive metadiscourse in the construction of affiliative communication, i.e., a mode of communication traditionally coded as feminine. Specifically, it examines requests made in the public context of group email. Both reflexive metadiscourse and affiliative communication are analysed with the concept of indexicality, and two novel sub-categories (i.e., directing and committing) are added to an existing taxonomy. The findings show that whether communicating to institutional subordinates, equals, or superiors, female-identified and male-identified senders displayed great similarity in their use of reflexive metadiscourse in the construction of affiliative communication. Amongst other things, reflexive metadiscourse indirectly indexed the following communicative behaviours associated with affiliative communication: sharing contextual information, expressing supportive feedback, constructing diminutive personas, and suppressing personal agency. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings and directions for future research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reflexive metadiscourse
  • 3.Gendered communication
  • 4.Indexical dimensions of reflexive metadiscourse and affiliative communication
  • 5.Data and approach
    • 5.1Taxonomy of reflexive metadiscourse
  • 6.Findings and analysis
    • Downwards communication
    • Horizontal communication
    • Upwards communication
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
. 2021. “Reflections on Reflexivity in Digital Communication: Towards a Third Wave of Metadiscourse Studies.” In Metadiscourse in Digital Communication, ed. by Larissa D’Angelo, Anna Mauranen and Stefania Maci, 37–65. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amouzadeh, Mohammad and Raha Zareifard. 2019. “Interactional metadiscourse of gender in Persian: The case of conference presentations.” Pragmatics and Society 10 (4): 512–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2006. “Introduction: sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 419–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barber, Charles, Joan Beal and Phillip Shaw. 2009. The English Language: A Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baxter, Judith. 2010. The Language of Female Leadership. New York: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brescoll, Victoria. 2016. “Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders.” The Leadership Quarterly 271: 415–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2010. “Locating Language in Identity.” In Language and Identities, ed. by Carmen Llamas and Dominic Watt, 18–28. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, Traci, and Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freytag, Vera. 2020. Exploring Politeness in Business Emails: A Mixed Methods Analysis. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ho, Victor. 2014. “Managing rapport through grounder in evaluation – A qualitative study.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (10): 2534–2547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Exploring metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace email requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 1131: 70–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Gender Identity through Workplace Discourse. New York and Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. and Maria Stubbe. 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, Astrid. 2009. “Discourse Strategies in Professional E-mail Negotiation: A Case Study”. English for Specific Purposes 281: 4–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, Feng. Kevin, and Ken, Hyland. 2021. “‘The goal of this analysis…’: Changing patterns of metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing.” Lingua 2521: 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2010. “Locating Language in Identity.” In Language and Identities, ed. by Carmen Llamas and Dominic Watt, 29–38. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Deborah. 2000. “‘Gender trouble in the Workplace: ‘Language and Gender’ Meets ‘Feminist Organizational Communication’”. In Gendered Speech in Social Context: Perspectives from Gown & Town, ed. by Janet Holmes, 192–210. Wellington: Victoria University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Daniel, and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koester, Almut. 2010. Workplace Discourse. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladegaard, Hans Jørgen. 2012. “Rudeness as a discursive strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1661–1679. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2021. “‘Gonna write about it on my blog too’. Metadiscourse in Research Blog Discussions.” In Metadiscourse in Digital Communication, ed. by Larissa D’Angelo, Anna. Mauranen, and Stefania Maci, 11–35. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKeown, Jamie. 2022. A comparative investigation of metadiscursive clarifying devices in the abortion discourse of the U.S. Supreme Court. Discourse & Communication, accessed here: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKeown, Jamie and Qilin Zhang. 2015. “Socio-pragmatic variation on opening salutation and closing valediction of British Workplace Email.” Journal of Pragmatics 851: 92–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKeown, Jamie, and Hans Jørgen Ladegaard. 2020. “Exploring the metadiscursive realisation of incivility in TV news discourse.” Discourse, Context & Media 331, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mullany, Louise. 2010. “Gendered Identities in the Professional Workplace.” In Language and Identities, ed. by Carmen Llamas and Dominic Watt, 179–190. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, Catherine, and Laura Byra. 2006. “Communication Channels and Gender Structures at Work”. In Gender and Communication at Work, ed. by Mary Barret and Marilyn. J. Davidson, 129–141. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nieva, Veronica, and Barbara Gutek. 1980. “Sex Effects on Evaluation.” Academy of Management Review 5(2): 267–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. “Indexing gender.” In Sex and Gender Hierarchies, ed. By Barbara Miller, 146–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2009. “Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated communication”. In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Huber, 87–106. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tse, Polly, and Ken Hyland. 2008. “Robot Kung fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 1232–1248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, Julia T. 2014. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

McKeown, Jamie
2024. A contrastive investigation of the performative and descriptive use of surprise frames in judicial opinions of the HKSAR. Journal of Pragmatics 232 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue