Description

(collaboratively describing elements found in both messages)

The Rhetorical Situation

• Appears to be written at a casual pace
• Relationship between writers appears to be friendly
• First time exchange/the correspondents are strangers to one another

Header Elements

• No cc or bcc shown

Features of the Genre

• Casual greetings and salutations, conversational sounding
• Listed as "bloggable" at the end of Mike's message

Lexicon

• Informal vocabularly, almost slang at times
• Lots of Wiki and Web Jargon (deli.cio.us, blog, facebook, flickr, friendster, myspace, etc.)
• Abbreviations used: MLIS, YA, LUC)

Sentences

• Longer, more professionally constructed sentences

Use of Punctuation

• Formal punctuation usage, more like essay form than spoken form

Degree of Editing

• Constructed professionally, for the most part; a couple of omissions/fragments--end of Mike's message: Luck. (?)

Paralinguistic Cues

• Capital letters for effect (SO MANY, Way Back, etc.), also, (*)'s are used for effect

Length of Message

• 3 paragraph message, 3 paragraph response

Embedded Material

• N/A

Paragraphs

• Mostly uniform length in paragraphs

Overall Organization/Arrangement of the Message

• Messages appear to be chronological

Use of Headings, Lists, Tables

• N/A

Images

• N/A

Typing Adaptations for the E-Mail Form

• All caps used for emphasis or abbreviations (N Minnesota for "northern" MN); links and other information underlined, etc; standard print and formatting throughout

Use of Rhetorical Figures

• Phrases/Terms:

 ninja vanity searching
 blog/blogging
 newbies

Analysis

The longer sentence structure seems to speak to a sense of keeping things professional. The editing is tight, and this, too, makes one assume that this was more of a formal, but friendly, correspondence from two people who do not know each other.

The overall tone is casual and friendly, but there are moments when it is obvious that the two writers who are corresponding are a bit passive and reserved, less forthcoming ("if you don't mind" vs. I am going to,etc.). Also, the messages are not as informal as typical e-mails, but neither writer conveys their message in true traditional letter formality, either.

Interpretation

From reading this exchange, it is my belief that the e-mails were from people who didn't know each other at all; there are a lot of introductory type statements to support this claim--I studied here, I did this, I did that, etc.

It is apparent that the e-mail exchanges will probably be limited to this one message. Evidence to suggest this includes both writers wishing each other "good luck" and "best regards"--generally a sign that the salutations are ones to mark a more permanent rest to conversations and exchanges versus salutations that may lend to the belief that regular or more frequent contact will occur--i.e., we'll talk soon, etc.

The tone remains friendly and informative throughout, but it's almost like a battle of the wiki-knowledge pros--each person seems to have something to say that is said in an educator's voice. It is apparent that both parties are informed about deeper issues than simply how blogs and wikis work, but each also knows some of the implications the world of blogs and wikis has for our society.