JCMC 9 (1) November 2003
Collab-U  CMC Play  E-Commerce Symposium Net Law  InfoSpaces Usenet
  NetStudy VEs VOs O-Journ HigherEd Conversation Cyberspace Web Commerce
Vol. 6 No. 1  Vol. 6 No. 2  Vol. 6 No. 3  Vol. 6 No. 4  Vol. 7 No. 1  Vol. 7 No. 2  Vol. 7 No. 3  Vol. 7 No. 4  Vol. 8 No. 1  Vol. 8 No. 2

Breaking Conversational Norms on a Portuguese Users Network: Men as Adjudicators of Politeness?

Sandi Michele de Oliveira
University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Abstract

This article examines messages exchanged via asynchronous CMC at a Portuguese university that would be considered impolite in face-to-face interaction (cf. Brown & Levinson, 1987; Culpeper, 1996; Oliveira, 1985, 2003; Oliveira Medeiros, 1994). A comparison by gender was conducted of the degree and nature of participation in the university Users' network, focusing on transgressions and chastisement involving inappropriate message content, message form and address form selection. Although women participate less often in discussions on the network, messages posted by women are more often treated as transgressions, while men more often initiate responses demonstrating concern with established norms of politeness and the importance of adhering to them. These results confirm traditional gender roles of men as interactionally dominant and representative of "authority," but do not support findings for English-language CMC that women are more concerned with politeness than men (Herring, 1994; Smith, McLaughlin & Osborn,1997); rather, Portuguese men on the university network assume the role of "politeness adjudicators."

Introduction

Issues of gender in English-language computer-mediated communication (henceforth CMC) have been the object of investigation since the late 1980s. While the first studies pointed to the advantages the new technology offered for greater gender equality in communication (e.g., Smith & Balka, 1988; Graddol & Swann, 1989), by 1991 studies began to appear drawing attention to gender differences in communicative style on the Internet. Herring (2003) traces the history of gender research on CMC, concluding that messages posted by men and women reflect "culturally-learned" gender styles.

In comparison, research on CMC in Portuguese is scanty and has focused on its use as a tool in foreign language education, especially in the development of writing skills (e.g., Kelm, 1992). It seems no attention has been given to the analysis of CMC exchanges by native speakers of Portuguese using the Internet as a means of natural communication.

Previous research on gender in Portuguese has found that media stereotypes resemble in many ways those in the English-speaking world (Neto & Pinto, 1998). In their study of Portuguese TV advertisements, Neto and Pinto found that men are more often presented as the central figure (66%) and as "voices of authority" in voice-overs (91%), and that men in ads are more than four times as likely as women to have speaking roles (although both genders are more often silent at the end of the ad relative to other nationalities studied). They conclude that despite the fact that women in Portugal represent more than half of the general population and more than half of those completing a university degree, they continue to be portrayed in the media in traditionally feminine roles or, when portrayed in the workplace, in positions of lower rank than males.

Gender-based language differences in Portuguese, however, have not been sufficiently investigated. In fact, exhaustive searches unearthed no study dedicated to this subject within the past twenty-five years in the national or international literature indexed by bibliographic references. Therefore, considerations of what constitutes gendered language behavior must necessarily rely on a comparison of actual behavior to prescriptive norms or native and near-native evaluations of behavior acquired by social experience and/or resulting from ethnographic research.

In contrast to the lack of data on gendered language use or Portuguese CMC, politeness and especially the sophisticated Portuguese address form system have received considerable attention over the past twenty years. For example, Hammermüller (1993) examines social conventions and the acceptability of variable formulations of address, while Carreira (1997) considers address as a means of verbal proxemics. Of particular relevance here are the studies of Oliveira Medeiros (1985, 1994), which discuss negotiation and renegotiation strategies for developing address form relationships in Portuguese, and Oliveira (2003), which presents a twenty-year perspective on actual usage.

This article analyzes asynchronous communication over a two-year period (March 2001 - April 2003) posted on a Users network at a Portuguese university, specifically conversational threads of five messages or more. The analysis considers linguistic politeness behavior at both sentence and discourse levels. The working hypotheses were that men and women would adhere to the pragmatic norms exhibited in face-to-face interaction (use of appropriate titles, politeness norms), and that gender analyses would reveal women to be the guarantors of standards of politeness and men to be the more frequent transgressors, as found in previous research on gender and CMC (e.g., Herring, 1994; Smith, McLaughlin & Osborn,1997).

After a presentation of the theoretical foundations for the study and pragmatic norms of communication at a Portuguese university, we examine the data. The findings indicate that stereotypical patterns of gendered behavior do exist in Portuguese asynchronous CMC. At the same time, contrary to the findings of previous studies, there is evidence that men are strongly interested in the overall "decency" and maintenance of communicative "standards" on the Users network.

Theoretical Foundations

Two related approaches provide the theoretical underpinnings for considering politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996), while various studies of the Portuguese system of address over a twenty-year period (e.g., Oliveira Medeiros, 1994; Oliveira, 2003) provide the cultural focus necessary for a fuller understanding of the data presented.

Politeness and Impoliteness

Brown and Levinson's (B&L) model is based on politeness as a function of a speaker's desire to give or receive respect ("positive face") or to avoid imposition (on oneself or another, "negative face"). The strategies used in conversation are ranked accorded to their ability to "threaten" the face "wants" of the other. The categories are bald on record (direct comments, with no attention paid to the wants or needs of the hearer), positive politeness (statements showing respect for the hearer), negative politeness (statements designed to diminish the imposition on the hearer), off-record (very indirect statements of want) and withholding the face-threatening act (FTA) (silence on the matter, hoping the hearer will understand the speaker's wants without a verbal stimulus).

The B&L model has been criticized on several grounds, three being particularly relevant to our discussion. First, the presumed universality of its strategies is a problem. Second, the model is intended to analyze text at the level of the sentence rather than the discourse as a whole. A third issue is the model's inattention to the special problems of impoliteness, where a speaker's desire to be impolite would appear to threaten her positive face wants (to be respected).

Culpeper (1996) attempts to fill the latter gap. He suggests that strategic impoliteness exists, with a structure that is parallel in form to that of B&L's politeness strategies. He identifies bald on-record impoliteness (deliberate rudeness), positive impoliteness (attacking the positive face wants of the hearer), negative impoliteness (attacking the negative face wants of the hearer), sarcasm or mock politeness (being rude by pretending to be polite) and withholding politeness (avoiding engaging in expected politeness behavior). A problem with Culpeper's model, however, is that his categories are not mutually exclusive: Positive impoliteness can also be baldly rude, for example. His model also suffers from the first two limitations noted above for Brown and Levinson's work; that is, presumed universality and focus on the sentence level. These criticisms aside, the two perspectives provide useful terms for consideration, as they integrate the notions of "face" (Goffman, 1956) into a linguistic frame of reference, identifying degrees of politeness and impoliteness along lines of directness.

The Importance of Appropriate Address in Portuguese

An aspect of politeness that is crucial to smooth communication in Portugal is appropriate address form selection. While everyone has a social title, not everyone possesses an academic degree; fewer still have professional or administrative titles. Unless the speakers have negotiated an address form relationship different from conventionalized norms, they must select the appropriate title for each situation. Oliveira Medeiros (1994) presents strategies speakers use to determine an appropriate address form or to (re)negotiate their address form relationship with others.

Knowing the appropriate rank and educational background of the other person is the responsibility of the speaker, the relevant information often being obtained through third parties. People commonly make a preliminary call to an organization to discover the title of a person to guarantee pragmatic correctness when the "real" call is made. Gião states that when two people are introduced, their position and title should be made clear "to avoid embarrassing situations" (1992, p.171) arising naturally from the social rule that one should not obtain this information through a direct question to the person. Thus, when third parties are not present and people are left to present themselves to others, they do not use their own titles, but furnish supplementary information so their status can be ascertained (e.g., "Hello, I am ____, professor at University X").

Given this preoccupation with use of an appropriate form, a refusal to acknowledge the other's full status would be highly inappropriate usage. In instances where the relative status—and thus the appropriate address form—of the parties is known (or "should" be known), Culpeper might consider failure to use an appropriate address form an example of withholding politeness, or positive impoliteness (using inappropriate identity markers). In Portuguese society, however, withholding an appropriate address form would be considered an act of bald on record impoliteness.

Norms of Interaction Within the University

Appropriate address is no less important in the university environment than in Portuguese society at large. Hierarchy is very important—one's status is determined not only by rank but also by seniority (hiring date)—and all members of the university community are expected to conform to protocol in university council meetings and correspondence. Table 1 presents a four-tier hierarchy of forms for address within the university.

Administrative titles sr.(ª) presidente
sr.(ª) director(a)
Professional titles
professor(a) (=rank of Assistant, Associate or Full Professor)

Variants include:
     title + FN (with men or women)
     title + LN (with men)
     Prof.(ª) + Doutor(a) or Engenheiro(-a)
     Senhor(a) Professor(a)
Academic titles doutor(a) (=completion of Ph.D. degree in Letters)
engenheiro(-a) (=completion of Ph.D. degree in Science or Engineering)
dr.(ª) (=completion of B.A. degree in Letters)
eng.o or eng.ª (completion of B.A. degree in Science or Engineering)

Variants include:
     title + FN (with men or women)
     title + LN (with men)
Social titles (social titles are used with those who have no academic degree;
if they have an administrative title, that takes precedence)

sr. + FN or LN (with men)
dona + FN (with women)

Table 1. Forms of address used to conduct official business at Portuguese universities—Simplified schema
(all titles used with the third person singular form of the verb)
(adapted from Oliveira, 2003)

N.B. In Portuguese, regular feminine nouns are formed either by adding an "a" to a masculine noun ending in a consonant (e.g., director/directora) or by substituting the final "o" with an "a" (e.g., engenheiro/engenheira). By convention these are indicated by (-a) to signal substitution, and by (a) or (ª) to signal addition (the superscript form is used with abbreviations, as in Dr. (ª)).
Obviously personal relationships exist which transcend the official hierarchy, so one hears tu (the 2nd person pronoun, generally signifying a close relationship), first or last name, or colega ("colleague;" used among faculty members or among administrative personnel, but not between the two). However, while the tendency to hide close friendships through the use of more formal address forms in the presence of third parties is reduced relative to 20 years ago (cf. Medeiros, 1985; Oliveira, 2003), academic and professional titles are still used both in official correspondence and council meetings.

In correspondence, academic titles are generally not included in the closing of the letter; the administrative title (e.g., President of the Department Council) or rank (Graduate Assistant)1 appears under the name. It is the reader's responsibility to know that in the first case only those with the title Professor(a) can be heads of department, and those with the title Dr. (ª) are graduate assistants. Use of tu in written communication implies necessarily that the speakers have negotiated a tu-relationship and use tu when speaking face-to-face or on the telephone. The decision to use tu in CMC is related to the desire to highlight the personal relationship and/or to take advantage of the closeness implied by that address to achieve conversational goals not otherwise possible (see example 6 below).

In Portuguese CMC, variable use is made of the standardized "signature" (inclusive of information needed for selecting an appropriate address and/or contacting the sender personally). While a standardized signature is not considered offensive, simply presenting one's name and academic title would be viewed as "self-promotion," a pragmatic offense. No standardized signature is provided; therefore, frequent use is made of colega (colleague), interpreted broadly and generally inoffensive. However, its use is not unambiguous, for while colega traditionally emphasizes solidarity, it can also be used to avoid acknowledging the hearer's (superior) status, without fear of reprisal.

Prescriptive gendered behavior in the workplace merits only a single paragraph from Gião; women are admonished not to expect social niceties (e.g., the opening of a door or the pulling out of a chair). Her advice: "True courtesy will be to treat her in accordance with her hierarchical position and not her gender." Women are encouraged to act in a similar fashion (1992, p.169).

Finally, the members of the Users network are part of a university community and therefore interact in multiple channels: CMC, face-to-face and "normal" written communication. The norms of all of these channels are potentially relevant in interpreting their online behavior.

Internet Usage Within the University

For the sake of simplicity, I have been referring to a "Users network;" in reality this "network" is the university's IMAP Webmail program (asynchronous e-mail). Mail can be addressed to an individual, to an entire department, or to all "users." Mail addressed to users@university_X, whether from an internal or external address, is sent to everyone holding a university mail account. The potential universe of "users" is thus every employee of the university (plus others granted access).

Internet use at this university is recent. In 1993 the first e-mail accounts were issued, using a UNIX-based system; in 1996 a change was made to a Windows-based program, permitting easier communication. Only in 1998 did the university actively encourage its faculty and staff to acquire e-mail accounts (and still later require that administrative functions, such as the reporting of grades, be handled electronically).

No official policy exists regarding the appropriate use of the network, the censorship of messages or expected language use. When asked directly, the Computer Center staff respond that users should be aware of their own language and observe the rules of "netiquette" as found on the Internet. Occasionally the Computer Center posts a message regarding its "informal" rules (emphasis theirs) designed to filter out commercial messages, unsolicited junk mail, messages with attachments or images, and messages announcing new viruses (unless approved by the computer center as valid). Despite these efforts, unsolicited junk mail from sources outside the university surpasses in number the messages generated internally, a common source of complaint. Individuals cannot filter messages; their only option is to delete them manually or ask to be removed from the list of "users."

User names are not anonymous, so it is possible to verify both the gender and rank of active participants. Most of the contributors to the conversational threads analyzed are male professors. This is consistent with the gender composition of the university faculty: Only 34% of all professors are female, as compared with 49% of graduate assistants.2

The Data

Total postings by university faculty and staff between March 2001 and April 2003 were approximately 2700 (unsolicited junk mail was not included in this number or in the study). More than 90% were informational bulletins with no response expected: notices of university events, academic deadlines, university hirings, research opportunities, links to newspaper articles deemed interesting, and offers or requests for real estate or other property. The remaining messages posted by network members were comments or complaints about university services or facilities (directed either to all colleagues or as an "open letter" to the university administration) and inappropriate use of the Users network (particularly complaints regarding advertising).

Nearly all of the 2700 messages were read (some official bulletins were omitted), and a decision was made to analyze the 14 conversational threads of five messages or more, as well as messages containing comments on communicative appropriateness or grammar. The sustained conversational threads, with a total of 178 individual postings, represent approximately 8% of the total. The small number of sustained conversational threads indicates that this network is used primarily for disseminating information and only secondarily as a means to advance discussion within the university community.

Women appear to post informational bulletins with roughly the same frequency as men (cf. Graddol & Swann, 1989), but demonstrate little participation in extended conversational threads and rarely initiate general discussion. A tabulation by gender shows a ratio of male-to-female participation greater than 4-to-1 for number of messages and nearly the same ratio for the number of active participants, disproportionate to the overall university faculty population (2-to-1 male-to-female).3 An examination of the number of "highly active" participants (those contributing five or more times) shows almost no gender difference (13% of females vs. 15% of males). However, these numbers are not statistically significant, in that the 13% of females is comprised of only two individuals. The list of conversational threads with a breakdown of participation by gender is given in Table 2.


 
Postings by Females
Postings by Males
Conversation thread
Total Postings
Initiated / Terminated by M(ale) or F(emale)
Total
No. diff. females
Total
No. diff. males
1 - complaint about faulty air-conditioning
7
M / M
3
3
4
2
2 - should university have an ID-card?
11
M / M
1
1
10
8
3 - proposed national law on education
20
M / F (union rep.)
8
6
12
6
4 - university newspaper coverage of B.A. course
5
M / M
1
1
4
3
5 - criticism of newspaper article on the Church as pillar of society
5
M / M
0
0
5
4
6 - responses to publicity placed by female [toys]
5
M / M
1
1
4
4
7 - responses to publicity placed by male [property for sale]
13
M / F
1
1
12
10
8 - proposed changes in university statutes
7
M / M
1
1
6
5
9 - complaints about new university procedure
14
M / M
3
3
11
6
10 - responses to action taken by Rector
34
M / M
4
3
30
18
11 - complaints about university service
6
M / F
1
1
5
5
12 - possible end to Users network by university administration
19
M / F
2
2
17
13
13 - responses to mention of religious Website placed by female with topic change to the use of the Users network
6 + 13 = 19*
M / M
2
2
17
10
14 - apology for posting advertising with topic change to censorship of the Users network
2 + 4 = 6*
F (apology) / M
2
2
4
3
Totals
178
33
145
 
(19%)
(81%)
  
no. participants
16
52
  
no. “highly active” participants**
2
(13%)
8
(15%)
  
Initiate CT – Males
91%
        
Initiate CT - Females
9%
        
Terminate CT - Males
71%
        
Terminate CT - Females
29%
   

Table 2. Conversational threads analyzed
* The number following the + indicates messages with a change in header and shift in content, although the first message following clearly continues the CT begun previously.
** "Highly active" participants are those who participated 5 times or more in the conversational threads analyzed.

Analysis of Conversational Threads

The analysis of the conversational threads is separated into four categories: initiation and termination of threads, violation of pragmatic norms (politeness), inappropriate content of submissions, and violation of linguistic norms (grammar). Each is discussed separately below.

Initiation and Termination of Conversational Threads

Of the 14 conversational threads (CTs) analyzed, only one was initiated by a female (CT 14), an apology to Users for posting a message containing advertising. CT 2, discussing whether the university should have an identity card, is particularly interesting in terms of gendered behavior. Table 3 summarizes the sequence of messages.

Message Sender Message Content
1 M Introduces the problem
2 F Suggests a simple solution
3 M Message of agreement with e-mail of "colleague + FN + LN"
4 M Message of agreement with Dr.ª FN + LN
5 M Message of agreement with "the colleague" (feminine)
6 M Message of agreement with "the colleagues"
7 M Message of agreement with "Prof. FN + LN
(male colleague, message 4) and other colleagues"
8 M "I agree with the message of Prof. LN (message 7) and have
exactly the same position expressed by Prof. FN + LN (message 4)"
9 M Long answer to first message, no indication of having read other messages
10 M Long response to previous message
11 M Long, general position addressed to "dear colleagues"

Table 3. Conversational thread 2
(FN = First Name, LN = Last Name)

Although six males supported the position first espoused by the female respondent, only three credit her with the solution; the others give credit to their male colleagues (cf. Herring, Johnson & DiBenedetto, 1995). A hypothesis that all conversational threads were terminated by men proved incorrect. Four were ended by women, three by the same woman (one of the two "highly active" participants); the fourth (CT 3), discussing proposed national education legislation, closed with an official posting by the teacher's union representative, coincidentally female.

Violation of Pragmatic Norms

The next conversational thread, concerning appropriate address, inspired this article, given my interest in deference combined with the particularly acidic tone of some of the messages. In the first, Male 1, a professor, questions the coverage given one of the university's B.A.-level programs in a recent issue of the university newspaper. Addressing his comments to "Dear colleagues," he explains that he is not, nor has ever been, affiliated with that program or department, but feels the university newspaper was unfairly biased. He closes with FN + LN, but no academic title, in accordance with the norms described above.

Dear Colleagues:

What is happening with the ____ course? Or rather… What is happening with the University Newspaper, so dedicated that it is to speaking poorly about one of our (and its) courses?

   Caros Colegas:

Que se passa com [nome do curso]? Ou melhor... Que se passa com o Jornal da Universidade, tão dedicado que está em dizer mal de um dos nossos (e seus...) cursos?

...
Nota Bene: I am not involved in that course, nor do I know any of the article's authors, nor did I gain, in any case, any desire to after reading them. I do not possess the least personal stake [in the issue], or belong to a lobby, political party, or religion that leads me to state the following.
   ...
Nota Bene: não estou envolvido nesse curso, nem conheço nenhum dos articulistas, nem fiquei, aliás, com muito desejo disso depois de os ler. Não possuo o mínimo interesse pessoal, ou de lobby, ou de partido político, ou de religião, para dizer o que vou dizer.

I simply find it inadmissible that the University Newspaper serves to (attempt to) cast such a dark shadow on the image of any of the courses of this university, by people of the university itself, worse, with the knowledge and acceptance—as I cannot imagine that he is not aware of this—of the Rector, who is also the newspaper's Director.		  
Acho simplesmente inadmissível que o Jornal da Universidade sirva para (tentar) colocar de rastos a imagem dum curso qualquer da Universidade, por gente da própria Universidade, pior, com a conivência—pois não imagino que esteja desconhecedor da questão—do próprio Reitor que é, também, o Director do Jornal.

All of us, at least all those who try to be serious in their work, deserve greater respect. And forgive my letting off steam.

FN + LN

  
Todos nós, pelo menos todos os que tentam ser sérios no seu trabalho, merecem mais respeito. E desculpem o desabafo.

FN + LN

Example 1. Conversational thread 4, Message 1 (Male 1)

This provoked a response from a female colleague, who addressed her message to Sr. + FN + LN (omitting even the courtesy word "Dear"). Her sarcastic response suggested that Male 1 was trying to determine for the Rector (and colleagues) the appropriate topics for on-line discussion, an issue so "serious" that he should contact her at her department, although she has no affiliation with the department being discussed.

Sr + FN + LN

I believe we do not live in a totalitarian state, but I am very thankful that Sr. + FN tells us all, including the Rector, when we can or cannot debate the issues that are important to our University.

  

Sr + FN + LN

Penso que não vivemos num estado totalitario, mas fico muito agradecida que o Sr. + FN nos diga a todos, inclusive ao Sr. Reitor, quando e que podemos ou não debater os assuntos que importam a nossa Universidade.

The issue of [the aforementioned] course is, unfortunately, too serious for light commentaries. So, if you wish to be informed, you may contact me. I am always in the Department of _____ [not the dept. under fire].
  
O tema do [curso em _____] é, infelizmente, demasiado sério para comentários ligeiros. De maneira que, se quiser ser informado, pode-me contactar. Estou sempre no Departamento de ____ [não o dept.º em questão].

Academic respect is also a victory for democracy.

FN + LN

  
O respeito académico é também uma vitória da democracia.

FN + LN

Example 2. Conversational thread 4, Message 2 (Female 1)
Words in bold italics demonstrate inflammatory or aggressive speech patterns.

Female 1 actively seeks disagreement and implies that Male 1 is uninformed, undemocratic and not serious; she engages in sarcasm and mock politeness, inviting him to contact her for further information and suggesting that she possesses "the" truth. Ironically, her statement "[a]cademic respect is also a victory for democracy" misfires, as she shows anything but academic respect for her colleague, as evidenced in the tone of her message and the selection of a highly inappropriate address form.

Her use of Sr. + FN + LN is inappropriate for two reasons: First, without an introductory word such as "Dear," it seems as though this address form is being used in direct address, which would not occur. Second, and more germane to this discussion, is the use of Sr. (Mr.) rather than even the academic title Dr. to signify completion of a B.A. degree. In this case, Male 1 has earned a Ph.D. degree and is a professor, and therefore would be addressed as Professor, reflecting his rank within the professor category, Professor Doutor, reflecting rank plus academic title, or even Senhor Professor Doutor, although this last would probably be judged ironic in these circumstances. Either of the first two titles could be followed by first or last name.

The use of Sr. is appropriate only if a speaker does not know whether the other person has an academic or professional title, knows no one to ask and has no independent means of discovering that information. If this woman were unfamiliar with her colleague's title, the normal procedure would have been to ask another colleague or to search the home pages of the university. By using Sr., rather than even the minimal Dr., she effectively strips him of all the academic qualifications that would give him the right to use the term "colleagues" in its strictest sense! The janitors of the university, for example, are addressed by Sr. + FN or LN. In Portuguese society, this behavior would be viewed as very aggressive, regardless of the gender of the speaker.

Jackson (1999) identifies American women as being more often offended than men by the lack of an appropriate address form. Here we do not have the data to compare the relative frequency of complaint or comparative degree of sentiment by gender, but we can see that the online response from Male 1 is sharp:


Dear Colleague (I presume you are for having "responded" to my letting-off-steam of the other day addressed to Colleagues):

  

Cara Colega (presumo que o seja ao ter "respondido" ao meu desabafo do outro dia dirigido aos Colegas):

Without any attempt to diminish you by the address form you chose to address me by, I inform you that what worries me, precisely, is speaking about democracy in the same breath that you insinuate being on the side of one who has more power than my poor person, that is, in confounding citizenship with vassalage. I KNOW that THIS Rector does not need defenders.
  
Sem qualquer tentativa de a diminuir através da forma de tratamento com a qual optou por se me dirigir, informo-a que o que me preocupa, precisamente, é falar de democracia no mesmo sopro em que se insinua estar do lado de quem tem mais poder do que a minha pobre pessoa, ou seja, confundir cidadania com vassalagem. Eu SEI que ESTE Reitor não precisa de defensores.

...
And, please, don't talk to me about "debating" anything, when the editorial articles all point to the same side…

Regards.
FN + LN

  
...
E, por favor, não me fale em "debater" seja o que for quando os artigos de opinião puxam todos para o mesmo lado...

Cumprimentos.
FN + LN

Example 3. Conversational thread 4, Message 3 (Male 1)
Words in bold italics reflect sarcasm.

Through the phrasing of the statements "I presume you are [a colleague]" and "without any attempt to diminish you...," Male 1 employs a standard put-down in Portuguese: He says he will not chastise the transgressor, while doing exactly that. It is obvious to all that Female 1 has committed a faux pas, despite Male 1's not having offered his rank. Still, the same social rules prohibit him, although the injured party, from chastising her directly. Etiquette "demands" that errors committed by those in a subordinate position in the workplace be handled as follows: "The correct attitude will be to call him aside and explain the error he committed. Never should one expose a subordinate to public humiliation, or even worse, criticize him behind his back without explaining to him his mistake" (Guião, 1992, p.166f.). Thus, had Male 1 criticized Female 1 more overtly, he would have damaged his public face and given the appearance of being pompous, overly concerned with his position. Ironically, he was later accused of that very attitude (by Male 3, see below).

Male 1's reference to himself as "my poor person" is sarcastic and demonstrates mock politeness, but the tone is not biting. He then says that what worries him is something other than the address form used (namely, "confounding citizenship with vassalage"). Still, he apparently feels strongly enough about the inappropriate address to mention it; the alternative would have been to address the message to "Dear colleague" and then talk about the issue of democracy.

There was no response from Female 1, and certainly no apology. Probably for this reason, a third person entered the arena, Male 2, who comments further on Female 1's transgression in a message addressed to all (perhaps as justification for sending it to all colleagues rather than as a private message to her, since, once again, a "private" message to her in the public forum would run counter to the rules of etiquette). Sending it to colegas serves to inform all of the importance of proper address.

Dear Colleagues,

The tacit meaning of the address form is proof that academic address is done without effort:

 

Caros Colegas,

O significado tácito da forma de tratamento é uma evidência que o trato académico integra sem esforço:
> Quoting [Female informant]:
> I am very grateful that Sr. + FN tells us all		   > Quoting [informante feminino]:
> fico muito agradecida que o Sr. FN nos diga a todos

No. "Senhor FN" is impossible. It won't do. The Academic world is vast, diverse, open and has its fragility: the respect of a certain elegance is not imposed by law. It's just as well, but it imposes greater moral duty. 		 
Não. "Senhor FN", não pode ser. Não dá. O meio Académico é vasto, diverso, aberto, e tem a sua fragilidade : o respeito de uma certa elegância não é imposto por lei. Ainda bem, mas mais dever moral impõe.

With my regards to Professor H.G.		  
Com os meus cumprimentos ao Professor H.G.


P.S. Would it be possible to reread the thesis of Colleague + FN on "address forms in Portuguese"?

  


P.S. Seria possível reler a tese da Colega + FN sobre "modos de tratamento em Português" ?


Example 4. Conversational thread 4, Message 4 (Male 2)
Words in bold preach etiquette; words in bold italics reflect sarcasm; and words in bold underline are address forms.

In this case, Male 2, not implicated in the transgression, has social legitimacy in pointing out the faux pas of Female 1. That legitimacy arises from the importance of third parties as providers of appropriate social information (as described above), a consequence of which is their empowerment to make explicit the social rules. Moreover, and perhaps due to the absence of a public apology from her, he clearly felt justified in going bald on record, as evidenced by unequivocable statements that she was wrong and her behavior inexcusable. His suggestion to "colleagues" to read about address form usage in Portuguese is directed essentially to her. The reference to "Professor H.G." is obscure (perhaps to the utopian ideals of H. G. Wells), as these were not the initials of Male 1.

One might be tempted to speculate on the significance of the fact that both Male 1 and Male 2 hold the rank of Professor, while Female 1 is a Graduate Assistant (verifiable on the university's Website). However, Female 1's manner of address was such a blatant breach of social conduct that its use would have attracted comment irrespective of the trangressor's gender or rank. More interesting, when Male 1 "presumes" she is a colleague, he is effectively refusing to acknowledge his awareness of her status or to take the time to seek it out.

Female 1 did not respond, nor did she send any message to Users for the following three weeks. Although it is impossible to prove, a natural conclusion is that she was effectively silenced. Neither Male 1 nor anyone else acknowledged publicly the comments of Male 2. However, the exchange provoked a response from a former student of the university (Male 3), who wrote to Users from an address outside the university system to support the newspaper and further criticize Male 1.

As a former student, I feel extremely grateful to the University Newspaper for the way it has kept me informed about what is going on at our so noble institution. Thus, my repugnance at being informed of the criticisms that a certain Dr. + FN + LN wove about such a useful publication. It seems to me that this man feels that, in a certain way, his course of _______ is above any commentary. Moreover, this so dignified professor sends his holy words to a list of "users" ... he insinuates, at least, that he only admits answers from professores doutores [Ph.D.-holding faculty members] "of his category" (the remaining mortals just bark while the theatre caravan passes…).   Como ex-aluno, sinto-me extremamente agradecido ao Jornal da Universidade de ___ pela forma como este me tem mantido informado a respeito do que se vai passando em tão nobre instituição. Daí a minha repulsa ao ser informado das críticas que certo Dr. + FN + LN teceu sobre tão útil publicação. Parece-me que esse senhor sente que, de certo modo, o seu curso de _____ se encontra acima de qualquer comentário. Mais, o digníssimo professor envia as suas excelsas palavras para uma lista de "users"... insinua, pelo menos, só o admitir a professores doutores "da sua categoria" (os restantes mortais apenas ladram, enquanto a teatral caravana passa...).

...
I beg your pardon for polluting your space with my simplistic considerations and especially to Dr. FN + LN for not belonging to his category but for having answered him.		  
...
Peço desculpa por poluir o vosso espaço com as minhas considerações simplórias e especialmente ao Dr. FN + LN por não pertencer à sua categoria e lhe ter respondido.

Regards
FN + LN (xxxx@yahoo.com)		  
Cumprimentos
FN + LN (xxxx@yahoo.com)

Example 5. Conversational thread 4, Message 5 (Male 3)
Words in bold are particularly aggressive; words in bold italics reflect sarcasm; and words in bold underline are address forms.

As with Female 1, Male 3 does not notice that Male 1 has no tie to the department under fire. He refers to Male 1 as "a certain Dr. + FN + LN." By using the address form Dr. rather than Prof., he continues the pragmatic offense of diminishing the academic qualifications of the person in question. While Male 2 does not indicate the address form most appropriate, the implication was certainly present that an academic title was missing. Male 3 opted for the lowest title of all (allowing for a B.A. degree), without verifying the true status; this is another instance of going bald on record. Moreover, the addition of "a certain" conveys the impression that the person to whom he refers is nearly an "untouchable," a conversational strategy entirely unacceptable in face-to-face communication that might be overheard by the one being maligned. In a postscript he mentions learning that Dr. + FN is not associated with that course but "eats from the same little pan," asking for someone to explain it; no one responds. Kiesler et al. (1984) conclude that in online situations where there is a lack of "social feedback," inhibitions may be lowered, and antisocial behavior comes easily to the fore. In this case, Male 3's response follows a public redress, but he may not have been aware of it. In any case, there was no online reaction to his message.

In her 1999 article on gender harassment, Herring presents a five-stage progression of on-line harassment (p.156):
         1. Initial situation.
         2. Initiation of harassment.
         3. Resistance to harassment.
         4. Escalation of harassment.
         5. a) Targeted participants accommodate to dominant group norms, and/or
             b) Targeted participants fall silent.

While the legal definition of harassment refers to repeated abuse (by the same party), analysis of the entire sequence seems to fit the pattern described by Herring, but with an interesting twist: While the original skirmish is between Male 1 and Female 1, mid-way through the process the original participants become silent and the conflict is carried on by others, all male.

         1. Initial situation - Male 1's complaint.
         2. Initiation of harassment - Female 1.
         3. Resistance to harassment - Male 1; Male 2's support of Male 1.
         4. Continued harassment - Male 3 against Male 1.
         5. All participants (and the entire Users community) fall silent.

Not only did the participants fall silent on this matter at the time, but in the 18 months or so following this exchange, no additional messages contained or called attention to inappropriate address. However, one male professor opened discussion of how the Users themselves should be addressed: Suggestions included "users" (objected to by some for being an English word); the two common Portuguese translations "Utentes" and "Utilizadores" (rejected by some as sounding too off-putting); "Colegas" (contested on the basis that hierarchical relationships would be completely obscured); or even simply "Pessoas" ("People"). No satisfactory consensus was reached, and all but the last term have been used. In addition, messages to all have opened with the Portuguese equivalents of "Dear colleague" (singular), "Good afternoon," and an absence of salutation. Despite the inconsistency among the Users themselves, messages from the Computer Center are generally addressed to "Caros Utilizadores."

While this exchange reveals extreme discord related to the selection of an address form, the Portuguese address form system is complex, allowing for much more subtle snubbing. In another set of exchanges, between two males (I again refer to Male 1 and Male 2, although they are not the same as in the previous example), the first sends to all Users an excerpt from a national weekly newspaper with the heading "Church, moral pillar of society." This message provokes the response in Example 6.

My dear LN

I do not know the reason that led you to send to the users the excerpt from the article of _________. I presume that it must be, with your agreement, a certain desire for anticlerical proselytism, unfortunately still common in a certain left[ist group], bound by the ghosts of the Enlightenment of the 18th century and the positivists of the 19th century. It happens that the Church continues to be the great enemy, which only attests to the permanence of its values, as no one beats on corpses.

  

Meu caro LN

Desconheço a razão que te levou a enviar para os users o excerto do artigo do _____________. Presumo que será, com a tua concordância, um certo desejo de proselitismo anticlerical, aliás infelizmente ainda comum numa certa esquerda, presa dos fantasmas iluministas do sec. XVIII e positivistas do sec. XIX. Constata-se que a Igreja continua a ser o grande inimigo, o que só atesta a permanência dos seus valores, já que ninguém bate em mortos.


...
With the regards of
FN + LN

  


...
Com os cumprimentos do
FN + LN


Example 6. Conversational thread 5, Message 2 (Male 2)
Words in bold are particularly aggressive; words in bold italics reflect sarcasm; and words in bold underline are address forms.

Male 2 neither claims to know why the message was posted nor asks, stating his presumption that the intent is to spread anticlerical propaganda. He, too, denigrates his colleague using "a certain," doubly accusing him of being anticlerical and of having leftist tendencies, and further associating the latter with outdated philosophies.

Commonly on Users, even those who are friends off-line opt in the public arena for address forms indicative of respect for the other's academic title or rank, so a message addressed to "colleague" or "Dear + title" would not have been surprising. Here Male 2 deliberately chose the salutation "My dear LN," and use of the pronoun tu (in the forms te and tua). Use of tu online indicates a relationship sufficiently close to merit a response off-line. However, public ridicule seems the purpose of this message, and use of this pronoun not only emphasizes the aggressive tone created by the use of pompous and sarcastic language, but serves as the sender's authorization to be boldly sarcastic without fear of public redress, for the linguistic behavior of those in a mutual tu relationship is negotiated by the speakers themselves, not social norms (cf. Oliveira Medeiros, 1985). Even the greeting can be interpreted as being ironic; however, as it is within conventionalized norms, irony is impossible to prove.

Male 1 responds in Example 7 with "Dear FN + LN," immediately creating greater distance, as he had been addressed by last name exclusively.

Dear FN + LN

I take great pleasure in clarifying.

  

Caro FN + LN

Tenho muito gosto em esclarecer.


I begin by clarifying that I have nothing against religious values. The article itself by ______ also does not appear to me to be against [them]. On the contrary, it says: ...		  
Começo por esclarecer que nada tenho contra os valores religiosos. O próprio artigo do Louçã também me parece nada ter contra. Pelo contrário, diz: ...

I only intended to call attention to an interesting article (stimulating), which I happened to see in a newspaper and thought other colleagues might find interesting and might not have seen in the paper. ...
  
Pretendi apenas chamar a atenção para um artigo interessante (porque estimulante), que vi por acaso no jornal e que outros colegas poderão achar interessante e poderão, por acaso, não ter visto no jornal...


Regards
FN + LN

  


Cumprimentos
FN + LN


Example 7. Conversational thread 5, Message 3 (Male 1)
Words in bold are particularly aggressive; words in bold italics reflect sarcasm; and words in bold underline are address forms.


The wording "I take great pleasure in clarifying" and "I begin by clarifying" are formal constructions and are moreover purposefully impersonal, as both the direct and indirect object pronouns are omitted. Despite use of the first person and the personalized salutation, Male 1 appears to be addressing the group, rather than a single individual, and there is no other reference to the colleague to whom he is ostensibly responding. His message is emotionally neutral, and the words selected are clear. He signs his message, "Regards, FN + LN."

Rather than making explicit his lack of appreciation for the informal address or tone of the message, Male 1's response is so neutral and entirely above reproach that it effectively (and sharply) criticizes the tone of the previous message. Thus, Male 1 takes advantage of his legitimacy as the second party in a tu-relationship to take redressive action. Absent blatant insinuation, a subtle dig may be found in the comment that some other colleagues may be interested in the article. Unlike the circumstances in CT 4, where the title Professor would have been expected, here use of both FN and LN is appropriate as a response to a personalized greeting using LN. If Male 1 had used the title Professor, the disparity between the two messages might have prompted others to believe he was over-reacting.

Male 2 did not respond, although two other males contributed comments. Neither made direct reference to the personal exchange, but rather to the content of the article.

Inappropriate Content of Submissions

Despite the more than 75 postings of notices with advertising content during the period of the study, only four attracted attention resulting in conversational threads of the length studied here, three involving postings by women. In Message 1 of the first example (CT 14), presented as Example 8, a woman apologizes for having posted a notice containing publicity. A review of the messages revealed no overt objection to which she is responding, so presumably the complaints were sent to her individually and off-list. In this case, despite having received the messages privately, she obviously feels compelled to apologize publicly. Her message is highly self-deprecatory and adheres to stereotypical norms of "female discourse style" (cf. Herring, 1993). When a small group of native speakers of both genders (non-members of Users) were questioned about these messages, they agreed that "only" a woman could have written Message 1, and "only" a man could have written Message 2. Moreover, in the original Portuguese, it is nearly impossible to enunciate her words and avoid a subservient tone.

Dear Colleagues

It was never my intention to send any publicity whatsoever … I was carried away by my as yet slight experience in navigating the Internet and E-mail.

  

Caros Colegas

Nunca foi minha intenção enviar qualquer publicidade ... Fui "levada" pela minha ainda pouca experiência nestas andanças da Internet e E-mail.


I ask forgiveness.

In the future, I will be more careful. I learned that I have to pay more attention to the "Subject" line and I will immediately delete [messages] when there are words such as "discounts" or others that "smell" of publicity.

  


Peço desculpas.

De futuro, vou ter mais cuidado. Aprendi que tenho que passar dar mais atenção à coluna "Assunto" e vou apagar imediatamente quando nela figurem palavras como "descontos" ou outras que me "cheirem" a publicidade.

One more time I present my apologies.		  
Mais uma vez apresento as minhas desculpas.

[Have a] good day and good work.		  
Bom dia e bom trabalho.


FN [=First Name]

  


FN [=First Name]

Example 8. Conversational thread 14, Message 1 (Female Speaker)
In this message, words in bold reflect self-humbling speech patterns.

In this short message, the writer formally asks forgiveness not once, but twice. She mentions her inexperience but claims to have learned a valuable lesson, promising to behave more correctly in the future. She includes words emphasizing both her transgression and the remedy she proposes: any publicity whatsoever, immediately delete, "smell" of publicity. Her apology is addressed to all and, as no single person is responsible for the Users network, it might have received no response. Nevertheless, a male reader responds in a manner simultaneously patronizing and dismissive.

Dear Colleague:

You're forgiven, as far as I am concerned.

  

Cara Colega:

Está desculpada, no que me toca.

Just two weeks ago I sent a notice about an academic event on the Human Genome, promoted by Le Monde Diplomatique, which was not posted nor was I given any explanation for the censure. That is what is serious. 		 
Ainda há duas semanas enviei uma notícia sobre um encontro sobre o Genoma Humano, promovido pelo Le Monde Diplomatique, que não foi divulgado nem sobre essa censura me foi dada qualquer explicação. Isso é que é grave.

As far as you are concerned, be calm.		  
Por si esteja tranquila.


Regards FN + LN

  


Cumprimentos FN + LN

Example 9. Conversational thread 14, Message 2 (Male Speaker)
In this message, words in bold italics reflect speech patterns that show self-importance.

Here we see a male taking on the responsibility of speaking for all Users in forgiving the female colleague. However, he quickly changes the subject to what is for him the interesting and important issue, censorship of Users messages. Censorship is irrelevant to the message he is supposedly answering, but it sparks a new discussion focus lasting four messages. Thus, although the response is superficially polite, telling the female colleague not to worry, that all is well, it simultaneously indicates to her and the university community at large that her "problem" is uninteresting and perhaps not worth the electronic ink it is written in! This parallels Sandler and Hall's (1982) finding about the use of politeness strategies by American male faculty members to demean female students and their work, as well as the statement by Herring et al. (1995, p.68) that men "avoided addressing the women's concerns by dismissing them as trivial or by intellectualizing the discussion away from its original focus."

A second complaint against inappropriate use of Users was lodged against a woman who sent the hyperlink of a Website one could visit for prayer or meditation. The issue of censorship was again taken up, with messages in favor of self-regulation. In one of them, a male states, "it is a question of determining what is reasonable to appear on the internal list of a university. For example, those who wish to visit pornographic sites can do it in the intimacy of their home. It is not necessary for the Users network to display the addresses of the lowest and most 'colorful' sites" (CT 13, Message 4). In the contradictory next message she is addressed as "colega" and is informed both that the message was eliminated before it was read, and that the person tried to access the site without success! She decides to respond to the list:

Dear "users",

First, I apologize for the lack of [good] sense in having sent the message in question to all "users". I thought only of those for whom it could be of interest, forgetting that there might be others, as there were, who would be disturbed. I had no intention of offending anyone. Word of honor! My intention was simply to post a notice of the site to those interested. It was not well thought out.

   Caros "users",

Antes de mais, peço desculpa pela falta de senso em ter enviado a mensagem em questão para todos os "users". Pensei apenas naqueles a quem ele pudesse interessar, esquecendo que há, como houve, quem tenha ficado incomodado. Não quis, de todo, ofender nem ferir susceptibilidades a ninguém. Palavra! A minha intenção foi simplesmente a de divulgar o site a interessados. Foi mal pensado.

In the future I will be more careful in using this service. I will use it as if censorship does, in fact, exist. Still, I wonder, if one announces houses and cars for sale, rooms for rent, matters which have little to do with the University... why not have a page for interested persons to visit? There are a lot of people who won't care, who will simply delete it, but there are also those who may find it interesting and useful, such as happens with a "For rent" or "For Sale".		  
Doravante, terei mais cuidado ao utilizar este serviço. Utilizá-lo-ei com se, de facto, a tal censura, existisse. Contudo, pergunto eu, se se anunciam casas e automóveis para vender, quartos para arrendar, se se divulgam assuntos e temas que não dizem assim tanto respeito à Universidade... porque não divulgar uma página, para que, apenas quem queira, possa visitar? Há muita gente que não vai "ligar nenhuma", que vai simplesmente fazer um "delete", mas há também quem ache interessante e útil, tal como se passa com um "Aluga-se" ou "Vende-se".


Regards FN + LN

  


Cumprimentos FN + LN

Example 10. Conversational thread 13, Message 6 (Female)
In this message, words in bold italics reflect speech patterns that are ironic.

Here the language is not subservient but ironic; that is, the message can be read as a simple apology by someone who was merely trying to be helpful and did not intend to disturb anyone. A second interpretation is that she is ridiculing those who reacted negatively to her message as being narrow-minded. She then justifies her posting as one of many addressing issues outside the direct interests of the university. In essence, she "apologizes" to those who seem to demand it, yet stands her ground by noting that other messages covering non-academic topics have also been posted. Implied is the notion of unfair treatment, as all are not "required" to justify their actions.

The response she receives, from a male new to the discussion, is not patronizing. Rather, he lends his support by similarly invoking irony, although his message is more gentle (subtle) and impersonal, with less use of first person and more references to the world-at-large.

Curious times in which we live. Only gross cultural myopia would allow us to equate the spiritual and religious dimension of humanity (an anthropological universal which not even a basic Jacobinism can eliminate) with political propaganda or pornography.   Tempos curiosos estes em que vivemos. Só uma grosseira miopia cultural é que permite que se equipare a dimensão espiritual e religiosa da humanidade (um universal antropológico que não basta um jacobinismo primário para apagar) é propaganda partidária ou é pornografia.

As much as I try, I cannot understand (surely the lack is mine) how it is that one can accept the posting of cultural events on the Users network and be profoundly disturbed by the reference to a Website of a religious nature, undisputedly one of the highest forms of culture which the human spirit has ever produced. Even more so in that the message did not even refer to a specific religion.		  
Por mais que me esforce, não consigo compreender (seguramente que a deficiência é minha) como é que se pode aceitar a divulgação nos users de informação sobre eventos culturais e sentir-se profundamente perturbado por uma referência a um site de natureza religiosa, indiscutivelmente uma das formas culturais mais elevadas que alguma vez o espírito humano produziu. Tanto mais que a mensagem nem sequer referia uma qualquer religião em particular.


FN + LN

  


FN + LN

Example 11. Conversational thread 13, Message 7 (Male)
In this message, words in bold italics reflect speech patterns that are gently ironic.

No further reference was made to the female's apology; the exchanges continued on the issue of censorship.

A third female was criticized for announcing the Website of a business selling handmade toys for children (CT 6). In this thread, three complaints were posted before she responds. She makes no apology for having offended users; rather, she justifies her message and adopts an aggressive tone, ending with: "If the debate initiated could deal with the central issue initiated regarding the type of toy offered a child and the consequences of this same act, taking into account the Christmas season, we will [sic] all be certainly more enriched" (CT 6, Message 4). Her lack of contrition may have been the reason two additional males posted responses, the second stating that if the users network is "open," one day the users will be reading about the sale of "sex-shop products or some such thing," which ended that conversation thread.

In only one case did a posting with "inappropriate" content from a male spark a conversational thread large enough to be considered in this sample. He offered five real estate properties for sale (CT 7). The first reaction (from a male) was, "how can such a message be allowed on the Users network?" No personal condemnation was made. Although there were 13 postings, no apology was made by the transgressor, nor was there any overt attempt to try to obtain an apology from him, either by means of a message addressed to him personally or written in such a way as to provoke a response. This may, at least in part, be explained by CT 7, message 5: A male noticed the non-university source of the offending message and complained of usage by outsiders. However, through the university Website I verified that he was a member of the university community who had opted to respond from an outside address; others could have done the same. Yet neither he nor any of his colleagues commented publicly on his university affiliation. The next response (CT 7, message 6) was sent 20 minutes later from the Computer Center: "In relation to the message originating this crisis in the Users list, I have nothing to say, as there exist no 'official' rules on the use of this list, it is the responsibility of each one to send what he/she wishes." The remaining messages were either personal condemnations of publicity or statements in support of self-regulation and democracy.

In each of these cases, the discussion eventually revolves around a systemic problem‐the filtering of messages or censorship. However, some reactions appear to be gender-based. The overall message to female transgressors here seems to be that women should not be too self-deprecatory (or they will be patronized), but they should be humble and accept criticism. Moreover, they are criticized differently from males for similar transgressions. In two of the three instances involving females, the possible consequences were extrapolated to be sexual in nature: pornography (from the original matter of a religious site) and sexual toys (from hand-made wooden toys for children). In the case of the male transgressor, however, no such extrapolations were made, and the system was viewed as the only culprit in the problem.

Violation of Linguistic Norms (Grammar)

Debates also sometimes arise about adherence to prescriptive standards of grammar in messages (cf. Smith et al., 1997). In the sequence of four messages summarized in Table 4, three of the participants were male. (This exchange does not appear in the table of conversational threads, as it has fewer than five exchanges.)

Message
Sender
Message Content
1
Male 1
 The Users community is located within a university environment, some people are concerned with the written standards of the students. "For that reason, I would like to remind you that the internal e-mail is, whether we like it or not, a means of measuring, if not the quality, at least the care that we [the university] take with the language." He goes on to urge greater care.
2
Male 2
 Agrees and cites a specific grammatical error.
3
Female
Agrees that adherence to formal norms is important but says that since no one errs on purpose, solutions must be offered. She provides the correct forms for three instances that appeared in earlier messages.
4
Male 3
 Provides the correction for the example that Male 2 cited.

Table 4. Exchange on faulty grammar

Stereotypes about gender represent women as being more easily offended by language they view as impolite, while men are more likely to take the calm or "rational" view, offering solutions to problems. This sequence demonstrates the reverse: While the first two men are concerned with the fact that errors have been committed (and with pointing them out), it is the female user who suggests that corrections be offered. Male 3 ties the final knot in this conversational thread by providing the explanation for the remaining error that had been presented by Male 2.

Conclusions

This article has examined asynchronous discussion threads on the Users network of a Portuguese university, focusing on the concern of users regarding pragmatic and linguistic standards of appropriateness, as well as gendered usage. Concepts borrowed from Brown & Levinson and Culpeper, as well as the pragmatics of address terms from Oliveira and Oliveira Medeiros, were applied in analyzing those violations.

In the absence of official rules and censorship, the members themselves set the boundaries for acceptable behavior, and participants of both genders play a role in negotiating the norms of interaction considered appropriate. Males, however, clearly dominate in initiating (91%) and terminating (71%) sustained conversational threads, as well as in identifying transgressions and meting out interactional "punishment" (resulting in a loss of "face" for the transgressors).

Regarding our first hypothesis, adherence to general communicative norms, the data indicate that the number of messages violating such norms is small, yet nevertheless of sufficient concern to users to provoke a public response, primarily from males, who used two distinct politeness strategies to respond to messages they felt were inappropriate. They either addressed the issue directly (e.g., CT 4) using ironic or sarcastic language, or became distant and impersonal, using formal language (e.g., CT 5).

