Cover not available
Part of
It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 61–91

Chapter 3
Variations in opening and closing forms in email correspondence in Danish and Swedish

| University of Aarhus
| The Danish Language Council
| The Danish Language Council
| University of Dalarna
| University of Turku
In this study, we investigate how differences and similarities in opening and closing greetings in professional emails in academia manifest themselves in Danish and Swedish. Our data consist of a corpus of 595 emails (primary data) and two surveys with 1836 respondents (supportive data). An important result is that cultural values, e.g., ideals of equality, in both language areas are expressed through similar linguistic means, but that due to different historical developments, the specific encoding is not identical. Another result is that there is a much larger variety in closing greetings than in opening greetings in both languages, which can be derived from the communication situation where openings and closings and the elements within these serve different purposes.
Keywords: openings and closings, greeting forms, Swedish, Danish, email, politeness, address
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Address and politeness
    • 2.2Email communication
      • 2.2.1The elements of an email
      • 2.2.2Factors influencing the choice of openings and closings
  • 3.Method and data
    • 3.1Primary data
    • 3.2Supportive data
  • 4.Openings
    • 4.1Openings in the Swedish dataset
    • 4.2Openings in the Danish dataset
    • 4.3Comparison
  • 5.Closings
    • 5.1Closings in the Swedish dataset
    • 5.2Closings in the Danish dataset
    • 5.3Comparison
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
    • 6.1Schematic patterns in the Swedish and Danish datasets
    • 6.2Openings and closings, fixed sets and room for variation
    • 6.3Dear
    • 6.4Formality/informality
    • 6.5Use of names
    • 6.6Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.03hou
References (39)
References
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. 2007. Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning and Technology 11(2). 59–81.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. The CCSARP coding manual. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 273–294. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia. 2011. Openings and closings in Spanish email conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1772–1785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Albert Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2012. Epilogue: (Im)politeness: Three issues. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1128–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daun, Åke. 1996. Swedish mentality. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Ditlevsen, Christine. 2014. Kærlig hilsen din chef. Takt og tone i e-mailhilsner [Kind regards, your boss. E-mail etiquette]. Kommunikationsforum, [URL]. (25 August, 2022).Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa & Carmen Frehner. 2013. Email communication. In Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication, 35–54. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2011. “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ email requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3193–3215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ess, Charles & AoIR ethics working committee. 2002. Ethical decision-making and internet research. Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee, [URL]. (25 August, 2022).Google Scholar
Ewald, Jennifer D. 2016. The inbox. Understanding and maximizing student-instructor email. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gøttsche, Lise. 2020. Arbejdstid er e-mailtid. Kender du de danske regler for afskedshilsner i arbejdsemails? [Work time is email time. Do you know the Danish rules for signing off in professional emails?], [URL]. (25 August, 2022).Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3). 213–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grønning, Anette. 2006. Personen bag: tilstedevær i e-mail som interaktionsform mellem kunde og medarbejder i dansk forsikringskontekst. [The person behind: presence in email as modes of interaction between customer and employee in Danish insurance context]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Henrik Galberg & Peter Stray Jørgensen. 2013 [1988]. Håndbog i nudansk [Guide to Modern Danish]. 6th ed. København: Politikens Forlag.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Erling Strudsholm. 2016. Åbninger og lukninger i e-mailkorrespondance i fire sprog [Openings and closings in email correspondence in four languages]. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, special issue 1. 119–139.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte, Tina Thode Hougaard & Marianne Rathje. 2020. Rapport om spørgeskema om brugen af åbne- og lukkehilsner i e-mails [Report on survey on the use of opening and closing greetings]. Dansk Sprognævns hjemmeside, [URL]. (25 August, 2022).Google Scholar
Laver, John D. M. H. 1981. Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine. Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, 289–304. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Tatiana Larina. 2014. Politeness: West and East. Russian Journal of Linguistics 4. 9–34.Google Scholar
Lund, Anne Katrine. 2004. Den forsømte kommunikation – brevet i organisationskommunikationen [The neglected communication – the letter in organisation communication]. Fredriksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Markham, Annette & Elizabeth Buchanan. 2012. Ethical decision-making and internet research. Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee (Version 2.0), [URL]. (25 August, 2022).Google Scholar
Moyna, María Irene, Bettina Kluge & Horst J. Simon. 2019. Address and address research. Here’s looking at you, kid. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about ‘you’. New perspectives on address research, 1–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, Jenny, Catrin Norrby, Jan Lindström & Camilla Wide. 2017. Hälsningsfrasers sociala värde i sverigesvenskt och finlandssvenskt talspråk [The social value of greeting phrases in Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish spoken language]. Svenska landsmål och svenskt folkliv 2016. 136–167.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Jenny, Catrin Norrby, Love Bohman, Klara Skogmyr Marian, Camilla Wide & Jan Lindström. 2020. What is in a greeting? The social meaning of greetings in Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 168. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nord, Andreas. 2019. Brev, chatt eller lite av varje? Språk- och textnormer i ett digitalt kommunforum för medborgarservice [Letter, chat or a little of everything? Language and text norms in a digital municipality forum for citizen service]. Språk i Norden 2019. 49–66.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2012. Lehmann’s parameters revisited. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lot Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New Reflections, 73–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ordbog over det danske sprog [Dictionary of the Danish language], vol. 11. 1929. Verner Dahlerup et al. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Palmgren, Ulla G. 2008. Håndbog i høflighed – kulturelle koder i 11 EU-lande [Guide to politeness – cultural codes in 11 EU countries]. København: Multivers.Google Scholar
Rask, Kirsten. 1992. Brevbogen. [The letter book]. København: Den grafiske højskole.Google Scholar
Rathje, Marianne, Tina Thode Hougaard & Eva Skafte Jensen. 2021. E-mailhilsner: Relation, variation og akkommodation. [Email greetings: relation, variation and accommodation]. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication. 47–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenska Akademiens Ordbok [The Swedish Academy dictionary], vol. 15. 1939. Lund: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Tagg, Caroline. 2016. Heteroglossia in text-messaging: Performing identity and negotiating relationships in a digital space. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(1). 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vismans, Roel. 2019. Address negotiations in Dutch emails. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about ‘you’. New perspectives on address research, 253–280. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waldvogel, Joan. 2007. Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12. 456–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, Camilla, Hanna Lappalainen, Anu Rouhikoski, Catrin Norrby, Camilla Lindholm, Jan Lindström & Jenny Nilsson. 2019. Variation in address practices across languages and nations. A comparative study of doctors’ use of address forms in medical consultations in Sweden and Finland. Pragmatics 29(4). 595–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar