Search Model

BaronOnEmail?

Public ethos is attentuated in email exhange--meaning that public face/character is weakened because email is unedited and immediate

Therefore, writers don't need to worry about errors in language because email is private, rather than public, though it can be printed and it can be made public

Description

Rhetorical Situation

Unsolicited email from a stranger who blogged in 2000 or 2001 to a professor teaching a class on blogging

The email was answered four days later by the professor

Header elements

In the first email, from Jen, there is a header with the subject line in bold. The time is CDT There is an attachment There is a reference to SPAM 4.99/4.00, which is not in the return email Don't know where she's writing from--she's anonymous, the receiver is not In the second email, the header is again in bold without the SPAM reference The time of the second is prior to noon four days after receiving the email

In the first email,

from Jen Robinson, there is a header with the subject line in bold. The time is in CDT, though the sender seems to be in England There is also an attachment. In her header, there is a reference to SPAM 4.99/4.00, which in the return email, this is omitted There is no attachment in the return email

Lexicon Language used in both emails has a friendly/formal tone The Robinson email is unsolicited and in the greeting line states, "Hello there!" as if the receiver has no name. She uses the words "ninja variety searching" in the first sentence to introduce herself and mention the subject of a blog This sentence has two ideas in it that of searching and writing a blog. She mentions the idea of a blog and wiki course being interesting. She's cleaning up bookmarks--and wonders if the professor still has students read her old blog. She uses a question mark She capitalizes the idea of SO MANY blogs to shout(?) in email convention She states she has "retired the blog" and gives the professor it's current address Then she states she's blogging about library science and gives that address

The second paragraph catches the professor up on her life since them, since her "London Days" she's got her master's in library science--using abbreviation MLIS She also abbreviates YA (young adult) She explains her interest in blogs and wikis and gives a history of the "personal expression" components of the web.

Her sentences are 20+ words and she uses semicolons , dashes and parenthesis. Her language is professional to professional—both working with words I didn’t notice any misspellings or grammatical errors The length of this message is about the same as an average business letter—300+ words She mentions “current modular setup” of flickr, myspace, friendster, librarything and deli.ci.ous The letter is three paragraphs long, the first being longest Her level of vocabulary is high—endeavour, entailed, ninja vanity searching She also mentions pandas a couple times she uses an appositive in the first line she also uses dashes, capitalizes erratically, and uses an &

Response Letter (michael)

letter is written four days later prior to noon CDT, so the time zone is apparently the same for both writers His letter is three paragraphs long, though is not as long as Jen's letter Sentences are around 20+ words Caps her name in salutaion, uses a dash after her name uses a - prior to his name, which is not capped, no nickname, uses his full name--michael lots of professional and computer language--pre web 2.0, delicious, facebook, Abbreviates LUC, YALit?, N Minnesota, hype (hypertext?) Last Paragraph the sentences get short, last sentence in one word-luck. uses local landmarks in the first paragraph--Heathrow, Paddington Station, LUC Uses commonality--refers to them as "long-term visitor"s Professional tone: blogging times have changed, new areas people "*can*" do passes her url to the other faculty and librarian offer of future aid--"let me know" repeats this phrase some slang "newbies" Embed initial letter in his response; ending of letter has space for bloggable, aske first, do not blog, Header says he's at BSU No closing line first paragraph is detailed for 5-6 years earlier caps on "Way Back"

In the first email, Jen uses the word ninja, which can imply many things--dishonest, cheating, anything goes, secret--to describe her "vanity" searching. Okay, I have no clue what vanity searching is. My educated guess is that she's going through her old blogs to see what's there. She becomes intrigued with the idea of a class in blogs and wikis. Her longest paragraph is her attempt to be helpful if the professor is still wanting to use her blog. Perhaps this is the vanity part. She next explains her current blog on library science. She gives its address as well. In keeping with her ninja theme, one of her addresses includes the phrase "sneakypanda."

Googling the phrase "ninja vanity surfing" didn't bring any hits. Vanity surfing did. It's when someone googles their own name. If ninja implies sneaky or secret, my guess would be this phrase says she googled her name when no one else would know.

In her next paragraph, she tells a bit about herself--she has her masters,works in a library, and comments on the progression of the personal expression nature of the web.

In her third paragraph she wishes the receiver good luck in future courses and comments on how she is trying to "endevour" libraries to teach web privacy and benefits of social networking as opposed to the "dangers" parents may perceive.

In the second email the author uses terms to establish common ground--my old haunt, other long-term visitors, even as strangers that "pass in the night" she's in Paddington while he's on his way to the airport.

In the next paragraph, he agrees that blogging has changed and uses some slang, "newbies" and tells her she's in a perfect place to show library patrons (kids and their parents) how blogging and social networking fit.

In the third paragraph, he passes her address to other professionals and offers his assistance. He ends with a single word--Luck. She concludes with Best Regards.

Analysis

According to the search model, Baron is stating that emails, because of their personal nature they have a less than public face or poise.

In the first email, Jen is writing professional to professional--she is explaining why she is writing. Her old blog was used for a college class and she is informing the reader her blog has been archived and she has a new blog about Library Science. So far, this email doesn't fit the search model of a less than public face. If fact, she makes self effacing remarks--SO MANY more blogs out there...

In her second paragraph, Jen is more in line with the search model because her remarks are of a more personal nature--Since those London days..., I'm a youth/YA librarian...

She reminices in this paragraph about all the changes web writing has gone through and makes a statement about personal expression. So, she is aware of the personal nature of her email as she talks about her observations. Ironic.

In the third paragraph, she returns to a professional tone. She uses formal language--future versions, endevour, benefits of social networking sites, danger perceived, entailed, online networking.

The pattern of this email is formal language, informal language, formal language.

In the return email, the first paragraph is informal, though not necessarily more informal than ordinary speech--What a surprise, Way Back, my old haunt.

The response time on this email was four days, rather than the quick response time assumed in the search model.

The second paragraph is more formal in language and refers to blogging specific behavior--newbies, show how blogging fits..., more of us in the professions...

The third paragraph is less formal than the previous two--good wishes back to you, luck.

The search model says that audience identity is intended for a limited specified audience, but can be forwarded. This is what happens in the third paragraph--he forwards her url to other professors and librarians

The pattern of language in the second email is informal, informal (though the language is technical, it's not formal), informal.

The search model states that email is ephermeral, however can be printed out, which we did for this assignment

The search model also states email has a high level of candor. I would find that true of these emails. Both parties have a level of anonimity, though the receiver's identity is known through his workplace.

Interpretation

Using Baron's search model of the informality of email, inattention to public face, and a "linguistic recess" from punctuation, proper grammar, etc., I would not go that far in these two emails.

Granted, the language in both is largely informal, but in the first email Jen uses formal language, because she knows her audience is a university professor. She explains why she is writing, tells a bit about what she's doing and where, and in her last paragraph she uses two clues that she doesn't necessarily expect a reply--Good luck with future... and Best Regards. These are not markers that demand or ask for a response.

In the reply, michael is more informal and casual in his language. He invites further conversation with the sender in his last paragraph. He also forwards her url to other professionals in her fields of interest. The search model agrees with this behavior--it can be forwarded to others without the sender's knowledge. Possibly as a professional, michael, let the sender know he was doing this for her.

As far as candor, neither of these emails says anything that is derogatory or impolite. Though informal, the language is kept on a friendly, professional level, as if they know it might be printed out, especially when told the url would be forwarded. I don't know that these sort of things wouldn't be said if these two met at a meeting of some kind. This would go along with the search model saying that email mimics speech patterns.

When responding to emails being mixed writing modes, these two emails agree with the search model as they are more like letters than memos. Neither has more information than would be found in a letter, no fax, phone, quotations, or visual displays.

Evaluation

In thinking of these emails as being a "public face" and what that means rhetorically, I would say that both writers were more aware of a public face and what they were saying. When Jen gives her new blog addresses, she is inviting people into her blog, and not necessarily the professor. She is aware that he's used her blog in the past for one of his classes. That's why she's telling him the new addresses. Effectively, she's opening her private face to the public, though a limited public of college students in one professor's classes, at least at first. We don't know the level of attention she will get from this action. This would go along with the search model.

Michael is more casual and responds like a friendly professor, "If you're in the area let me know." He is writing more as a public face, for want of a better term. He forwards her url without asking her permission, which rhetorically says that he's not concerned about her thoughts on the matter, except he does tell her. I think this is a rhetorical construct that the search model doesn't touch on. However, he wouldn't have to tell her. I would put this behavior with the professional attitudes they have conversed with in these emails

Neither of these emails contain misspellings. Neither of them contain a higher level of candor that would be found in a face to face conversation.

In these emails the writers do pay attention to spelling and punctuation rather than "enjoy a linguistic recess." Since the conversation is between professionals that don't know each other, I would expect this level of attention to detail. Otherwise, they might not be taken seriously.

I would rate the search model as effective tool for evaluating these emails. It gets close and isn't always perfect, but the major points it brings out are all touched upon.