The second hypothesis considers gender differences in violating politeness norms or serving as guarantors of standards. Both men and women were found to contribute in a positive fashion, through expressions of support for topics initiated or positions adopted by colleagues. Both, too, were guilty of trangressions, such as inappropriate use of the network through the introduction of topics considered taboo, or inappropriate language itself, either disrepectful in nature or grammatically defective. Similarities are found in the way these trangressions were handled, but there are also some significant differences.

The first such difference lies in the number of times women, as opposed to men, were chastised for breaking the unofficial rules of the network. While the number of transgressions is admittedly small, they represent 21% of the messages and 29% of the sustained conversational threads over the two-year period. More to the point, a higher percentage of women's transgressions are chastised than are men's.

Second, women were expected to apologize. If they did not respond, subsequent messages were more overt in identifying the transgression or in extrapolating negative consequences. References were made to possible sexual consequences, highly inappropriate within the university environment. In contrast, in none of the instances where a male's behavior was criticized did an apology seem expected; rather, the conversational thread either shifted focus or died out.

Third, even when the female's position received initial support (from males or females), before the conversational thread ended the original contribution was reattributed to one or more male participants (CT 2). Finally, excepting the union representative, only one female participant had the final word, albeit in three cases.

At the same time, we find evidence that counters the stereotype of males as disinterested in politeness norms. Males not only point out the transgression, but refer to standards of etiquette and even research on address forms to support their position. In other words, they are not simply complaining, but demonstrating concern regarding the behavioral standards of this new medium of communication within the university. While the criticism may be harsh (e.g., CT 4), most of the chastisers are themselves mindful of politeness norms.

The emerging picture is one of traditional gender asymmetry with a culture-specific difference: Portuguese men as adjudicators of politeness. The question arises as to why they take on this role. The findings of Neto and Pinto regarding men as the voices of authority suggest a partial explanation. If we consider TV voice-overs, which are 91% by males, as being in some manner analogous to the messages of chastisement (i.e., they orient the listener to a particular "reality"), then the overwhelmingly male response to perceived inappropriate behavior on the Internet seems natural. Portuguese men may simply be demonstrating in a new medium their authority to define and enforce social reality (cf. Spender, 1980).

Several avenues of future research are suggested by this study. One is the analysis—by gender of transgressors and chastisers—of messages which provoke objections, regardless of the size of the conversational threads which developed. An analysis of the influence of "highly active" participants in the regulation process could reveal, for instance, whether frequency of participation (or some other factor) confers authority. We might also consider the degree to which concern with politeness is tied to educational level. Comparative studies of gendered language use in other Portuguese CMC environments are also needed, as well as research on language and gender in Portuguese face-to-face communication.

Finally, the Portuguese data show that violations of norms of address provoke vehement reactions, suggesting that the complex communicative norms of address found in face-to-face interaction are equally important in asynchronous CMC, at least in the university studied. While men may be more likely to assume the role of adjudicator, Portuguese men and women share the cultural norm that a blatantly inappropriate address form, especially when used as a deliberate impoliteness strategy, falls outside the bounds of acceptability and decency.

Footnotes

1. Graduate Assistants (Assistentes and Assistentes Estagiários(-as)) are employed as full-time university teachers while they work on their Ph.D. or M.A., respectively, thus their status is greater than, for example, their American counterparts.

2. To situate these statistics within the broader Portuguese context, the Portuguese National Statistics Office (Instituto Nacional de Estatística, 2002) reports that females represent 52.7% of the population and 54% of university graduates, up from 36% of university graduates in 1981 and 47% in 1991.

3. By way of comparison, the Minister of the Presidency, of Portugal's Council of Ministers, claims that 27% of females and 34% of males use the Internet (Ministro da Presidência, 2003).

Acknowledgments

A shorter version of this article was presented at the XVth World Congress of Sociology, held in Brisbane, Australia, in July 2002. I wish to thank the special issue editors and reviewers, whose suggestions for revision were insightful and inspiring.

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. London: Cambridge University Press.

Carreira, M. H. A. (1997). Modalisation linguistique en situation d'interlocution: proxémique verbale et modalités en portugais. Paris: Peeters.

Culpepper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.

Gião, A. S. (1992). Etiqueta e boas maneiras. Cortesia e civilidade na vida moderna. Lisboa: Edições 70.

Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.

Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1989). Gender voices. London: Basil Blackwell.

Hammermüller, G. (1993). Die Anrede im Portugiesischen. Eine soziolinguistische Untersuchung zu Andredekonventionen des gegenwärtigen Portugiesisch. Chemnitz: Nov Neuer Verlag.

Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication 3 (2). Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://hanbat.chungnam.ac.kr/ ~leejh/txt/Herring.txt.

Herring, S. C. (1994). Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Cultural performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 278-94). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.

Herring, S. C. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information Society, 15 (3), 151-167.

Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202-228). Oxford: Blackwell.

Herring, S. C., Johnson, D., & DiBenedetto, T. (1995). "This discussion is going too far!" Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In M. Bucholtz & K. Hall (eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 67-96). New York: Routledge.

Instituto Nacional de Estatística (2002). Actualidades do INE: Mais de um Milhão de portugueses atingem o Ensino Superior. Retrieved July 17, 2003 from http://alea-estp.ine.pt/html/actual/html/act27.html.

Jackson, C. (1999). Project on honorifics. Unpublished manuscript, California Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jbattenb/Papers/jackson/index.html.

Kiesler, S. B., Siegal, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.

Ministro da Presidência. (2003). Gender and information society. Retrieved July 17, 2003 from http://www.mp.gov.pt/mp/pt/GabImprensa/Intervencoes/Ministro/20030506.htm.

Neto, F., & Pinto, I. (1998). Gender stereotypes in Portuguese television advertisements. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, July 1998. Retrieved July 11, 2003 from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2294/n1-2_v39/21136467/p1/article.jhtml?term=gender+advertisement.

Oliveira, S. M. de (2002, July). Men as adjudicators of politeness? Evidence from computer-mediated communication and speech act conditionals research. Paper presented at the XVth World Congress of Sociology.

Oliveira, S. M. de. (2003, March). Para além de Poder e Solidariedade: Uma retrospectiva sobre formas de tratamento em Portugal (1982-2002). Paper presented at Colloque 2p, Paris.

Oliveira Medeiros, S. M. de (1985). A model of address form negotiation: A sociolinguistic study of continental Portuguese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Oliveira Medeiros, S. M. de (1994). Winning friends and influencing people abroad: Using native speakers' communicative strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, IV (1), 23-44.

Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges Project on the Status and Education of Women.

Smith, C. B., McLaughlin, M. L., & Osborne, K. K. (1997). Conduct control on Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 (4). Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/smith.html.

Smith, J., & Balka, E. (1988). Chatting on a feminist network. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women's voices (pp. 82-97). New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

About the Author

Sandi Michele de Oliveira is an associate professor of Portuguese linguistics in the Institute of Romance Studies at the University of Copenhagen and current President of the Research Committee on Sociolinguistics (RC 25 of the International Sociological Association). Her principal areas of research are the linguistic construction and negotiation of identity within the Portuguese-speaking world; current projects include the development of a strategic model of address form usage, recent changes in Portuguese address, speech act conditionals in Portuguese and Japanese, and linguistic acts of identity in two geographically peripheral areas of Portugal.
Address: Romance Studies, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 124, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. Tel. +45 35 32 84 30, fax +45 35 32 84 08.


©Copyright 2003 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication