Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 6:2 (2024) ► pp.175–199
“I’m on retreat and will respond to messages after 7/6”
A register analysis of out-of-office emails
Published online: 31 July 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.24003.dem
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that dividing a broad register into sub-registers may reduce its internal variability. Building on this phenomenon, this study analyzes out-of-office emails, a sub-register of academic emails. We identify the communicative functions of 329 emails from 44 universities. We then describe the intra-register variability of the sub-register and use its situational characteristics along with politeness theory to help explain the observed communicative functions.
We found 10 primary communicative functions, with return dates and expressions of gratitude being the most common. The sub-register appears largely internally consistent in that a majority of the emails relied on the same limited set of communicative functions. The (unknown) relationship among participants seems particularly helpful for understanding the functional strategies employed by the authors of these emails. Through this study, we hope to shed light on this overlooked sub-register and contribute to our understanding of intra-register variability.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous research
- 3.Corpus and method
- 3.1Corpus and sampling
- 3.2Method
- 3.2.1Identifying and coding for communicative function
- 3.2.2Situational analysis
- 3.2.3Exploring the functions through politeness theory
- 4.Results and discussion
- 4.1Exploring the main communicative functions and internal variability of the out-of-office emails sub-register
- 4.2Exploring the situational characteristics characteristic of out-of-office emails
- 4.3Understanding what factors may explain the communicative functions used in out-of-office emails
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (33)
Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context & Media, 4–5, 62–73.
(2023). What is a register?: Accounting for linguistic and situational variation within — and outside of — textual varieties. Register Studies, 5(1), 1–22.
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2022). The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application (1st ed.). Routledge.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Students writing emails of faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and nonnative speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 59–81.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press.
Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Politeness accommodation in electronic mail. Communication Research Reports, 21(1), 11–25.
Callahan, L. (2011). Workplace requests in Spanish and English: A case study of email communication between two supervisors and a subordinate. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 27–56.
Chejnová, P. (2014). Expressing politeness in the institutional e-mail communications of university students in the Czech Republic. Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 175–192.
Culpeper, J., & Terkourafi, M. (2017). Pragmatic Approaches (Im)politeness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 11–39). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Duthler, K. W. (2006). The politeness of requests made via email and voicemail: Support for the hyperpersonal model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 500–521.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2015). Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 69(4), 415–424.
Edstrom, A., & Ewald, J. D. (2017). “Out of the office”: Conveying politeness through auto-reply email messages. Language@Internet, 14(4).
(2019). Characteristics of effective auto-reply emails: Politeness and perceptions. Technology in Society, 581, 101112.
Egbert, J., & Mahlberg, M. (2020). Fiction — one register or two?: Speech and narration in novels. Register Studies, 2(1), 72–101.
Egbert, J., & Gracheva, M. (2023). Linguistic variation within registers: Granularity in textual units and situational parameters. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 115–143.
Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail — a new style of communication or just a new medium? : An investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 81–101.
Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 61, 7–31.
Hober, N., Dixon, T., & Larsson, T. (2023). Towards increased reliability and transparency in projects with manual linguistic coding. Corpora, 18(2), 245–258.
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2021). The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, 2021 Edition Bloomington, IN. Available at [URL]
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Larsson, T., Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Inter-rater reliability in Learner Corpus Research: Insights from a collaborative study on adverb placement. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(2), 237–251.
Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M. (2023). On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064.
National Endowment for the Humanities. (2022). What are the humanities? January 19 [URL]
National Humanities Center. (2022). What are the humanities? January 19 Humanities in action [URL]