Email Hoaxes: Form, function, genre ecology

Email Hoaxes

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS) Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within language sciences.

Editor Andreas H. Jucker

University of Zurich, English Department Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey

University of Southern Denmark

Herman Parret

Jef Verschueren

Susan C. Herring

Emanuel A. Schegloff

Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Jean Caron

Université de Poitiers

Indiana University

Masako K. Hiraga

St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

University of California at Los Angeles

Deborah Schiffrin

David Holdcroft

Georgetown University

Sachiko Ide

Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

Sandra A. Thompson

Thorstein Fretheim

Catherine KerbratOrecchioni

John C. Heritage

Claudia de Lemos

Teun A. van Dijk

Marina Sbisà

Richard J. Watts

Robyn Carston

University College London

Bruce Fraser

Boston University University of Trondheim University of California at Los Angeles

University of Leeds Japan Women’s University

University of Lyon 2 University of Campinas, Brazil University of Trieste

Volume 174 Email Hoaxes. Form, function, genre ecology by Theresa Heyd

Paul Osamu Takahara

University of California at Santa Barbara Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona University of Berne

Email Hoaxes Form, function, genre ecology

Theresa Heyd Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Heyd, Theresa. Email hoaxes : form, function, genre ecology / by Theresa Heyd. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 174) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Electronic mail systems. 2. Impostors and imposture. I. Title. HE7551.H49    2008 384.3'4--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 5418 4 (Hb; alk. paper)

2007051472

Inaugural dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy (Dr. phil.), Philosophical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. D 61. Thesis title: "Formal and functional characteristics of email hoaxes: a genre study" Thesis supervisors: Prof. Dr. Dieter Stein, Prof. Dr. Alexander Bergs. Date of oral examination: April 23, 2007 © 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Digital lies: Deceptivity in computer-mediated communication  1 1.2 Email hoaxing: A diachronic overview  2 1.3 Scope and structure of this study  5 1.4 Relevant research perspectives  7 chapter 2 Introducing the data 2.1 What counts as an EH? A prima facie analysis  13 2.1.1 Family resemblances and distinctive features  13 2.1.2 Communication channel  14 2.1.3 Communicant identity  17 2.1.4 Message scope and makeup  20 2.1.5 Summary  23 2.2 The corpus  24 2.2.1 Methods of data acquisition  24 2.2.2 The representational corpus: Size and structure  27 2.3 Types of EHs: A content-based typology  31 2.3.1 Virus hoaxes  31 2.3.2 Giveaway hoaxes  32 2.3.3 Charity hoaxes  34 2.3.4 Urban legends  35 2.3.5 Hoaxed hoaxes  37 chapter 3 Formal aspects of EHs: A microlinguistic analysis 3.1 Some discourse features  39 3.1.1 Message format and length  39 3.1.2 Typography  41 3.1.3 Varieties and spoken/written variation  43

1

13

39

vi

Email Hoaxes

3.2

3.3

3.1.4 Address terms and vocativity  44 3.1.5 Proper names and place names  50 Structural elements  53 3.2.1 Header information: Subject lines  53 3.2.2 Message body: Embedded structure  56 3.2.3 Additional material  67 Summary  68

chapter 4 The dynamics of EH transmission: Chronological aspects 4.1 Transmission patterns: The life cycle of EHs  71 4.1.1 Biological metaphors in discourse studies  71 4.1.2 The genesis of EHs  73 4.1.3 EHs in circulation  75 4.1.4 The end of the life cycle: Message death, message stasis?  77 4.1.5 Summary: A model for the transmission pattern of EHs  80 4.2 The chronology of texts: Message archaeology  81 4.2.1 A philological and ethnographical approach  81 4.2.2 The ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH  83 4.2.3 The ‘Internet Flower’/‘A Virtual Card For You’ virus EHs  96 4.2.4 The ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH  107 4.2.5 Summary: Forms of textual change  122 4.3 Conclusion: EH dynamics in a functional perspective  126 chapter 5 The pragmatics of EHs 5.1 Pragmatics and cooperation – pragmatics as cooperation  129 5.2 Dual pragmatics: Mechanisms of (non-)cooperation in EHs  134 5.3 EHs as speech acts  143 5.4 Pragmatic strategies in EH exchanges: Some textual evidence  148 5.4.1 Deceptivity in the original message  148 5.4.2 Cooperation in the communication chain  150 chapter 6 Narrativity in EHs 6.1 Narrative theory: Some approaches  155 6.1.1 Stories in theory, stories in everyday life  155 6.1.2 Narrative theories: Salient features for a discourse analysis of EHs  158

71

129

155



Table of contents vii

6.2 Narratives in the EH corpus  163 6.2.1 Methodological considerations  163 6.2.2 Temporal structuring in EHs  164 6.2.3 Tellability in EHs  170 6.2.4 Narrative personas in EHs  175 6.3 Discussion and outlook: Functional aspects of narrativity in EHs  181 6.3.1 Summary: Distribution of narrative features in the corpus  181 6.3.2 Narrativity in EHs – functions and consequences  184 chapter 7 191 A genre study of EHs 7.1 Genre theory: An overview  191 7.1.1 Renaissance of a concept  191 7.1.2 Features for categorization: Formal, functional, or both?  193 7.1.3 Levels of categorization: Micro or macro?  195 7.1.4 Genre interrelations: Ecologies – repertoires – systems  196 7.1.5 Genre ontology: Top-down or bottom-up?  198 7.1.6 Genres on the Internet: New – old – hybrid?  199 7.2 EHs: A case of genrefication?  202 7.2.1 Genre parody, genre mimicry: Genre status of pre-digital hoaxes  202 7.2.2 The genre potential of EHs: Linguistic and functional evidence  203 7.2.3 The genre continuum of EHs: An overview on neighboring phenomena  204 7.2.4 Digital folklore – email hoaxing in its genre ecology  209 7.3 Outlook: Prospects on email hoaxing in the 21st century  212 References Appendix 1. List of corpus items  225 2. Online material  227 3. List of abbreviations  230 Index

217 225

233

chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Digital lies: Deceptivity in computer-mediated communication

The issue of sincerity and reliability has played a central role in computer-mediated communication (CMC) from its very beginnings. Cases of deceptivity can be found in a vast number of CMC phenomena and range from the amusing to the outright criminal: nicknames afford the pseudonymity of chat and discussion group participants; pranksters create satirical websites such as www.bonsaikitten. com which succeed in deceiving unsuspecting users; ‘photoshopping’ pictures has become a hobby that is impressively displayed in contests at websites such as www.worth1000.com; blogging is misappropriated for marketing purposes in ‘flogs’ (fake blogs). The “entire subject of the validity of data on the Web” (Mintz 2002: xviii) appears to be a pervasive and exigent problem of CMC. Indeed, some instantiations of online discourse seem to support the recent hypothesis by ­Harry G. Frankfurt that we are being confronted with an ever-growing amount of ‘bullshit’ (Frankfurt 2005). In this sense, email hoaxes may be considered a paradigmatic case of deceptive computer-mediated communication; they are the subject of the study presented here. For introductory purposes, an email hoax (henceforth EH) can be described as a message containing false or at least problematic information that is passed along via the forward function of email programs. The term hoax is derived from the conjuring formula hocus pocus, which in turn is assumed to be a mocking imitation of the Latin Eucharist formula hoc est corpus meum (“this is my body”), or an emulation of 16th century nonsense incantations such as hax pax max deus adimax (for further etymology, see e.g. Harrison 1930; Hoad 1986). A typical instance of an EH is displayed in example 1: in this case, the message warns against a non-existent computer virus. . Examples have not been edited except for minimal formatting; in particular, typographic or grammatical infelicities have been left unchanged. Examples are referenced either through their ID in the EH corpus or through a URL.



Email Hoaxes

Example 1.  The ‘WTC Survivor’ virus EH (ID: 28). To: friends Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:11 PM Subject: Troubles with Virus WTC Survivor HOPE THIS GETS TO YOU IN TIME BIG TROUBLE !!!! DO NOT OPEN “WTC Survivor” It is a virus that will erase your whole “C” drive. It will come to you in the form of an E-Mail from a familiar person. I repeat a friend sent it to me, but called and warned me before I opened it. He was not so lucky and now he can’t even start his computer! Forward this to everyone in your address book. I would rather receive this 25 times than not at all. If you receive an email called “WTC Survivor” do not open it. Delete it right away! This virus removes all dynamic link libraries (.dll files) from your computer. This is a serious one.

In general, EHs follow a curious pattern: they have a high proliferation and spread with remarkable speed, yet they are communicated exclusively from private user to private user; they all contain warnings, promises, threats, or supposedly relevant information, yet the core message of any EH is in some way deceptive, outdated, or imprecise. A certain similarity to more traditional discourse types, such as newspaper canards and urban legends, rumor and gossip, is self-evident. This initial description shows EHs to be complex utterances with a rich array of persuasive linguistic features; they thus constitute a prime target for a discourseanalytical CMC study.

1.2

Email hoaxing: A diachronic overview

The phenomenon of hoaxing in general did, of course, not originate in CMC, but is a more fundamental and much older mechanism in human communication. However, the advent of hoaxes using email as their vehicle can be pinpointed in time rather precisely. For a long time, EHs were strongly associated with computer viruses, and until today, a significant proportion of EHs is made up of false virus warnings or other messages related to computer security. Indeed, the first EHs date from the early days of hacker history in the 1980s, on which Ferbrache (1992: 5–30) gives a detailed overview. The earliest attested case is the so-called ‘2400 Baud Modem’ virus hoax, which appeared around November 1988:



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Example 2.  The ‘2400 Baud Modem’ virus EH (ID: 101). SUBJ: Really Nasty Virus AREA: GENERAL (1) I’ve just discovered probably the world’s worst computer virus yet. I had just finished a late night session of BBS’ing and file treading when I exited Telix 3 and attempted to run pkxarc to unarc the software I had downloaded. Next thing I knew my ard disk was seeking all over and it was apparently writing random sectors. Thank god for strong coffee and a recent backup. Everything was back to normal, so I called the BBS again and downloaded a file. When I went to use ddir to list the directory, my hard disk was getting trashed again. I tried Procomm Plus TD and also PC Talk 3. Same results every time. Something was up

so I

hooked up to my test equipment and different modems (I do research and development for a local computer telecommunications company and have an in-house lab at my disposal). After another hour of corrupted hard drives I found what I think is the world’s worst computer virus yet. The virus distributes itself on the modem subcarrier present in all 2400 baud and up modems. The sub-carrier is used for ROM and register debugging purposes only, and otherwise serves no othr (sp) purpose. The virus sets a bit pattern in one of the internal modem registers, but it seemed to screw up the other registers on my USR. A modem that has been “infected” with this virus will then transmit the virus to other modems that use a subcarrier (I suppose those who use 300 and 1200 baud modems should be immune). The virus then attaches itself to all binary incoming data and infects the host computer’s hard disk. The only way to get rid of this virus is to completely reset all the modem registers by hand, but I haven’t found a way to vaccinate a modem against the virus, but there is the possibility of building a subcarrier filter. I am calling on a 1200 baud modem to enter this message, and have advised the sysops of the two other boards (names withheld). I don’t know how this virus originated, but I’m sure it is the work of someone in the computer telecommunications field such as myself. Probably the best thing to do now is to stick to 1200 baud until we figure this thing out. Mike RoChenle

While this message differs from later EHs in that it gives detailed technical information, some typical aspects are already present: for example, the email is attributed to a narrative persona by the name of “Mike RoChenle” – a pun on “microchannel”.





Email Hoaxes

The real rise of EHs began in the mid-Nineties, when the advent of the WWW brought a broad public in contact with the Internet. Thus “GoodTimes”, one of the most famous EHs, dates from November 1994 (cf. http://www.cityscope.net/ hoax1.html). Its style and structure became a benchmark for many later EHs: Example 3.  The ‘GoodTimes’ virus EH (ID: 89). Here is some important information. Beware of a file called Goodtimes. Happy Chanukah everyone, and be careful out there. There is a virus on America Online being sent by E-Mail. If you get anything called “Good Times”, DON’T read it or download it. It is a virus that will erase your hard drive. Forward this to all your friends. It may help them a lot.

Other EHs began to appear around the same time. Thus Boese (2002: 197) describes a faked press release claiming that “Microsoft Buys the Catholic Church”, which began circulating through mailboxes in 1994; it is the earliest attested instance of an ‘urban legend’ EH (for definitions of subcategories, see Section 2.3). The following time, and particularly the years 1997 to 1999, appear to have been the major period for the creation and proliferation of EHs. Many of the texts that continue to circulate a decade later were generated during that period; other content types, such as the ‘charity’ or the ‘giveaway’ EH, also became established in this era. The rapid expansion of the Internet during the late Nineties made for a steady influx of gullible new users (newbies), which certainly eased the proliferation of EHs considerably. These same years saw the rise of a concomitant phenomenon, namely the emergence of ‘anti-hoax’, ‘debunking’ websites, many of which still exist. Some of these pages are private initiatives (e.g. www.snopes. com; www.breakthechain.org); some are governmental (e.g. http://hoaxbusters. ciac.org); some are maintained by software security companies (e.g. http://www. sophos.com/virusinfo/hoaxes). The scope of such sites ranges from folkloristic interest to educational purposes; the great majority takes on a negative, at times somewhat alarmist, stance toward EHs. Their rhetoric is rich and would warrant a study of its own; as they are a major data source for the present study, they will be described more fully in Section 2. After that period, two specific dates have stood out as powerful generators of myths and fears: the advent of the new millennium, with its apocalyptical associations, fed many fears such as the “Y2K bug” and engendered a number of EHs. And unsurprisingly, the 9/11 attacks are at the center of a whole maze of myths, allegations, and conspiracy theories. The “WTC survivor” EH shown in example 1 above is an instance of how 9/11 was used as the vehicle for a virus EH. While precise figures are not available, it appears that email hoaxing is in decline. Existing messages continue to be circulated, but relatively few new EHs



Chapter 1.  Introduction

have been coined since 2002. Email hoaxing might well prove to be a ‘teething trouble’ that passes as digital literacy increases. Yet it should be stressed that it is far too early for such judgments. A striking counterexample is the “Cursed Girl” hoax, which appeared in late 2005. Circulated mainly through text messaging by Muslim youths, it tells the tale of a disobedient young girl who is transformed into a rat through the rage of Allah; attached is the rather shocking picture of a sculpture by Patricia Piccini that addresses the topic of genetic engineering (cf. http://tinyurl.com/2tf25r). This case may be indicative of new developments in hoaxing, such as the adoption of new socio-technical modes (text messaging) as well as increasing cultural diversity, since this particular EH circulates predominantly in Turkish and Arabic.

1.3

Scope and structure of this study

EHs, it should have become clear, are a relevant and persistent occurrence in computer-mediated discourse. They have been the daily fare of our inboxes for over a decade and inspired countless ‘hoaxbusting’ initiatives and websites. Email hoaxing is a complex phenomenon that deserves scholarly attention from various perspectives and promises interesting insights into communication processes on the Internet. However, such studies are few and far between as of yet (see Section 1.4 for an overview); and none of them examines EHs with the tools of linguistic and pragmatic CMC studies. The project presented here aims to fill this gap. As a starting point, some general considerations are necessary. What is the motivation for such a generic label as “the hoax”? How homogeneous is the ensemble of texts that are generally subsumed under this category? In other words, is it accurate to speak of EHs as a digital genre? This angle fits in well with current tendencies in CMC studies, where the concept of genre is receiving increasing attention. Does the Internet generate new genres? Can existing genres migrate from spoken/written to the digital medium? How would a genre hierarchy of the Internet have to be modeled? These are questions which have become as central to CMC research as the question of orality/literality was in its early days. Indeed, EHs appear to be a particularly intricate case for digital genre studies. While the label email hoax was eagerly adopted by the discourse community of Internet users (a scenario which some genre theorists see as a good genre indicator, e.g. Swales 1990), its definition is less clear. Some treat it as synonymous to “chain mail”, some to “spam”; the category boundaries appear to be highly fuzzy. . The majority of URLs quoted in this study have been replaced with shorter aliases for better readability. They are listed, together with their long forms, in the appendix.





Email Hoaxes

In ­addition, the issue of genre migration strongly pertains to EHs, as there are forms of both written and spoken discourse that could easily be declared to be genre antecedents – parody and plagiarism, rumor and gossip, chain letters and urban legends (not to mention the pre-existing genre label ‘hoax’). The study presented here is therefore a genre study: it seeks to describe and analyze how the concept of genre relates to EHs, whether the label is appropriate for the phenomenon, and how genre antecedents and related discourse types may be incorporated into a genre model of hoaxing. Such a theoretical framework allows for – and makes necessary – a range of individual, more discrete research questions. The main body of work presented here therefore consists of various quantitative and qualitative analyses based on a corpus of 147 EHs. Taken together, these explorations should yield a comprehensive picture of the form and function of EHs. While the study is based in a linguistic/discourse-analytical tradition, other aspects, such as technological and psychosocial factors, are taken into consideration. All in all, a picture should emerge concerning the communicative purpose of EHs – a term that has become central to genre theory in recent years. Here is a brief outline of the most important subfields addressed in the following chapters: • •

•

•

Persuasive patterns: In order to survive, EHs must convince. Which microlinguistic features play a role in this? Message archaeology: How, and why, are EHs created? What is their proliferation pattern? What changes occur in the textual material, and how can they be explained? Pragmatics: EHs are strongly shaped by their pragmatic makeup. How can their pragmatic status be accurately described? What does it contribute to the dynamics of EH messages? Narrativity: To what degree do narrative sequences occur within the messages? How is narrativity used – strategically or unwittingly – in the proliferation of EHs?

This study is structured as follows. The remainder of Section 1 gives an overview on existing research as it pertains to the topic. Section 2 offers a more thorough introduction to the data used for this study. It describes the parameters which function as distinctive markers of EHs and set them apart from related categories such as spam or Nigeria mail; on this basis, a prima facie analysis of EHs is carried out. Section 2 also illustrates the makeup of the corpus created and used in this project. Sections 3 through 6 constitute the analytical body of this study where formal and functional characteristics of EHs are described and discussed. Section



Chapter 1.  Introduction

3 sets out by giving a microlinguistic description of the discourse form: paraverbal and structural, lexico-grammatical and discursive features of the corpus are analyzed. In Section 4, emphasis is placed on the chronological factor in the communicative patterns of EHs: a model for their life cycle is proposed, and evidence for variation and change in their textual material is presented. In Section 5, the specific pragmatic conception of EHs is identified as their conceptual backbone; EHs are described as a dual speech act leading to an ingroup/outgroup audience split with far-reaching psychosocial implications. Finally, Section 6 examines the narrative dimension of email hoaxing: narrative structures are found to be a central characteristic of most items in the corpus; forwarding EHs is described as an economic way of acquiring tellable stories and narrative prestige. Grounded in this descriptive basis, the issue of genre is re-examined in the concluding Chapter 7. The genre continuum that surrounds EHs is constructed, describing pre-digital genre antecedents, neighbors in the genre ecology, as well as potential super- and subgenres. Ultimately, it is proposed that email hoaxing is not a self-contained genre, but a linguistically distinct subform of Digital Folklore (DF). A genre ecology is constructed which contains DF as a functionally defined supergenre that has its direct genre antecedent in pre-digital urban folklore; its subforms are linguistically defined and constitute genuinely new subgenres such as email hoaxing, email petitions, prayer chains, etc. The EH therefore is posited as a genre hybrid, with transmedial stability at the functional level but the emergence of distinctive linguistic and structural patterns at the formal level. A first outlook on further instantiations of DF is offered in conclusion.

1.4

Relevant research perspectives

The topic of EHs per se has so far largely been ignored by linguistic CMC research; the few papers that address the subject tend to be written from a more general social sciences perspective. Three approaches to be mentioned are Chattoe (1998), Fernback (2003), and Kibby (2005), all of which interestingly do not speak of “hoaxes”, but of “virtual urban legends”, “legends on the net” or “email forwardables” in their respective titles. While all three of them offer valuable insights, they have certain limitations in their research design. Chattoe (1998) gives a general introduction to “the spread of replicating messages” such as “chain letters” and “virus warnings”, and makes interesting suggestions for further research. However, his assumptions are heavily grounded in the ‘memetics’ tradition inspired by Richard Dawkins. While ‘memetics’ makes for elegant metaphors, this line of thinking is considered to be of aesthetic rather





Email Hoaxes

than scientific value in the study presented here and will therefore not be further pursued in the following chapters. Fernback (2003) draws on more established approaches: she examines the oral/literate dichotomy as it presents itself in EHs. While this duality has been discussed in great detail in CMC theory, Fernback’s approach is new and interesting as she investigates macrotextual aspects rather than microlinguistic features. A problem with Fernback’s analysis lies in the choice of data: she does not distinguish genuine occurrences of EHs from metadiscursive discussions of such phenomena in mailing lists and discussion groups. While such metadiscursive utterances may provide interesting secondary data, they have an altogether different pragmatic status than EHs; mixing the two types of data somewhat blurs the analysis. Kibby (2005) gives an overview on forwarded emails in general; she presents a cursory textual analysis, as well as survey data about user attitudes toward forwarding emails. This latter approach contains interesting results; however, the textual analysis is somewhat problematic with regard to data choice and acquisition. In sum, a small number of interesting endeavors has been made from a social sciences perspective; however, the linguistic perspective on EHs has largely been ignored so far. Overview volumes on CMC refer to EHs in passing, if at all. One case worth mentioning is Döring (2003), whose brief treatment of EHs (2003: 280–282) associates them with prosocial behavior; this line of thinking is taken up in the present study. With the exception of these titles, publications on EHs are largely limited to guidebooks and popular science literature. Two such examples are Barrett (1996) and Mintz (2002), the latter containing an interesting section on “web hoaxes, counterfeit sites, and other spurious information on the Internet” (Piper 2002). In the absence of a research history on EHs, literature from related research domains has been consulted for theoretical and methodological support. This concerns primarily CMC studies on similar phenomena. The connection between hoaxing and its related communicative patterns will be treated extensively in Sections 2 and 7; here is a brief overview on recent publications. A few articles have been published on the topic of spam, or unsolicited bulk email. Schmückle and Chi (2004) give an analysis of its microlinguistic features as they vary according to different content types. Barron (2006) takes a more macrotextual approach: she gives an in-depth genre analysis of one subtype, namely spam emails from medical suppliers. Both papers focus on the promotional function of spam. A study by Orasan and Krishnamurty (2002) is more oriented toward corpus and computational linguistics. While their assertions concerning the genre status of “junk mail” remain somewhat vague, they present valuable



Chapter 1.  Introduction

­ uantitative data concerning the linguistics of spam. Finally, a whole subdisciq pline has emerged dealing with automatic recognition and filtering of spam, but such approaches are not relevant in the present context. Another type of email very similar to EHs is the Nigeria email (or ‘419 mail’, a name that refers to the penal code addressing this type of fraud); Blommaert (2005) gives a thorough and stimulating analysis of such messages. While he is equally concerned with giving a genre description of Nigeria mails, the paper’s main perspective is a sociolinguistic one: the digital literacy of their senders is compared against the ‘grassroots’ quality of their English literacy. Interesting conclusions are drawn regarding the communicative mechanisms of such messages. While not a full-fledged ‘type’ of message, such as the above, the phenomenon of trolling bears some strong similarities to email hoaxing. An early paper by Donath (1999) indicates where such parallels may lie: focusing on the management of identity and deception in newsgroups, it describes the game-like quality of trolling and the ambivalent reactions which deceptive statements may provoke in a community. Another approach by Herring et al. (2002) takes a somewhat different viewpoint: by describing a “trolling event” in a feminist forum, trolling is equaled to online harassment. Consequently, the paper adopts a strong prescriptive stance against trolling. Finally, Marvin (1995) should be mentioned here as one of the first CMC studies to address deceptive and non-cooperative behavior online. As outlined above, EHs are reminiscent of a range of pre-existent phenomena in both spoken and written language. It is therefore highly advisable to consider research into these pre-digital domains. The most obvious starting point is the category of texts which has been called ‘hoaxes’ for over 200 years. Opinions as to what counts as a hoax are divided (see Walsh 2006, Chapter 1 for an overview). Generally speaking, the label tends to be applied most often to newspaper canards; to ‘scientific’ false stories; to literary pranks (the boundary to satire is fuzzy here, cf. Walsh 2002); in some cases, to urban legends and folklore in general. While there exists a number of publications on pre-digital hoaxes, most of them have a strong historical or anthological focus and offer little in the way of functional analysis. Thus Fedler (1989), in his study on “Media Hoaxes” (understood as newspaper canards), offers only a brief introductory chapter on “What’s a Hoax and Why Did They Do It?” (Fedler 1989: xii–xxv) before proceeding to a historical collection of hoaxes in journalism. Similarly, Boese (2002), while constituting the most extensive collection of hoaxes currently available, contains only few theoretical and analytical passages. One classic text in the study of hoaxes is MacDougall (1958): his book contains a substantial part on “Why They Succeed” (motivations and communicative purposes – MacDougall 1958: 3–158). The historical part is organized into several “fields of human thought and activity”



10

Email Hoaxes

(­ MacDougall 1958: vii), including journalistic, but also religious, governmental, literary, and other hoaxes. The only approach that consistently treats hoaxes as a discourse phenomenon is that by Lynda Walsh – see e.g. Walsh (2002), Walsh (2006), Secor and Walsh (2004). The shared assumption of these studies is that hoaxes constitute a “rhetorical genre”; in this sense, they are strongly relevant for the study presented here. Walsh (2002) exemplifies this approach for the case of Edgar Allen Poe’s jeux d’esprit and gives an interesting discussion of hoaxes and neighboring genre labels such as parody, satire or science fiction. Secor and Walsh (2004) present a discourse-analytical treatment of the Sokal Hoax, which shook the foundations of poststructuralist academia in 1996 (see Sokal 1996; Sokal and Bricmont 1998). Walsh (2006) offers a substantial study of “scientific hoaxes” as a rhetorical genre. While its methodical angle – applying Optimality Theory to discourse processes – may be viewed with a certain skepticism, it contains many insights on the mechanisms of hoaxing. Moving away from hoaxes per se, rumor and gossip are major related discourse phenomena. From the many studies on this topic, Rosnow and Fine (1976) is worth mentioning here, as it provides many insights that equally pertain to EHs. In particular, the discussion of a rumor’s genesis and life cycle will be engaged with more deeply in Section 4. Many other classic studies on rumor exist, such as the sociological approach by Shibutani (1966) or the psychological conception by Allport and Postman (1946; 1965) and others; however, their relevance for this present project is limited. While a study on rumor on the Internet exists (“The electronic grapevine” – Harvey and Borden 1998), it is largely concerned with reliability problems in online journalism. Finally, the domain of folklore and urban mythology is highly relevant to email hoaxing. Again, most publications about urban legends are of a compilatory nature (see e.g. the various collections by Brunvand, such as Brunvand 1981). A related but distinct field is that of urban folklore as described by Dundes and Pagter (1992): while also primarily a collection of artifacts, the approach by Dundes and Pagter is highly relevant for the present study, as there are some striking similarities to EHs. This branch of folklore research is therefore a major inspiration for the work presented here. Apart from such genre-driven approaches, a few more general research traditions must be mentioned as a final point. They are important both for the textual analyses in Chapters 3 to 6, and for the genre discussion in Section 7. EHs being complex speech acts, pragmatic analysis forms a central part of their functional characterization. The approach pursued here focuses on pragmatics in the tradition of Grice (1975), due to its understanding of communication as cooperative behavior, and successors such as Brown and Levinson (1987)



Chapter 1.  Introduction

and Sperber and Wilson (1986). More recent accounts of cooperation from related fields will be considered (e.g. Dunbar 1996; van Schaik and Kappeler 2006). Since non-cooperation plays an important role in hoaxing, studies that have tried to frame this phenomenon are equally important (e.g. Parret 1994). As another important domain, the narrative potential of EHs will be investigated. Narrativity is understood here in terms of Labov’s basic characterization (Labov 1972). Particularly, the notion of tellability, coined by Labov and developed further by Pratt (1977), will be explored. More recent studies increasingly demonstrate the essential role of narrativity in human interaction (e.g. Dautenhahn 2004); their implications will be discussed in the specific context of EHs. A rich body of literature on genre theory has evolved in recent years, particularly following the highly influential works of Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993). These approaches, which tend to have a strong focus on ‘communicative purpose’, will be discussed in detail in Section 7. The issue of genre has also had a strong response in CMC research: since the seminal paper by Orlikowski and Yates (1994), many suggestions have been made concerning the status of digital genre. Thus a special edition of Information Technology and People (18/2) focuses appeared on the topic of “genres of digital documents”. Its introductory chapter by Kwasnik and Crowston (2005) gives a good overview on the state of the art. Such sources will be drawn on for a genre model of email hoaxing.

11

chapter 2

Introducing the data

2.1

What counts as an EH? A prima facie analysis

2.1.1 Family resemblances and distinctive features The initial description has already shown that EHs display a certain proximity to other discourse phenomena – spoken, written, and digital. While this circumstance is highly interesting from a genre-theoretical vantage point, it makes for a degree of vagueness in terminology. Indeed, the distinction between terms such as virus, spam, and hoax is anything but clear-cut, and confusion as to their correct use can often be observed. In everyday language use, such inconsistency is fully to be expected as a speech community negotiates its names and expressions for an emerging technology; this process has occurred within various CMC areas in recent years (for the emergence of terminologies in CMC, particularly through metaphorical processes, see e.g. Jamet 2002; Tokar 2006). In CMC research, however, this type of imprecision invites the blurring of boundaries and constitutes a methodological problem which has been present since the early days of the discipline. Thus an early paper by Marvin (1995) bears the somewhat impressionistic title “spoof, spam, lurk, and lag” that already displays the conflation of similar but distinct phenomena. Admittedly, this paper’s focus was on MOOs. Yet more recent papers which are much closer to hoaxing in topic display the same vagueness: Blommaert, in describing Nigeria mails, speaks of “e-mail spam hoax message[s]” (2005: 2), and Barron (2006: 880) simply declares “chain emails” to be a subform of spam. These generalizations are somewhat understandable. There seems indeed to be a cluster of CMC phenomena which share a set of features and are therefore perceived as having a certain family resemblance. Here is a (certainly non-exhaustive) list of such phenomena: • • •

viruses EHs spam (UBE – unsolicited bulk email)

14

Email Hoaxes

• • • • •

Nigeria mails mass mailings, newsletters (UCE – unsolicited commercial email) private multiple mailings trolling hoax websites.

For a viable analysis of just one of these phenomena, a system for disambiguating them had to be developed. This was particularly important with regard to the compilation of a homogeneous corpus (see Section 2.2). The following analysis presents and describes the set of features which has been identified as being constitutive for EHs. An assumption behind this approach is that ‘family resemblances’ between the phenomena are not coincidental or vague; instead, a clearcut grid of features can be established whose presence or absence determines the interrelatedness of the various discourse forms. These markers could be described as the ‘distinctive features’ of the respective discourse types; this approach is thus strongly inspired by componential analysis. In accordance with this study’s object of analysis, EHs serve as the benchmark against which the discourse types in question have been compared. However, the other discourse phenomena are briefly characterized in the course of the disambiguation. The following part therefore has a twofold aim: by describing the key structural and linguistic features of EHs, it yields a prima facie analysis of the phenomenon; at the same time, it gives an overview on the selection criteria that have been employed in the construction of the corpus.

2.1.2 Communication channel The first criterion, termed communication channel, appears rather straightforward at a first glance: it concerns the “socio-technical mode” (Herring 2002; Herring 2007) in which EHs occur – namely email. In other words, the default transmission path of an EH is from mailbox to mailbox. However, this ‘unmarked’ case is not the only scenario for EH transmission. For a start, another frequent pathway exists for the proliferation of EHs, and that is from mailbox via mailing list to mailbox. Mailing lists are frequently viewed as a distinct socio-technical mode (e.g. Döring 2003: 50ff.); since they function essentially as a distributing device for individual messages, they can nevertheless safely be subsumed under the communication channel ‘email’ for the purposes of the present study. What makes this label more problematic is that the texts of EHs occasionally appear in more static contexts, such as personal homepages and blogs, And as the ‘cursed girl’ hoax (see Section 1.2) demonstrates, EHs have made their way into the sociotechnical mode of text messaging. To accommodate for all these occurrences, a



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

more ­ encompassing label could be proposed; however, a classification such as “asynchronous 1-to-n communication” holds the risk of being overly vague. For reasons of simplicity, and since the vast majority of EH messages is transmitted via private email or mailing list, the communication channel of EHs will be termed ‘email’ for this analysis. The criterion ‘communication channel’ does not disambiguate EHs from most discourse types of the above bullet list, such as Nigeria mails, spam, or viruses. However, it excludes two items, namely trolling and hoax websites. Since both of them share some considerable characteristics with EHs, they deserve a brief characterization. As mentioned earlier, trolling is not so much a socio-technical mode but rather a rhetorical strategy. It can occur wherever messages are sent to a publicly accessible discussion platform: mailing lists, chats, forums, guest books, and blogs are typical communication channels. Trolling usually consists of posting messages that deliberately violate the cooperative principle, netiquette, or moral standards. The intended effect of this behavior is to trick the other communicants, and especially the newbies, into falling for the deception and responding to it with ardent protest (so-called ‘flaming’). Donath gives an apt description of the process: Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group’s common interests and concerns; the newsgroup members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings and, upon judging a poster to be a troll, (Donath 1999: 45) make the offending poster leave the group.

Herring et al. (2002: 375), in conducting a case study of one “trolling incident”, identify three “definitional criteria for trolls: 1. Messages from a sender who appears outwardly sincere; 2. Messages designed to attract predictable responses or flames; 3. Messages that waste a group’s time by provoking futile argument”. Both approaches highlight at least two ways in which trolling is strikingly similar to hoaxing: firstly, the ambivalent status between sincerity and deception, and secondly, the strategy of separating its audience into newbies and experienced users. Also worth noting is the outspoken judgment against trolling as a practice voiced in Herring et al. (2002) (proposing “proactive interventions” in its conclusion, 2002: 81); while such prescriptive views are rather exceptional in the context of CMC studies, it fits in well with similar opinions about EHs. There is a broad tendency to consider email hoaxing an inherently ‘bad’ phenomenon; the motivations and implications of this will be discussed in Section 5. In sum, there are conceptual similarities between EHs and trolling, while their technical and medial conditions are quite different.

15

16

Email Hoaxes

Hoax websites are examples of yet another socio-technical mode, namely the homepage; they are a much more static type of discourse. The term subsumes a rich variety of forms; very broadly defined, a “true counterfeit site is one that attempts to pass itself off as an authentic site” (Piper 2002: 2). A basic distinction can be made between two categories of hoax websites. The first type is simply that of an elaborate satire, transposed into the digital medium, with irony signals sometimes very apparent, sometimes almost non-existent. This ranges from highly professional spoofs, such as the satirical newspaper www. theonion.com (which, incidentally, has its roots in print media), to purely private homepages: for example, www.bonsaikitten.com, which purports to sell kittens raised in glass bottles for eccentric shape, was created by “an MIT student with a twisted sense of humor” (www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoaxsites.html). The ‘Museum of Hoaxes’ website by Alex Boese, accompanying his book (Boese 2002), offers a rich collection of such sites: http://www.museumofhoaxes. com/hoax/weblog/C49. The second type of hoax website is more intricate and sometimes reveals an agenda of ideology or even fraud. This concerns websites which exploit a highly suggestive URL – a technique which, in commerce, has become known as “cybersquatting” (and is illegal in the United States since 1999). Even as skilled users, we have very strong expectations about the iconicity of URLs: we invariably make inferences about the possible content of a website based on the semiotics of its URL, and cybersquatters employ this simple yet effective mechanism to various ends. A particularly repulsive hoax website with an ideological agenda is www. martinlutherking.org: with its sober name, the .org domain tag, and its neutral page design, it gives the impression of a legit site for research about Martin Luther King Jr. (cf. Piper 2002: 2f.) Yet a closer look at the content reveals it to be a hate page by a ‘White Pride’ organization, with articles about “the beast as saint” or the “so-called ‘civil rights’ movement”. Other hoax websites appear harmless in comparison: famous examples are variations on the homepage of the White House, such as www.whitehouse.org (a satirical site) or the infamous www.whitehouse. com (a porn site until February 2004). More recently, hoax websites are increasingly being used for phishing purposes. It is interesting to note that hoax websites, particularly satirical ones, have occasionally triggered EHs. Thus the Bonsai Kitten site provoked an email petition by outraged cat lovers (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blbonsai.htm); at the same time, emails containing pictures from the original site began to circulate. While on different communication channels, EHs and hoax websites certainly do share a range of characteristics.



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

2.1.3 Communicant identity The second feature, communicant identity, encompasses three criteria: individuation, reciprocal acquaintance, and open multiplicity. Individuation concerns the sender, while multiplicity is a factor related to the receivers of EHs; reciprocal acquaintance, as the name suggests, is relevant for both of these communication roles. Communicant identity is a major factor for distinguishing EHs from neighboring phenomena: while the nuances may be slight, they entail strong implications for the pragmatics of the respective items. Individuation describes the status of the sender’s identity: he or she must be clearly identifiable as a person through header information, and potentially through identification in the openings and closings of the message body. This means that they may not remain anonymous or hide behind generic identifying labels or personas. By contrast, it is not relevant whether the identity given is a pseudonym or a nickname as used on online platforms such as AOL or MSN. In short, the senders of EHs identify themselves as real, graspable persons. Individuation is the standard case for most emails, since the header design of email programs prompts the use of a name. However, two of the phenomena in question are exceptions to this rule. The first case is unsolicited commercial email such as mass mailings or electronic newsletters: in many cases, they employ a generic header style that does not refer to individuated persons but to the company/organization in general. An example is given below: Example 4.  A newsletter header. Source: private mailbox. Von: “Bluebird Cafe - London” An: [email protected] Kopie: Betreff: Bluebird Newsletter - Sept 2005 Datum: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:10:25 UT

Here, the actual sender remains anonymous through the unspecific label “Bluebird Cafe – London”. One reason for this strategy may be that the author’s identity is simply irrelevant in this context; also, the desired effect may be a display of corporate identity rather than personal identity. Interestingly, this display of professionalism is emulated by another discourse type, namely phishing. Phishing (a blend probably based on “password fishing”) is a form of identity theft where the user is coaxed into revealing sensitive information such as passwords for online banking. A typical phishing header is shown in example 5:

17

18

Email Hoaxes

Example 5.  A phishing header. Source: private mailbox From: eBay accounts <[email protected]> Subject: eBay Account Investigation Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:38:15 +0200

Such mailings mimic reliability by adopting a recognizable but generic header style reminiscent of corporate newsletters. Thus the factor of individuation clearly sets email hoaxing apart from phenomena such as newsletters and phishing. The criterion of reciprocal acquaintance is closely tied to that of individuation. Quite simply, the sender and receivers of EHs must know each other. The forwarding of EHs is never used to the end of establishing new contacts. That a sender should forward an EH to addressees to whom he or she has no relationship whatsoever does simply not occur – it is a pragmatic impossibility. As a logical consequence, the primary candidates for engaging in an EH exchange are the members of an individual’s typical social network: family and relatives; friends and acquaintances; and, not to the least, colleagues. An important factor in the choice of addressees is the ‘address book’ function that the majority of email programs possess. While it occurs that EHs are forwarded to the complete list of addressees in an address book, it is often the case that these lists are organized into various subsets; the header information “to: friends” from example 1 above is such an instance. It is a tempting speculation that the repeated exchange of EHs and other forwards within a certain ‘address cluster’ may actually be a proactive factor in the establishment of digital social networks. It should be emphasized, however, that the necessity of reciprocal acquaintance does not entail that the participants in such email exchanges maintain a very close or intimate relationship, or even that they be off-line (face-to-face) acquaintances. Possibly the loosest conceivable connection occurs when EHs are forwarded to mailing lists: here, the only tie between sender and receiver may be their subscription to the same mailing list (which, however, presupposes some shared attribute, status, or interest). Reciprocal acquaintance is a feature highly specific of EH exchanges and excludes many of the neighboring features discussed here. Most notably, it logically rules out all discourse types that could be termed ‘commercial’ in the loosest sense of the word – newsletters, phishing, Nigeria mails, and spam. This is quite obviously the case with unindividuated senders as in the phishing and newsletter examples above. If newsletter headers are individuated, the sender is sure to be unknown to the receiver, as in example 6:



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

Example 6.  An individuated but unfamiliar Newsletter header.  Source: private mailbox. Von: “Oliver Thiel, StayFriends” <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Kopie: Betreff: Theresa, bei StayFriends haben sich weitere Mitschüler in Ihrer Klasse eingetragen Datum: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:33:02 +0200 (CEST)

Spam comes in a variety of communicative schemes – Schmückle and Chi (2004: 27–40) differentiate between personal, pseudo-personal, and non-personal mailings. Senders will occasionally simulate individuation and intimacy through the indication of names and subject headings such as “Hi it’s me” (for a variety of examples, see the appendix of Schmückle and Chi 2004). Finally, Nigeria emails do display an individuated sender. However, neither is the sender known to the addressee, nor can the addressee be sure about the credibility of the sender’s identity display (for the reliability of scam mailers, see Blommaert 2005). The strategies of ‘commercial’ mailings can be summarized as follows: they are either unindividuated, thereby suggesting professionalism and corporate identity; or they are individuated and try to simulate intimacy while being unknown to the addressee. Both strategies differ strikingly from the individuated, intimate nature of EH exchanges. A final aspect of communicant structure has already been alluded to, namely the open multiplicity characterizing the targets of EHs. This criterion encompasses two aspects. For one, EHs are generally forwarded to more than one person – the de facto number of addressees is usually considerably higher than that. While it is of course perfectly feasible to forward an EH to just one recipient, such a 1-to-1 transaction would constitute a highly marked case. More crucially, the multiplicity of EHs is not clandestine, but openly displayed. Its most conspicuous sign is again header information, where multiple recipients will be evident through long address lists in the ‘to’ or ‘cc’ fields. Very often (but not necessarily so), a conceptual multiplicity will also be evident from the deictics of the message body – through the use of personal pronouns, and particularly through openings and closings as in example 7: Example 7.  Some typical openings of EHs, taken from the corpus. Dear ALL -----------------------------Hello Disney fans, -----------------------------All mobile users pay attention.

19

20 Email Hoaxes

This clear commitment to the non-exclusivity of the communicative act is a striking departure from other mass mailings discussed here. While spam and phishing emails have addressee numbers that by far exceed the typical email hoax, they try to suggest a confidential and 1-to-1 communication; typical strategies are singular openings (“Dear valued customer”) and pseudo-personal subject lines which repeat the username as it appears in the email address. Additionally, they make no overt use of the ‘cc’ function. This deceptive strategy is surpassed in force only by Nigeria mails. While such “business proposals” are anything but personal communication, their authors invest a lot of textual resources in order to suggest “a one-on-one relationship built on mutual confidence and supported by a realization of mutual material benefits” (Blommaert 2005: 13) – strategies include intimate addressing formulas such as “Dear Friend” and elaborate opening sequences (again, see Blommaert 2005 for examples). It seems, then, that the EH is a special case within the network of deceptive email phenomena presented here, with regard to its stance towards its multiple audience. The only type of email reminiscent in this respect is the ‘private mass email’, where email users address a number of receivers with one message (typically with an interpersonal scope, such as changes of address, seasons’ greetings, invitations, announcement of personal news, etc.) and this resemblance is not so surprising: again, EHs appear primarily as a tool of maintaining social relations via online communication. The open multiplicity of EHs is analyzed in depth in Section 3.

2.1.4 Message scope and makeup This final section describes criteria that are directly linked to the structure and contents of a text: EHs can be disambiguated from neighboring phenomena by what they do and how their contents work. The topics proper of EHs are characterized more fully in the following section, where they help to establish a basic typology. The criteria determining message scope and makeup are of a pragmatic rather than a semantic nature. Three factors can be distinguished: proliferation, textuality, and deception. The first factor, proliferation, is conceptually linked to the concept of open multiplicity. Quite simply, hoaxing is a case of serial communication – its success can be measured according to its rate of dissemination from user to user. In this respect, EHs are strongly reminiscent of rumor and gossip (see e.g. Rosnow and Fine 1976: 31ff.; see also the extensive discussion in Section 4). The remarkable feature that distinguishes EHs, however, is that the instruction for proliferation is explicitly encoded in their textual structure via a direct speech act. Every EH contains a directive speech act stipulating to “forward this to ­everyone you



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

know” (or equivalent wordings). It is not surprising that this feature has been identified as the telltale sign of EHs by many of the popular anti-hoax sites (see http://tinyurl.com/222bov for an example). Due to this proliferation mechanism, EHs are sometimes perceived as a ‘self-reproductive’ system and have been described in terms of genetics and virology. Thus Boase and Wellman (2001: 50) subsume email hoaxing as a form of “viral marketing” in their study on viruses in biology, marketing, and the Internet. Chattoe (1998) explicitly grounds EHs in genetics-inspired meme theory and describes the texts as “replicators”. While classifying EHs as ‘self-reproductive’ is questionable (since the factor of human intervention is necessary for successful dissemination), these metaphors prove proliferation to be a highly characteristic aspect of the discourse type. As a socio-technical mode, email should foster message proliferation in general: it provides technical settings such as email storage and forwarding which are geared toward the dissemination of texts. And yet, this mechanism appears to be highly specific of EHs and is not found in related phenomena. Spam and phishing emails do not encourage forwarding; the success of Nigeria emails actually depends on the confidential treatment of the message (which is routinely requested in such mails). Quite generally, the unsolicited forwarding of messages without the explicit ratification of their originators is often perceived as problematic in everyday email traffic. Indeed, corporations and institutions have tried to address this problem by adding an ‘email disclaimer’ to the footers of their outgoing email traffic; an example is shown in example 8. Example 8.  An email disclaimer. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y98jtz. University of Nebraska Medical Center E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer : The information in this e-mail is privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake please delete it and immediately contact the sender.

The justiciability of such disclaimers may safely be doubted, although they do constitute an interesting topic for language and law studies in CMC. However, such initiatives demonstrate strikingly what a sensitive issue the forwarding of emails is – and how particular the proliferation pattern of EHs must therefore appear. Finally, the only phenomenon that surpasses the EH in its dependency on proliferation is, of course, the virus email. However, the dissemination of ­viruses is regulated purely and exclusively through the technicality of the medium, namely through security holes in email programs; it therefore lacks the pragmatic implications as they are given with EHs.

21

22

Email Hoaxes

Another significant aspect of EHs is their textuality. This concept is to be understood here as follows: an EH is a purely textual artifact; it exclusively draws on, and is limited to, the textual sphere. In other words, engaging with an EH has no physical or material consequences for a communicant. While an EH may trigger all kinds of reactions in a communicant – believe it or recognize the scam, forward it or poke fun at the sender, worry about its contents or search online for corroborating information, etc. – it provokes them uniquely through its textual matter, and they are all of a discursive, communicative nature. EHs, then, are prime pragmatic objects: they do things with words – however, the scope of their doing is equally limited to the textual sphere. The relevance of this criterion is strikingly revealed in comparison with other phenomena. For example, Nigeria emails are wildly concocted tales, and in this sense, are very ‘textual’, too; but engaging with such a message will have very distinct consequences in real interaction. Behind the scam is a material person with material financial interests, and communicants who have engaged with them have lost great amounts of money. Even worse, in February 2003, the Nigerian consul in the Czech Republic, Michael Lekara Wayid, was shot by a 72-year old Nigeria scam victim (cf. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2780259.stm). The case is similar with spam mails: their claims about the products and services on offer may be inaccurate, exaggerated, or downright fraudulent. However, if a communicant decides to engage with the message and responds to the spammer, a transaction of goods against money can and will ensue. The case is similar with the fraudulent intentions of phishing scammers. Finally, viruses pose a material threat to users’ software equipment and data safety. These counterexamples demonstrate how central the limitation to the textual sphere is for EHs. Some cases can be construed where EHs have material consequences, but their occurrence is marginal. For example, EHs occasionally contain names and response email addresses (much more on this in Section 3), and some of them are suspected to be designed as revenge email bombings to make the victim’s email address inoperational. On another level, EHs about the safety of certain products might be inhibitory to certain companies – for example, Jayne O’Donnell (USA Today, November 29, 2005) gives an overview on EHs related to

. It is worth noting that ‘text’ is understood as a broad semiotic notion here, so as to include artifacts such as pictures, PowerPoint shows, etc. However, it is emphatically not used in a poststructuralist sense that might include social relations, actions, ideologies, etc.



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

Procter&Gamble. Again, such aspects are most interesting in terms of their legal linguistics. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt about the textual status of EHs as a discourse type. The final criterion of deception has been alluded to in the introduction and is closely linked to the concept of textuality: EHs are deceptive messages. They contain, at their core, a proposition that is false or at least problematic (e.g. outdated, imprecise, or unverifiable). This feature is present in many of the related phenomena presented in this section, for example in spam, Nigeria mails, and virus emails; it is probably due to this shared factor that they are often perceived as an interrelated cluster of discourse types. For EHs, however, deception is quite simply the sine qua non condition – an EH hinges on its deceptive quality. Thus insincerity may be purely goal-oriented in other messages (for example sales-enhancing in spam), but it is the driving force behind EHs. As a consequence, the deception usually affects the central assertion, or scope, of an EH. Thus, if an EH warns of a virus, the danger will be non-existent; if it promises goods or rewards, the supposed mechanism will be technically impossible; if it summons sympathy for someone sick or missing, the person will be purely fictitious. The pragmatic mechanism behind this characteristic, its possible motivations and complex consequences, will be extensively discussed in Section 5.

2.1.5 Summary This feature analysis should have given a first approximation of email hoaxing as a discourse form. More specifically, it should have illustrated why EHs are often associated with a cluster of related phenomena, and how these can succinctly be distinguished from each other. Table 1 summarizes the findings; in accordance with the semantic nature of the approach used here, it is structured in the style of traditional component analysis. The allocation of features confirms the intuitive notion of a phenomenon cluster. Certain phenomena indeed show a high congruence: for example, spam and phishing emails have an identical feature pattern; newsletters deviate only in terms of the feature ‘deception’, and Nigeria emails are positive for ‘individuation’ but otherwise identical to spam and phishing. However, the most striking result is that EHs have a unique feature pattern that distinguishes them from all of the forms analyzed here. The seven criteria presented in this section can therefore satisfactorily be regarded as the distinctive features of EHs as a discourse category.

23

Email Hoaxes

Table 1.  A schematic overview of hoaxing and its neighboring discourse types. Categories are labeled in the style of component analysis. +: presence of feature; –: absence of feature: ?: nonspecific/ambiguous; 0: not applicable/irrelevant.

reciprocal acquaintance

open multiplicity

prolife­ra­tion

textuality

de­ception

Hoax Virus Spam Nigeria Phishing News-letters Private mass mail Trolling Hoax websites

Message scope and makeup

Individuation

Channel Communicant identity

Email

24

+ + + + + + + – –

+ + ? + ? ? + ? 0

+ + – – – – + ? 0

+ – – – – – + + 0

+ + – – – – ? – 0

+ – – – – – + (?) + +

+ + + + + – – + +

A condensed definition of EHs based on these distinctive features can thus be formulated as follows: EHs are • • •

asynchronous 1-to-n messages transmitted via email, communicated from individuated senders to a number of receivers within their social network, containing false information, no extratextual consequences, and a directive for dissemination.

This definitional framework forms the basis for all further analyses; in particular, it has been used as a yardstick in the construction of the EH corpus.

2.2

The corpus

2.2.1 Methods of data acquisition EHs are free-floating CMC matter. The texts are public-domain, copyright-free material (an exception must be made for extraneous material that is occasionally added to the messages, such as poems or pictures); additionally, authentic



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

instantiations of the data are available on the Internet. Basically, this makes email hoaxing a very viable target for corpus-building purposes. In theory, it should be feasible to assemble a corpus of EHs based on personal mailbox traffic. Other discourse type-specific studies have effectively used this approach. Blommaert (2005: 2) describes the basis of his Nigeria email study as follows: Like many others, I receive [spam] email messages (…) on a regular basis. The reflections in this paper are based on an analysis of a small corpus of 56 messages collected between April and June 2005. I collected indiscriminately, copying every message entering my mailbox – about one per day.

The spam studies described earlier are based on similar methodologies. ­Schmückle and Chi (2004) do not give details about their method, but their corpus of 48 spam emails apparently consists of personally received emails. Orasan and ­Krishnamurthy collected 1653 (net sum without duplicates: 673) emails “over a period of time” (Orasan and Krishnamurthy 2002). Barron’s spam corpus “consists of 121 unsolicited emails received by the present author (...) over a period of eight weeks from 11th August 2003 to 6th October 2003” (Barron 2006: 886). Finally, Kibby (2005) works with a corpus of email forwards “sent to this author, unsolicited, from 1999 to 2001” (2005: 783); yet it contains only 73 messages in total, and a mere 21 without duplicates. Obviously, the approach via the researcher’s personal email traffic is popular and can lead to valuable results. Nevertheless, this method was rejected for the study presented here for two reasons. For one thing, EH traffic is simply not as high as the circulation of spam or Nigeria mails. As hypothesized in the introduction, EHs may be in decline; it certainly seems that their dissemination has dropped in the last few years. Building a real-time corpus would therefore necessitate a considerable time span – much longer than the two to three months described above for the other studies. Secondly, and more importantly, the particular communication pattern of EHs makes this approach problematic. As described earlier, EHs are not disseminated by anonymous, undiscriminating senders, but through social networks. Authentic EH transmissions would therefore necessarily come from the researcher’s friends, family, and colleagues. These, however, are aware of the ongoing research project; as a result, the present researcher has received hardly any genuinely felt EHs through her social network in the past few years; in addition, such emails as were sent were informed by a wish to contribute to the ongoing project – and were therefore unauthentic in terms of their communication structure and pragmatic background. In short, the nature of the data and the research settings create an observer’s paradox in the true Labovian sense.

25

26 Email Hoaxes

Alternative strategies of data acquisition therefore had to be found. Two ways of gathering texts have been used here; both yield different kinds of data and serve different purposes. They could be described as ‘representational’ and ‘reallife’ data, respectively. Representational data: As described in the historical overview, the steep increase of circulating EHs in the Nineties brought forth a number of ‘hoaxbusting’ websites. Such sites usually offer information about the phenomenon in general, describe how to spot an EH, sometimes also give background information on the stories behind EHs. Most importantly, they take note of emerging EHs and keep track of messages that are already circulating. By virtue of this, these websites function as archives – they offer large, publicly accessible EH databases. Such websites have been the primary source for the corpus presented here. Here is a list of the major sites which have been consulted and drawn upon:

http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org (U.S. Department of Energy’s computer incident advisory capability); http://www.breakthechain.org (private site initiated by John R. Ratliff); http://snopes.com (private site maintained by Barbara and David Mikkelson).

The parameters and guidelines for text selection are described below. What is important to note is that these data are regarded as ‘representational’ in the present context. EH messages that are reproduced on such websites are displaced from their original context of use; their pragmatic conditions are somewhat artificial. Also, it can be assumed that they have been processed to a certain degree; for example, names are altered, footer information is omitted, the layout is changed, etc. This is not in itself a problem: what such representations strive for is a certain prototypicality of the items – the messages displayed are representations of their real occurrences. This principle has been acknowledged, and adopted, for the construction of the corpus described here. It has been designed to incorporate as many different items as possible, taking into account that the items themselves may be somewhat stylized instantiations of real-life occurrences. Real-life data: It is clear that the representational data need some grounding in real discourse. An access to actual and authentic EH transmissions therefore had to be found. Obviously, data from private mailboxes are not readily available due to privacy reasons. As has been described in the section on communication channel, however, mailing lists are another significant socio-technical mode for EH transmission. Crucially, a large number of mailing lists are stored in web-based archives which, remarkably, often reach back as far as the mid-Nineties. Additionally, these web archives often have low security thresholds: many of them are not



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

password-protected and are thus searchable via Google. EH messages that have been transmitted via this type of mailing list are therefore available for a targeted data acquisition. For the purpose of this study, such items were retrieved by using the representational data as prototypes. It is possible to select salient n-grams that are highly indicative of a particular text; using these for exact Google searches yields a high proportion of relevant items. For example, as a salient n-gram from the ‘WTC survivor’ EH from Figure 1, the following chunk might be selected: “now he can’t even start his computer”. Two types of mismatches usually have to be excluded: random hits (if the n-gram is not specific enough), and metadiscursive cases of mention (on anti-hoax sites etc.). Usually, a significant amount of relevant hits from mailing lists, and, occasionally, home pages and blogs, will remain. The above n-gram yields nearly 400 hits in an exact Google search (date: mid-2006). Of the first 20 hits, a substantial 11 were relevant matches, mostly from mailing lists, ranging in date from October 2001 to February 2006. This method, then, can be described as a highly effective way of acquiring such real-life data. Importantly, real-life data were not used in the construction of the corpus. As stated above, a maximum in text diversity was aimed for; the corpus is defined by its horizontal (or syntagmatic) variation. The inclusion of real-life hits, however, would largely affect its vertical (or paradigmatic) variation: in other words, it would mean the ample inclusion of duplicates. However, duplicates are not gainful for the functional characterization of a discourse type (compare e.g. the elaborate methods for duplicate elimination in Orasan and Krishnamurthy 2002). As a consequence, this important data source has been put to different uses rather than being incorporated into the corpus. For one, the occurrence of real-life data has been used as verification for the selection of representational data (see next section); more importantly, such texts have been used for studies in message archaeology and the life-cycle of EHs; this approach is given a thorough examination in Section 4. Figure 1 shows the varying depiction of the same text on anti-hoax archives versus mailing list archives. In summary, these two types of data can be said to complement each other for the purpose of this study. Their relation is reminiscent of the semiotic type-token distinction: while the representational data used for the corpus are somewhat abstracted and idealized (types), the real-life data function as realizations which account for a certain variation (tokens). Both facets have been important for the study described here.

2.2.2 The representational corpus: Size and structure The corpus consists of 147 individual texts, the total word count being 32498. As described above, the initial incentive for the inclusion of a text was its occurrence

27

28

Email Hoaxes

Figure 1.  Screenshots of the same EH (the ‘Internet Flower’ virus EH, ID: 1): stylization on an anti-hoax site (left, http://breakthechain.org/exclusives/flower.html); real data in a mailing list archive (right, http://tinyurl.com/y9ww46).

on one or more of the online anti-hoax archives. Since these databases are usually rather extensive in their data display, a selection had to be made. The question of whether to include or exclude a text was most importantly based on the criteria introduced in Section 2.1: communication channel; individuation, reciprocal acquaintance, and open multiplicity; proliferation, textuality, and deception. This eliminated a number of texts. For example, www.snopes.com is not limited to EHs and contains many varieties of folklore; texts which were not explicitly labeled as being “collected via email” were therefore not included. Similarly, certain items were rejected for not being purely textual (e.g. ‘Make Money Fast’ chain letters with a profit-making angle). Finally, a number of texts were not included because they did not meet the criterion of deception but were instead based on a truthful proposition. This criterion, of course, is not always clear-cut: some border cases (e.g. stories which were originally true but have long been decontextualized) are part of the corpus but have been coded for their ‘borderline’ status in the database. In addition to this feature analysis, it was made sure that the EHs in question have some basis in actual language use. To that end, the n-gram check described above was performed. If a representational text could not be assigned at least one reallife occurrence, it was not included in the corpus. This standard is arbitrary to a certain degree, as the web-based data – and Google searches – cannot map all occurrences. However, it ensures at least a basic level of actual discourse use. Next to data acquisition and selection, the choice of a software format for data storage and processing is essential in the construction of a corpus. In more restrictive definitions, a collection of texts only becomes a corpus on the condition of its electronic annotation (POS-tagging, lemmatization, etc.) However, this step



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

Figure 2.  A screenshot of the database architecture. Not all categories coded for are displayed here.

has been foregone for the present text collection for a number of reasons. Annotation is particularly interesting for very large corpora; the EH corpus, with its total of 32498 words, would make sound quantitative assertions problematic. Similarly, annotation is of interest more for cross-sectional compilations (the criterion of “representativeness”, cf. McEnery and Wilson 1996), rather than for specialized corpora focused on one discourse type. Finally, the study presented here is most strongly concerned with qualitative issues; such quantitative queries as were of interest could easily be answered via the conventional ‘search’ function of standard software. For these reasons, the time-consuming process of text annotation was not necessary. Instead, a software environment was needed that allows for the principled storage of individual texts and their comparison based on qualitative features; therefore, a text database was required. Due to its wide availability, Microsoft Access was chosen as a database program. Apart from the general advantages that such a format provides for the handling and storage of large amounts of texts, three aspects were particularly important here. For one, the primary texts could easily be transferred into the database via copy and paste as the software is layout-sensitive: paragraphs and other structural features are retained. Also, the program allows for the easy creation of drop-down menus for categorization and other features for qualitative analysis. Finally, additional material, such as pictures or web links, can easily be embedded. Figure 2 gives an impression of the database architecture; as can be seen, a range of qualitative data was coded for in every text. A summarizing table extracted from the database is shown in the appendix. Here is a brief description of the categories employed.

29

30

Email Hoaxes

ID. A serial number automatically assigned by the program. The numbers are allocated on the chronological basis of data entry alone and are therefore purely arbitrary in their meaning. They are indicated in this study where examples from the corpus are shown or cited. Name. In addition to the ID number, a name was assigned to each text for better identification. Names are usually based on the text’s central issue; often, they coincide with frequently used subject headings. Text. Texts were transferred via copy and paste from the archive websites. This database field was assigned the field data type ‘memo’, which can store 65536 characters per entry; thus it was ensured that even texts of a considerable length can be stored. As mentioned above, this field data type has the added value of retaining a text’s layout. Keywords. A small set of lexical items was extracted manually from each item; they mainly serve recognition and comparison purposes. Typical candidates for keywords were names of products, places, organizations etc., as they frequently appear in EHs (such as ‘AOL’, ‘Applebee’s’ , ‘Texas’, etc.). Hoax status. This drop-down menu has largely been added for possible future extensions of the corpus; the options included are ‘Hoax’, ‘Border Case’, ‘Folklore’, ‘Nigeria’ and ‘spam’. The vast majority of texts stored in the corpus in its present state are labeled ‘Hoax’ (though some ‘border cases’ have been included). Category. Content-based distinctions are a popular categorization tool on hoax websites. This method has been adapted here for a basic typology of EHs. The categories distinguished have been labeled ‘Virus’, ‘Charity’, ‘Giveaway’, ‘Urban Legend’ and ‘Hoaxed Hoaxes’. They will be described in detail in the following section. WWW source. The URL where the representational text in question was retrieved. Date of origin. In most cases, it is difficult to pinpoint a precise date of origin. The dates given in this category are usually taken from the anti-hoax archives and cross-checked with some real-life data. However, they are to be taken as an approximation only. Variants. Textual connections with other EHs have been manually cross-referenced in this section. Many EHs share some textual content, or appear to have common ancestry; this phenomenon of ‘message archaeology’ is examined in detail in Section 4. Narrative framework. Many EHs are constructed as narratives, or at least contain embedded chunks of narrative. The presence or absence of a narrative framework



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

has been coded based on three subfeatures – temporal structure, tellability, and narrative persona. Again, the occurrence and function of narrative in EHs will be treated extensively in the analysis – see Section 6. Word count. Word counts were performed automatically in a word processing program. Proper names. Names and (email) addresses, both real and fictional, feature frequently in EHs. They have been manually extracted for this category and are analyzed in Section 3. External material 1. In this field, textual elements of an EH are reproduced that are not intrinsic to the text itself. This includes URLs (as they refer to discourse material) and other material such as adopted poetry etc. External material 2. Occasionally, EHs contain picture material; this has been stored here. The additional category has been created for purely technical reasons, as pictures can not be embedded in the standard ‘text’ field data type.

2.3

Types of EHs: A content-based typology

For easier handling, it is helpful to organize a corpus into subcategories. As mentioned above, a content-based distinction lends itself for texts such as EHs. The major online databases all operate with such categorizations, and some of them have developed a true maze of labels: both www.breakthechain.org and http:// hoaxbusters.ciac.org offer a set of 13 labels respectively, and www.snopes.com proposes an amazing 44 categories (which are in turn divided into subtypes). This apparent need for categorizing, and the fuzzy borders of some categories, are further signs for the precarious genre status of EHs; the more ancillary subtypes are reconsidered in the final section discussing the issue of genre. The system employed here is reduced to five labels.

2.3.1 Virus hoaxes ‘Virus’ EHs are often seen as the prototypical category of EHs. As described in the historical overview, this is certainly true in a diachronic perspective: the first case on record is the 1988 ‘2400 baud modem virus’; the first EH of the WWW era was the 1994 ‘GoodTimes’ virus EH which acted as a textual progenitor for many of the later virus EHs. Quite simply, it can be assumed that these early EHs developed in parallel to hacker culture and popular concerns about online safety. As to their contents, virus EHs usually warn against (non-existent) security threats

31

32

Email Hoaxes

that will arrive via email. The descriptions they contain of the viruses’ effects on the computer range from the plausible (deletion of files, reproduction through the email program’s address book) to the fantastic (destruction of hardware, installation of malware through plaintext messages). Very often, they contain references to software or Internet security companies, which are to act as credibility markers (“announced yesterday morning from Microsoft”). More recent variants do not always follow the classic scheme of warning against dangerous email content; instead, they refer to other threats such as dangerous websites (see e.g. the ‘intifadah.cjb.net’ virus hoax, ID: 104), or to other socio-technical modes, such as supposed mobile phone viruses. With 46 items, virus EHs make up 31% of the corpus. A few examples have already been depicted in the introduction; example 9 displays another very popular virus EH, namely the “It Takes Guts to Say Jesus” EH that dates back approximately to 1998 and is rich in variants. Example 9.  The ‘Guts To Say Jesus’ virus EH (ID: 11). If you receive an email titled “It Takes Guts to Say ‘Jesus’ DO NOT OPEN IT. It will erase everything on your hard drive.

This

information was announced yesterday morning from IBM; AOL states that this is a very dangerous virus, much worse than “Melissa”, and that there is NO remedy for it at this time. Some very sick individual has succeeded in using the re-format function from Norton Utilities causing it to completely erase all documents on the hard drive.It has been designed to work with Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer.It destroys MacIntosh and IBM compatible computers.

This is a

new, very malicious virus and not many people know about it. Pass this warning along to EVERYONE in your address book and please share it with all your online friends ASAP so that this threat may be stopped. Please practice cautionary measures and tell anyone that may have access to your computer. Forward this warning to everyone that might access the internet

2.3.2 Giveaway hoaxes So-called ‘giveaway’ EHs became popular around 1999; the first specimen, which certainly inspired many of its successors, was the ‘Microsoft Beta’ EH, supposedly written by Bill Gates himself. It is reproduced in example 10: Example 10.  The ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH (ID: 105). FROM: [email protected] ATTACH: [email protected]/Track883432/~TraceActive/On.html



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

Hello Everyone, And thank you for signing up for my Beta Email Tracking Application or (BETA) for short. My name is Bill Gates.

Here at Microsoft we have just compiled an

e-mail tracing program that tracks everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. It does this through an unique IP (Internet Protocol) address log book database. We are experimenting with this and need your help.

Forward this

to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list you will receive $1000 and a copy of Windows98 at my expense. Enjoy. Note: Duplicate entries will not be counted. You will be notified by email with further instructions once this email has reached 1000 people. Windows98 will not be shipped unitl it has been released to the general public. Your friend, Bill Gates & The Microsoft Development Team.

Giveaway EHs are probably the most homogeneous subgroup of the set, in that there is very little variance in structure and scope among the different items. The storyline typically runs like this: a major company (ranging from software and mobile phone producers to brands of beverage) has started an email initiative (sometimes for marketing, sometimes for market research reasons). If the user forwards the email a certain number of times, or if the message reaches a certain dissemination by a certain time, the participants will be rewarded with money, free goods, or other recompensations (such as free trips to Disneyworld). The ­users’ communicative behavior, and the success of the initiative, are monitored by a so-called ‘email tracking’ (or sometimes: ‘tracing’) system. Needless to say, such claims have no factual basis for several reasons; the most important is that such a monitoring system remains pure fiction. The EH corpus contains a total of 40 giveaway EHs (27%). The fictional framework outlined above has been applied to a broad range of products, from mobile phones to plane tickets and T-shirts. The most recent documented giveaway EH dates from 2003 and is possibly the most stylish in terms of product choice: it promises a free case of Veuve Cliquot champagne for every 10 forwards. Giveaway EHs are the most easily analyzable subgroup in terms of communicant motivation and behavior: if the deception is believed, communicants will perceive a material interest both for themselves and the other participants in the communication chain.

33

34

Email Hoaxes

2.3.3 Charity hoaxes Charity EHs (sometimes called ‘sympathy hoaxes’, e.g. in the CIAC archive) have been in circulation at least since 1997. The ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH shown in example 11 has been traced back to January 1997: Example 11.  The ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH (ID: 119). LITTLE JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND VERY RARE CASE OF CEREBRAL CARCINOMA. THIS CONDITION CAUSES SEVERE MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS AND IS A TERMINAL ILLNESS. THE DOCTORS HAVE GIVEN HER SIX MONTHS TO LIVE. AS PART OF HER DYING WISH, SHE WANTED TO START A CHAIN LETTER TO INFORM PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION AND TO SEND PEOPLE THE MESSAGE TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT, A CHANCE THAT SHE WILL NEVER HAVE.FURTHERMORE, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND SEVERAL CORPORATE SPONSORS HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THREE CENTS TOWARD CONTINUING CANCER RESEARCH

FOR EVERY NEW PERSON THAT GETS

FORWARDED THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE GIVE JESSICA AND ALL CANCER VICTIMS A CHANCE. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, SEND THEM TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AT [email protected]

Two types of charity EH storylines can very broadly be distinguished, namely the ‘sick child’ and the ‘missing child’ storyline. The ‘sick child’ narrative, of which the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH is an instantiation, usually follows an established pattern: someone (usually a child, sometimes their parents) is afflicted by something through no fault of their own (sometimes an accident, most often a fatal illness). Help is not immediately available; however, someone (an organization, a corporation, sometimes an unspecified ‘billionaire’) will provide financial aid if the email in question is forwarded a certain number of times. It has often been remarked upon the moral cynicism of this scheme (that funds should be available but tied to a kind of online game). Nevertheless, these EHs appear to trigger most effectively the mechanism described as ‘prosocial behavior’ by Döring (2003), and have aptly been termed “armchair activism” by Ratliff (http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html). It is well possible that this type of EH was inspired by click-to-donate websites such as http://www.thehungersite.com which, while not exempt from similar moral issues, are absolutely legit initiatives (for more on click-to-donate websites see Ram 2002). By contrast, ‘missing child’ EHs are more plausible: they inform about a lost or abducted child and ask for dissemination of the information. It is crucial to differentiate here between EHs and genuine alerts that are actually grounded in reality – particularly since the ‘Amber Alert’ program for missing persons was installed in the United States in 1996, real search alerts have been circulated via email. However, such factual emails often become inaccurate through their lack of deictic anchoring (witnessed through statements such as “went missing last



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

week”). Some of these cases have been added to the corpus as ‘border cases’ if the information contained was grossly outdated or distorted. Finally, so-called ‘prayer chains’ are a special – and distinctly American – subtype: here, spiritual support is requested for sick or missing persons. Again, such texts have only been included if their actual proposition is deceptive. With all these qualifications, charity EHs make up a total of 42 items in the corpus (29%).

2.3.4 Urban legends Virus, giveaway, and charity EHs are arguably the most central and substantial EH types; categorization becomes less straightforward for the following two subsets. The fourth EH type has been termed ‘urban legends’, which in principle necessitates a clear-cut and watertight definition for this folkloristic phenomenon. Yet how should folk tales systematically be distinguished from claims about spectacular computer threats or moving stories about human tragedies? In principle, the hierarchy of classification could be inversed – and some analysts do subsume all kind of online EHs and spoofs as ‘netlore’. This problem will be treated in detail in the final section on genre. As a typological tool, the distinction can be kept up for the purpose of structuring the corpus. Urban legends are thus defined here as tales about supposed spectacular and often sensationalist incidents (which, in accordance with the definition of a hoax, have no factual basis). Crucially, the events in question always take place in an everyday setting and happen to everyday people – a narrative strategy which helps to foster empathy in the tale’s addressees. Urban legends typically conclude with a moral or a warning. They have often been analyzed in terms of reinforcing cultural norms; for example, the urban legend of the ‘Rat Girl’ mentioned in the introduction implicitly contains behavior rules for Muslim girls. A more Western example is displayed in example 12: Example 12.  The ‘Ball Pit’ urban legend (ID: 61). Hi, My name is Lauren Archer, my son Kevin and I lived in Sugarland, TX.     On October 2cd, 1994 I took my only son to McDonald’s for his 3rd birthday. After he finished lunch, I allowed him to play in the ball pit. When he started whining later on, I asked him what was wrong, he pointed to the back of his pull-up and simply said “Mommy, it hurts.”     But I couldn’t find anything wrong with him at that time. I bathed him when we got home, and it was at that point when I found a welt on his left buttock. Upon investigating, it seemed as if there was something like a splinter ­under the welt. I made an appointment to have it taken out the next day, but soon he started vomiting and shaking, then his eyes rolled back into his head. From there, we went to the emergency room.

35

36

Email Hoaxes

    He died later that night. It turned out that the welt on his buttock was the tip of a hypodermic needle that had broken off inside.     The autopsy revealed that Kevin had died from heroine overdose. The next week, the police removed the balls from the ball pit and lo and behold. There was rotten food, several hypodermic needles: some full; some used; knives, half-eaten candy, diapers, feces, and the   stench of urine. If a child is not safe in a child’s play area then where?     You can find the article on Kevin Archer in the October 10, 1994 issue of the Houston Chronicle. Please forward this to all loving mothers!

A considerable number of urban legends are true classics, in that they have been circulating via face-to-face communication for years or decades. This includes tales such as the kidney theft or needles in cinema seats; the ease with which these items made the medial transition may be an indicator of their importance as communicative and psychosocial tools. Other tales have made their ascent in and through the digital medium. In particular, the 9/11 events appear to have acted as a catalyst for genuinely digital urban legends. Example 13 shows a typical EH scenario which can be found in a multitude of variants; it strikingly plays on the climate of fear of the 9/11 aftermath. Example 13.  An urban legend inspired by the 9/11 events.  Source: http://tinyurl.com/3892k6. I don’t know how much truth there is to this but a friend of mine told me that her sister-in-law works at a hospital and a man came in to be treated for something and could hardly speak English. He was an Arab. He didn’t have any $ so she gave him a couple of dollars to help him out. He kept asking her why she gave it to him and she said that is how we Americans are over here--we help people in need. He then told her that he wanted to help her out and told her NOT to drink Coke after September 1st........that’s all he said but you get the picture.......I am not sure how much truth there is to it but I would rather be cautious....know what I mean? She alerted authorities and the man had already gone. She thinks he was trying to help her out because she helped him....like I said....I don’t know how true it is but the girl who told me wouldn’t just make it up....that I’m sure....Pass it around just in case.

Urban legends are problematic for definitional reasons, as explained above. In particular, this constituted a methodological challenge for the construction of the present corpus. To employ a syntactic metaphor: the three principal EH types constitute more or less ‘closed sets’ – they are relatively homogenous, and their number has stabilized over the years to a certain degree. By contrast, urban legends have the characteristics of ‘open class’ items: their formal restrictions are less clearly defined, and a number of items found online are quite removed from the more typical forms of email hoaxing. While the corpus strives for relative completeness



Chapter 2.  Introducing the data

in the other classes, a limitation was made for urban legends, so as to guarantee a balanced choice of texts. The corpus therefore contains 13 urban legends (9%).

2.3.5 Hoaxed hoaxes Finally, this category is essentially defined by a pragmatic property. Hoaxed hoaxes are texts which blatantly exhibit their deceptive quality through overt irony markers; the discourse form of email hoaxing itself is on display as a parody in hoaxed hoaxes. The seminal ‘GoodTimes’ EH was the basis for a number of parodies, one of which is displayed in example 14: Example 14.  The ‘BedTimes’ hoaxed hoax (ID: 92). If you receive an email entitled “Bedtimes” delete it IMMEDIATELY. Do not open it. Apparently this one is pretty nasty. It will not only erase everything on your hard drive, but it will also delete anything on disks within 20 feet of your computer. It demagnetizes the strips on ALL of your credit cards. It reprograms your ATM access code, screws up the tracking on your VCR, and uses subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD’s you attempt to play. It will program your phone auto dial to call only 0898 numbers. This virus will mix antifreeze into your fish tank. IT WILL CAUSE YOUR TOILET TO FLUSH WHILE YOU ARE SHOWERING. It will drink ALL your beer. FOR GOD’S SAKE, ARE YOU LISTENING?? It will leave dirty underwear on the coffee table when you are expecting company. It will replace your shampoo with Nair and your Nair with Rogaine. If the “Bedtimes” message opened in a Windows 95/98 environment, it will leave the toilet seat up and leave your hair dryer plugged in dangerously close to a full bathtub. It will not only remove the forbidden tags from your mattresses and pillows, it will also refill your skim milk with whole milk. ******* WARN AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN. ******* And if you don’t send this to 5000 people in 20 seconds, you’ll fart so hard that your right leg will spasm and shoot straight out in front of you, sending sparks that will ignite the person nearest you. Send this warning to everyone. If you are a blonde, this is a joke!!!

It is evident that this classification is not completely clear-cut: many EHs that are widely perceived as serious contain rather subtle irony markers. The perception

37

38

Email Hoaxes

of irony in written texts, and of implicatures in a more general sense, is hard to measure and varies strongly between communicants. Thus a giveaway EH about M&Ms candy is attributed to Jeffrey Newieb, an anagram on ‘newbie’, yet this EH is taken at face value with a high frequency. Hoaxed hoaxes, in contrast, are items which display their ironical stance blatantly. In this sense, they warrant an individual category. The irony problem, and the occurrence of ironic markers, will be discussed in depth in Sections 3 and 5. Interestingly, such parodies have accompanied the phenomenon from the very beginning: as Ferbrache (1992: 18) documents, even the 2400 baud modem virus EH in 1988 was followed on the heels by a similarly radical parody. This may be taken as an indication that email hoaxing holds a strong place in communicants’ awareness: in order to become the target of imitations, a discourse type must be firmly established, easily recognizable, and have some weight in communicative practice. Nevertheless, hoaxed hoaxes remain a marginal phenomenon, and this is reflected in the corpus: only 6 items (4%) were collected. Hoaxed hoaxes thus play a minor role in the following analyses. Table 2 gives a summarizing overview on the text distribution of the corpus according to the content-based typology presented here. Table 2.  The distribution of content-based types across the representational corpus. subtype

virus

giveaway

charity

urban legend hoaxed hoax

total

n %

46 31.3

40 27.1

42 28.6

13   8.9

147 100%

6 4.1

chapter 3

Formal aspects of EHs A microlinguistic analysis

This section is intended as a close-up view on EHs that captures some of their essential structural and linguistic properties. The analysis presented here is descriptive in its nature and is termed microlinguistic because it focuses, for the most part, on clearly isolatable chunks of discourse. In this sense, the following description encompasses general/paraverbal aspects of form as well as an indepth analysis of structure. In addition, it highlights some lexico-grammatical properties and discourse phenomena at the sentence level. By contrast, issues that are more aptly described as macrolinguistic (by virtue of being pervasive forces shaping the text as a whole) are analyzed more extensively in later chapters. Thus Section 4 deals with message archaeology; Section 5 analyzes pragmatic mechanisms of hoaxing; and Section 6 describes the role of narrative in EHs. The analysis is largely based on the representational corpus data. Where additional real-life material has been considered, its nature is indicated. In particular, a small subcorpus of real-life data has been used for analyses that demand contextualized material. This subcorpus, called the ‘Mydek subcorpus’ in the following, consists of 30 items of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH (ID: 119) in varying instantiations; it contains a total of just over 26.000 words. Its makeup is further described below. Some quantitative analyses have been made; for word counts and concordances, the Simple Concordance Program 4.0.7 (www.textworld.com/ scp) was used. However, the focus for most aspects is on qualitative analysis.

3.1

Some discourse features

3.1.1 Message format and length The two competing options for email representation are ASCII (“American standard code for information interchange”) and HTML (“hypertext markup

40 Email Hoaxes

Figure 3.  Two competing variants for the ‘Rachel Arlington’ charity EH (ID: 58). Source for the plaintext variant: http://tinyurl.com/yh4pzn; source for the HTML variant: http://tinyurl.com/4a8mj.

language”) messages. ASCII (‘plaintext’) messages have the advantage of being compatible with all email programs and many other appliances such as text editors etc.; however, their range of stylistic formatting options is very limited, which has led to forms such as ‘ASCII art’. By contrast, HTML email is designed to incorporate a broad range of layout choices: font size, color, style, etc. can be adapted as with a text editing program; pictures, sound, and other extraneous material can be easily embedded into the message. However, HTML email is incompatible with many email programs and has a somewhat negative reputation with many experienced computer users. The EHs assembled in the corpus are exclusively texts in ASCII format. While this is in part due to technical considerations – as outlined above, HTML items are much more problematic in terms of transfer and storage – only a dwindling number of HTML EHs was found in the databases. Where such items are found, there is usually a coexistence of ASCII and HTML variants, as in the ‘Rachel Arlington’ EH (ID: 58): the two competing variants are depicted in Figure 3. On the one hand, the eye-catching possibilities of HTML editing seem to foster the striving for attention of EHs (as do factors such as the sensationalist stories); however, easy dissemination seems to be more important in the design of the texts. In the trade-off between two desirable effects, attention gain and easy proliferation, the ASCII format appears to prevail. The average length of messages (net size, without footer information and other technically mediated addenda) in the corpus is 221 words. Messages length varies considerably in the individual items. The shortest text in the corpus, the ‘Sandman’ virus EH (ID: 18), contains just 34 words; it is reprinted in example 15.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Example 15.  The ‘Sandman’ virus EH (ID: 18). Beware! If someone named SandMan asks you to check out his page-DO NOT! It is at www.geocities.com/vienna/6318. This page hacks into your C:\drive. DO NOT GO THERE. FORWARD THIS MAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

The word count for the longest text in the corpus is 1499. However, this high value appears to be an outlier, as the next-highest values are 697, 613, and 600. While it can be hypothesized that EHs tend to get longer if they contain elaborate narratives, no clear tendency can be made out with regard to the content-based subcategories. Again, this average size appears to be a trade-off between two sought-after options: EHs require a certain length in order to be entertaining and rich in information; on the other hand, users are reluctant to read email messages that exceed a certain length (a popular credo in email marketing – see e.g. Rettie 2002). All in all, the average word count of 221 for EHs fits in well with observations regarding the length of email in general. Statistics for the length and size of email are remarkably hard to come by, given the broad interest in this longstanding socio-technical mode. While many CMC studies comment upon message length in email in general terms (e.g. Baron 2002; Goldstein and Sapin 2006), their descriptions remain vague. However, studies from marketing as well as the computer sciences give an approximation. Thus Dalli et al. (2004) describe a message size “between 2 to 800 words in length” to be one of the “unique characteristics of email” (Dalli et al. 2004: 994); and Shaw (2006) states that “the average email length is approximately 250 words”. While the empirical background of these figures is not all together clear, they correspond remarkably well with the findings from the EH corpus. Further research into this area of email structure is needed; if a word count of 200 to 300 indeed turns out to be the average for email, it is likely that factors of cognitive ergonomics play an important role in this tendency: for example, texts of that size fit well on one computer screen without affording much scrolling.

3.1.2 Typography The prevalent ASCII format of EHs (see above) leaves comparably little room for typographical variation. One point to mention is the use of upper case. Using capital letters for emphasis etc. is a frequent strategy where other typographic

. Note that the number of 221 refers to the processed texts from the representational corpus; real-life items tend to be considerably longer due to later additions. Nevertheless, the argument that the above number is the product of intuitive text design still holds true for the originators of EHs who are possibly adapting to existing standards in email message length.

41

42

Email Hoaxes

features are not available. However, continuous use of upper case is often felt to be offensive, and many netiquettes compare it to shouting. These perceptions are very well mirrored by the EH data. Of the 147 items, 36.7% (54) made no extraordinary use of capital letters (except for names etc.); a mere 5.4% (8) were written consistently in upper case. The majority of texts (57.9%, 85 items) used capital letters to some extent: in 28.6% (42) they appear sporadically for individual words or phrases; in 29.3% (43) they are used partially for sentences or whole paragraphs. All in all, this distribution appears relatively typical of asynchronous CMC. The occurrence of inserted sentences or paragraphs in upper case may be explained as later insertions to the text. Another frequent topic in CMC studies on typography is the use of emoticons. However, the corpus yields a mere six occurrences, all of them in the “ :) ” form. Of those six, one is a border case – the instance here is: “(.....PLEASE BE CAREFUL....... :)”, which could well be intended as punctuation here. Furthermore, three of the emoticons occur in one single text with the name ‘Mr. Smiley’ (ID: 51) where the contents obviously motivate the occurrences. The use of emoticons thus seems negligible in EHs. One final typographical aspect cannot be shown with the representational corpus but is important in real-life data: namely the clustering of quote tags through repeated forwards. Most email programs by default insert an “>” (or occasionally other symbols, such as “#”) when a message is forwarded or replied to. Particularly successful, and therefore long-running, EHs sometimes display quote tag clusters so long that they seriously threaten message readability. Here is a brief excerpt from a real-life version of the ‘Netscape AOL merger’ EH (ID: 109): Example 16.  Quote tag clustering. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ybtgk7. >>> >> > > > >>>>>Netscape and AOL have recently merged to form the largest >>> >> > internet >>> >> > > > >>>>>company in the world. In an effort to remain at pace with >>>this >>> >> > > giant, >>> >> > > > >>>>>Microsoft has introduced a new email tracking system as a >>>way >>> >> to >>> >> > keep

Interestingly, the insertion of quote tags appears to be perceived so typical of EHs – and possibly so cumbersome – that some items contain metadiscursive statements on the topic, as in this quote from the ‘Kayla Wightman’ charity EH (ID: 86): “please copy not forward this e-mail to avoid these >>>>>>>”.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

3.1.3 Varieties and spoken/written variation The corpus only contains EHs written in English. This does not imply, however, that EHs do not exist in other languages – quite to the contrary, the phenomenon can be found in virtually every language present on the Internet. Non-English EHs exist both by virtue of translations and as genuine texts that have originated in another language. An instance of the latter is the ‘Solidaridad con Brian’ charity EH (ID: 140) which, as the title suggests, originated in Spanish. Since translation is an interesting discourse interaction phenomenon, it will be analyzed more closely in the section on message archaeology. As to the varieties of English found in the corpus: the archive websites used here are maintained by, and geared toward, North American users. In many items, this is well-reflected through cultural and geographical references. Accordingly, the linguistic variety of the texts collected here can be loosely described as a general American English (AE). This is evident through spelling conventions (e.g., a preponderance of “-ized”) and through certain lexical items. For example, there is a conspicuous use of “(you) guys” as a vocative – a typical feature of American English that is analyzed in the deictics section. Highly stereotypical markers of AE seem to be avoided in EHs, however; while one item (the ‘Sandy’ charity EH ID: 85) contains two occurrences of the typically Southern American English “fixing to”, this appears to be highly exceptional, and may have been used for ironical purposes here. While no consensus exists as of yet whether language contact in CMC will lead to an overall convergence or divergence of English varieties on the Internet, this prevalence of a largely unspecific American English in EHs can certainly be interpreted as a case of convergence. The emergence of a generic “Internet English” has now largely been accepted to be a myth (see Herring 2007 for a discussion); however, parallel tendencies toward a globalized or International English may be seen as a concomitant factor. To examine intercultural – and intracultural – variation in the linguistic shape of EHs is an important project for future studies. The discussion about spoken vs. written forms in Internet language is as old as CMC research itself. While a relatively broad consensus has been reached that the boundaries are somewhat fuzzy in CMC, and that there may be a convergence of spoken and written toward a third mode of “digitality” (cf. Zitzen and Stein 2004), it remains less than straightforward to determine the oral/literate status of individual socio-technical modes, genres, or even texts. Particularly for asynchronous CMC modes, it has been demonstrated that the degree of orality or literality depends almost exclusively on the respective context of communication, and this is most pronouncedly the case in email communication. While the

43

44 Email Hoaxes

controversial approach by Crystal (2001) claimed that email communication, and even CMC in general, makes use of a generic type of “Netspeak”, the bandwidth in style and register is actually considerable. An early study by Gains (1999) comparing commercial vs. academic email yielded widely diverging results concerning their respective “conversational features”. A similar situation can be observed with regard to the EHs in the corpus. To be sure, many of the texts display the features of conceptual orality which are so often associated with “Netspeak”: high speed of production and correspondingly lower accuracy in orthography and discourse planning, ample use of quasi-prosodic features (e.g. use of upper case, see above), low type-token ratio, etc. In return, a considerable number of EHs are much more conceptually literate, displaying complex syntax, high information density, organized and structured discourse, high level of correctness. Both tendencies occur across all content-based types of EHs. It is important to note that conceptual orality and literality may be consciously imitated and exploited for stylistic purposes – a technique common enough in literary discourse. With regard to the deceptive stance (and sometimes satirical purpose) of EHs, it may safely be assumed that the creators of EHs deploy these mechanisms for their purposes. Thus the use of predominantly oral features may foster closeness (in the sense of Koch and Oesterreicher 1984) while the use of prestigious written forms simulates professionalism and reliability. However, conscious stylistic choice of oral/written forms in CMC deserves more in-depth studies; it is an aspect that has received little attention in CMC research so far and might give a fresh perspective on the orality/literality debate. While this dimension is not pursued further through quantitative studies here, it constitutes an interesting topic for further research.

3.1.4 Address terms and vocativity The deictics of EHs are a relevant topic of inquiry in a number of perspectives. It is easy to see how the strong suggestive power of many EHs may be partially due to the particularities of their deictic anchoring: in some cases, the anchoring is imprecise due to the lack of a reference point, as in temporal formulations such as “went missing last week”; in other cases, the anchoring is fictional and therefore doubly suggestive, if for example Bill Gates is indicated as the originator of the text. Some of these aspects will be considered in the section on proper names and geographical denominations. However, a specific aspect about the person and social deixis of EHs deserves a more thorough analysis, namely the vocative system of EHs. As any text with a more or less narrative orientation, EHs encode in their deictics the roles of originator/narrator (proximal person deixis) and addressee/ narratee (distal person deixis). Both roles may be more or less overt or covert



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

in their actual linguistic implementation (cf. Prince 1982 on narrative roles). Of particular interest here is the implementation of distal person deixis in EHs. This concerns the address terms they contain as well as their use of personal pronouns – what could be termed, in short, their ‘vocative system’. Quite in general, discourse with a 1-to-n communicative pattern has three options regarding the use of vocative terms: (1) the multiplicity of addressees can be openly displayed; (2) the use of address terms can be suppressed (or kept to an absolute minimum); (3) or the discourse can simulate a 1-to-1 situation through the use of singular pronominal forms. Of course, 1-to-n communicative situations are by no means a phenomenon indigenous to CMC discourse. Numerous settings where one person communicates with many can be thought of both in oral and written contexts: the rock star addressing the crowd, the teacher greeting the class, the journalist writing a magazine editorial, and so on. It can be hypothesized, however, that traditional written discourse tends to opt for strategies (2) or (3), and that it is largely oral discourse in which the multiplicity is openly displayed through strategy (1). In this vein, Maynor (2000: 416) argues that “second-person contexts (...) are much more likely to arise in conversation”. In short: in the domain of distal person deictics, the oral-written dichotomy is expected to be expressed through different strategies regarding vocative use. Conceptually oral texts will more often display their multiplicity through the use of plural forms, whereas conceptually literate texts will more typically simulate a 1-to-1 situation. Due to the intermediate position that digital discourse takes between conceptually oral and written forms, the pronominal systems used in CMC are an important field of inquiry. The findings regarding the use of vocatives in EHs are therefore briefly sketched here; an outline of the representational data is given first which is then compared to findings from real-life data. In a first step, the opening formulas in the representational corpus were examined, as such greetings incorporate vocatives in the strict sense of the word. Table 3 gives an overview on the 44 opening formulas of the corpus as they have been described in Section 3.2.2.1. They are subdivided here according to their plural or singular marking. Non-specific formulas make up the biggest section, due in large part to the frequent occurrence of generic “hi” This is directly followed by explicitly pluralmarked formulas with 19 occurrences. Explicitly singular formulas make up a mere 5 items (interestingly, all of them beginning with the canonical letter opener ‘dear’). As far as opening formulas, being a particularly exposed text element, are concerned, the case seems to be clear then: open multiplicity is clearly preferred over the simulation of a 1-to-1 situation. Vocatives in openings thus tend to be plural- or singular-marked NPs, which makes for relatively easy analysis.

45

46 Email Hoaxes

Table 3.  Distribution of plural and singular marking in the greeting formulas of the representational corpus. plural Dear friends Dear all Hi everyone A big hello to you guys Attention friends Hello everyone Hello Disney fans Attention E-Mail Beta Test Participants Hello readers Dear AOL and IM users Hello all Hi all Happy Chanukah everyone

singular  5  3  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 19

Dear Dear Dear Dear user

customer reader friend Hotmail

non-specific 1 2 1 1

5

Hi Hey Grace and peace Hello

13  1  1  5

20

In extending the analysis to the message body of EHs, the situation becomes more complex. Within the message body, vocatives are much more likely to be expressed through second-person pronouns than through clearly marked NPs. As is well known, present-day English has no genuine second person plural pronoun, but both singular and plural are conflated in the generic “all-purpose you” (Maynor 2000: 416). This makes it difficult, in many cases, to draw a clear-cut distinction between singular and plural deictics. However, two linguistic features may be taken into account to identify plural deictics. In certain instances, plural you can be identified through congruency markers in the surrounding co-text. More importantly, a number of second-person plural forms have evolved that are found in typically oral contexts and are increasingly used as second-person plural pronouns (see Wales 1996: 73ff. and particularly Wales 2004 for an overview). A lot of regional variation exists in this field: thus British and Irish varieties have forms such as youse/yous/yiz; southern American English is famous for the use of yall/y’all/ya’ll; in general American English forms of the pattern you + [plural noun] have evolved. Arguably, the most frequent form here is you guys, though variants exist such as you gang/you folks/you people etc. In addition, the plural nouns in question may occur with the you deleted, thus resembling more standard vocatives: guys/folks/gang etc. The representational corpus contains 807 instances of you and 375 instances of your. Unsurprisingly, the large majority are non-specific occurrences. However, there are 15 instances where you is plural-marked through congruence in the direct co-text, as shown in Table 4.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Table 4.  Cases of plural-marked you in the representational corpus. You is marked in bold, the plural marker is underlined. plural-marking through premodified you is: DID IT WORK? Most of you who tried it will probably on this list. For those of you who send this along, I to pipe up, I’ll blame all of you!”” And with that she Who send this along, I thank you so much, but for those who my secratary will send all of you my screenname. I go/ some joke./ And for those of you who care please send this is reposted. For those of you who repost, I thank you so

7

plural-marking through postmodified you His message on. “”I am asking you all, begging you to You will, but I needed to let you all know. I love you all to let you all know. I love you all and I felt I needed to THEN FORWARD/I am asking you all, begging you to please THEN FORWARD/I am asking you all, begging you to please Robert Crensman. I am sure you are all well aware of the HEN FORWARD/I am asking you all, begging you to please For our survival!! God bless you all!/Sincerely,/Debbie

8

Plural-marking in these cases functions either through premodifying constructions such as those of you, all of you, etc., or through postmodification with all (you all). For second-person plural ‘pronouns’, the number is nearly identical: 16 instances were found in the corpus (see Table 5). 12 of them are constructions with guys (7 you guys, 5 with deleted you); one is a case of you folks; ya’ll occurs three times. In sum, these numbers are comparatively small; nevertheless, open multiplicity marking can and does occur in the representational data. How do these numbers compare to the real-life data? For an approximation, the Mydek subcorpus was used to analyze the occurrence of plural vocatives in framework messages. The relevant items are shown in Table 6. Of the 163 instances of you and 47 instances of your in the Mydek subcorpus, 7 are plural-marked in the co-text. Again, there is a near-equal amount of premodification (3 cases of all/those/some of you) and postmodification (4 cases of your hearts/your flames/you all). Additionally, as in the representational corpus, the number of quasi-pronouns is similar to that of other forms of plural-marking: 7 instances of second-person plural forms were found (4 you guys; 2 stand-alone guys; one folks). It can therefore be concluded that open multiplicity is as important to users who forward the messages as to the originators of email hoaxes. Regarding the relations between the two corpora, it may be speculated that plural pronoun forms are even more important in framework messages than in core

47

48 Email Hoaxes

Table 5.  Forms of plural quasi-pronouns in the representational corpus. Items are marked in bold. you guys me saying this...)/I know you guys hate forwards, but I minutes.”/”A big hello to you guys, forward this to at least (1).jpg)”/”All of you guys who dont even try to send 95 and 98./ I know you guys hate forwards. But I a chain letter./ Ok you guys..... This isn’t a chain least 5 or 6./ Come on you guys.... And if you’re too to answer any questions you guys might have./Intel and AOL

7

guys the Internet.”/”Subj: sorry guys about this virus!/I us at: www.applebees.com/Hey guys,/DONT DELETE THIS EMAIL/ Founder of Cracker Barrel/Hey guys,/DONT DELETE THIS EMAIL/ of Victoria’s Secret/Hey guys, DONT DELETE THIS EMAIL Christine Schmidt/ GUYS...PLEASE, PLEASE TAKE

5

you folks I just said, “”Okay, you folks got my $250, and now I’m

1

ya’ll just your time. I know that ya’ll will/ impress me !!!! / impress me !!!! I love ya’ll!!!!!/ Another that I am / I/ love/ ya’ll!!/ Love,/

3

messages, as the ratio of vocatives per occurrence of you is somewhat higher in the framework data (6.7%) than in the representational data (2.6%). Further studies with more extended data material are needed to elucidate this claim. However, the examples presented above should have shown what a powerful factor the use of vocatives represents for email hoaxing. These findings concerning person deixis allow for interesting speculations. As open multiplicity was defined as a prima facie criterion of EHs in Section 2, the occurrence of plural vocatives as such is not surprising. However, the frequency of this addressing strategy in spite of existing alternatives (namely non-specificity) is impressive. This strong tendency, it can be argued, is due to a mechanism that is frequently invoked in CMC studies but that can seldom be shown with such clear causality: namely that aspects of technical mediation afford aspects of linguistic choice. In this case, the technical mediation concerns the basic features of any email program – the possibility to forward messages and to multiple-address a message. This very fundamental makeup of email communication considerably eases the 1-to-n communicative situation and generates, it can be assumed, a certain meta-linguistic awareness for the communicative situation. Through this technical setting, serial email communication appears to have almost become



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Table 6.  Vocatives in the framework messages of the Mydek subcorpus. plural-marking through premodified you bout sending this to all of you, but i want to help and 163/> >/> > SORRY TO THOSE OF YOU I DON’T KNOW! I FELT THIS back and do nothing. Some of you, not/all by any means,

3

plural-marking through postmodified you up your time,but could you all pass this around? my/> >>>>>> > > >> the Lord bless your hearts./>>>>>> > > >> i hope you can find it/in your hearts to forgive me as i Found it in my heart to risk your/flames to send this

4

you guys Thanks in advance! I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!/>>/>>>/>>/>>>/>>/>>>/> , Phistio, Solar29/> >/> > u guys please help this little a. andrew lockwood/> o.k. you guys..... this isn’t a chain 5 or 6./>>/>>>come on you guys.... and here’s 2 great

4

guys

2

,XSLvrDagRX/> >/> > Read this guys/> > --------------------: Nigel101/>>>/>>>Sorry guys and gals...Had to do it.

folks

1

Billing Programs Blooming”/ok folks, pass this around to

the canonical – or at least a well-established – 1-to-n communication type in medially written discourse. The use of plural vocatives in EHs is also interesting from a variational perspective. As noted above, the colloquial use of second person plural pronouns such as you guys or ya’ll is obviously motivated by the gap in the present-day English pronoun paradigm. However, the purely oral or non-standard status of these ersatz forms may be changing. Thus in a study on ya’ll, Tillery et al. (2000) note that this pronoun is losing its connotation as a Southernism and has begun to spread across North America. Maynor (2000), discussing oral second-person plural pronouns in general, puts forward an even more encompassing hypothesis: (...) it is clear that speakers have been trying for a long time to fill the gap left by the merging of the singular and plural pronouns. (...) My prediction (...) is that a singular-plural distinction among second-person pronouns will enter the textbook paradigms throughout much of the English-speaking world, with y’all and you-guys the most likely contenders in American English. (Maynor 2000: 416f.)

Quite obviously, the increased occurrence of these forms in EHs fits in well with the overall pattern. As has been discussed in Section 3.1, it is a matter of ­perspective whether email hoaxing (and CMC in general) is perceived as primarily oral or

49

50

Email Hoaxes

written; it could furthermore be argued that the use of such colloquial forms in EHs is consciously exploited in order to simulate the closeness and intimacy of oral communication. Nevertheless, the occurrence of forms such as you guys in a medially literate environment may prove a strong factor in the grammaticalization of these pronouns in the long run. In this sense, the emerging person deixis standards in serial email communication make a compelling case for an active role of CMC in language change.

3.1.5 Proper names and place names The use of proper names plays an important role in the overall makeup of EHs. They appear in at least three kinds of discourse contexts: • • •

in the address information usually found at the beginning of an EH; as part of the EH’s narrative; below the message body as footer information.

The structural differences between these loci are more clearly disambiguated in Section 3.2. The individual provenance of the names they contain is not further examined here for privacy reasons since they point to real communicants. Instead, the focus is on the names in the core message as they are much more important from a functional point of view, and on names in the footer information. Like address clusters, names in EHs’ email footers are of real-life provenance too; since some of them become incorporated into the core message over time, they are taken into account for this analysis. Finally, geographic denominations that occur in EHs appear to have similar functions as proper names and are therefore briefly treated in this section. Proper names in EHs may figure in two communicative roles: either they are indicated as belonging to the originator/narrator of the message; or they are used as a reference to third persons – who are often, but not necessarily, the scope of the message (e.g. in charity EHs). Corpus data reveal how central the use of names is to EHs: of the 147 items in the representational corpus, 84 (57%) contain a proper name. Taking into account that some items contain more than one name, there is a total of 118 proper names in the corpus. These 118 occurrences can be subdivided and further specified along several axes. To begin with, a small but important group of names could be classified as ‘celebrities’. The following nine items fit this description: ‘Avril Lavigne’ (pop singer – ID: 4); ‘Bill Gates’ (twice – IDs: 105 and 106); ‘Walt Disney Jr.’ (ID: 106 – actually, this person does not exist, but the reference is obvious); ‘Kageyama Hironobu’ (Japanese composer/anime artist; ID: 116); ‘Dave Matthews’ (pop singer – ID:



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

120); ‘Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ (ID: 128); ‘the Dalai Lama’ (ID: 129); and ‘Ronald Reagan’ (ID: 147). A second class of identities concerns names which are not wellknown as such (in fact, many of these items are actually invented) but are presented in the role of an authority in a particular field: thus they may be presented as important members of a company, as scientists, etc. 26 items in the corpus (17.6%) display this strategy; it is predominantly used in giveaway EHs where the authoritative role is usually modeled as one of the company’s members, but may also occur in the other types. Example 17 shows two such naming strategies. Example 17.  Two cases where names are used in the function of authoritative roles. The first item is from the ‘M&Ms’ giveaway EH (ID: 115); the second item is from the ‘Irina’ virus EH (ID: 88). Hi.

My name is Jeffrey Newieb.

I am a marketing analyst for M & Ms

chocolate candies based in Hershey, Pennsylvania. --------------------------------------------------------------------( Information received from the Professor Edward Prideaux, College of Slavonic Studies, London ).

The remainder – and majority – of the names is used to refer to ‘ordinary people’, be they real or fictional. Some of them consist only of a first name, others (the larger part) are given as a complete name. Another important axis for classifying names in EHs is whether the individuals they refer to actually exist. Admittedly, this is a category where a clear-cut decision cannot be made for all items: in some cases it is simply impossible to either authenticate or disprove the existence of a name (and individual). However, some names are manifestly real or false. Among the former are the celebrity names cited above; also, some of the border cases where a once truthful message has turned into a deceptive statement (through false additions or by becoming outdated) may conserve the real names it originally contained. Finally, many names that are added to EHs as footers are necessarily real. By contrast, some names have been proven to be false, particularly with regard to giveaway and charity EHs. For example, “Anna Swelund” is a name that appears in a range of ‘free cell phones’ giveaway EHs, e.g. the ‘Ericsson’ and ‘Nokia’ EHs, IDs: 38 and 46; both companies have issued statements that no such person exists. As Wikipedia notes, the Anna Swelund persona has become somewhat of “a cult figure of the Internet community” due to this discrepancy between omnipresence and real-life status (cf. http://tinyurl.com/2wx275). Some blatantly false names are clearly chosen to function as irony markers. Table 7 shows some of the names where names fulfill a humoristic and ironical function. Different strategies are involved in making these names irony markers. The simplest technique is the use of a slang term that may be construed as innuendo.

51

52

Email Hoaxes

Table 7.  Proper names constituting irony markers from the representational corpus; numbers refer to message IDs.   36   39   53 161 114 115 119 133

Junior Johnson [email protected] Victoria Johnson Mike RoChenle Richard Douche Jeffrey Newieb Jessica Mydek John Henerd

This is the case in the three ‘Johnson’ items (“slang for penis”, cf. http://tinyurl. com/h47qk) and the ‘Richard Douche’ example (another slang expletive). A second option is the use of anagrams, as in ‘Jeffrey Newieb’ (for ‘newbie’). Finally, some names are puns in the technical sense of being homophones. This is the case for ‘Mike RoChenle’ (microchannel) and ‘John Henerd’ (Johnny Nerd). And as the authors of www.snopes.com point out, the name ‘Jessica Mydek’ is “nearly homophonous with a rudely-phrased request for oral sex” (cf. http://tinyurl.com/ dhuz6). Interestingly, all of these examples have one of two topic orientations: they either refer to computer themes (nerd, microchannel, newbie) or to the classic topics of humoristic vulgarism. As to the overall function that names play in EHs, it can be assumed that they foster the perceived reliability of the message. This is quite obviously the case where the texts make use of celebrity names that are easily recognizable; however, it appears also to work with names which are just indicated for virtue of their authoritative role. Even with the generic names described above, the referencing helps to simulate a deictic anchoring where there really is none. Interestingly, this reliability-enhancing function is not limited to such cases where the name is a deliberate part of the message body. Instead, footer signatures can over time be perceived as part of the core message; since signatures often contain impressive address details (of companies, academic institutions, etc.), their credibility potential is particularly strong. Thus participants in a forwarding chain may unwittingly come to be perceived as being the originators of the message in question. The authors of the Break the Chain website have fittingly termed this phenomenon “False Attribution Syndrome” (cf. http://www.breakthechain.org/fas.html). One . It is likely that even more of the names in the corpus are based on these strategies: thus “Kayla Wightman” is a homophony candidate for ‘kill a white man’, etc. Only the highly explicit examples have been included in the above analysis.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

of the most well-known cases is that of Dennis Shields, whose signature developed into a part of the ‘Slow Dance’ charity EH (ID: 84): Example 18.  The closing part of the ‘Slow Dance’ charity EH (ID: 84). (...) Just think it could be you one day. It’s not even your money, just your time!!! PLEASE PASS ON Dr. Dennis Shields Professor Department of Developmental and Molecular Biology Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University 1300 Morris Park Avenue Bronx, New York 10461 Phone 718-430-3306

The occurrence of place names and geographical indications is less frequent than that of proper names. Broadly speaking, one major group consists of geographical denominations, referring to cities, districts etc. (due to the North American bias of the representational corpus, most of these references concern the United States.) Less geographically-oriented place names often refer to stores or landmarks, e.g. to “Walmart” (the ‘Sandy’ charity EH, ID: 85), “McDonalds” (the ‘Ball Pit’ urban legend, ID: 61) or “Disney World” (the ‘Walt Disney’ giveaway EH, ID: 106). While place names are hardly ever invented in EHs, many of the references are vague enough to be unverifiable; thus one charity EH makes reference to a girl in “a New York hospital” (‘Slow Dance’ – ID: 84), another one describes a child located in “Bogota, Colombia” (‘Cleto’ – ID: 66). To summarize: names and geographical denominations are a typical lexical feature of EHs. There is considerable variety in their provenance, makeup and quality; the two most significant axes for classification are famous/unknown and real/fictional. Moreover, names may both be part of the original core message or later additions. Despite these variational factors, the communicative function of (place-)names is surprisingly uniform: by creating a reference, they help to simulate deictic anchoring and credibility.

3.2

Structural elements

3.2.1 Header information: Subject lines The first textual element of an EH message is the header information; in most email programs, this part of the message is usually visually separated from the

53

54

Email Hoaxes

body of the message. Most of the information provided here is necessitated and inserted by the system: this concerns the ‘from’ and ‘to’ fields as well as the sending date. However, the ‘subject’ field can be filled in and manipulated by the user; accordingly, an interesting spectrum of variation can be observed here. A close analysis of variation pathways is given in the section on message archaeology. Of primary interest here are qualitative differences in subject line content. Two basic tendencies are visible in EH subject lines. One option is a content-related topic reference: thus a virus EH may contain the word “virus” in its subject header, a giveaway EH may make reference to the product in question, etc. The other option is the use of metadiscursive statements which put a much stronger focus on the communicative transaction itself. For virtually any EH, real-life items can be found displaying either of the strategies; additionally, there are subject lines that combine both referencing strategies. Table 8 provides a sample analysis of reference in subject lines. It gives subject lines in real-life data found via Google; the items presented here come from a virus, a giveaway, and a charity EH respectively that were selected at random from the corpus; for each EH, the first ten valid Google hits are shown. Content-based reference is underlined, metadiscursive statements are highlighted in dark grey; technically inserted material is left unmarked. Even this small-scale collection shows considerable variation for each text item. In general, there is a slight inclination for mixed referencing: 13 subject lines (43%) contain both content-based and metadiscursive statements. 11 (36%) subject lines are purely content-based and only 6 (20%) refer exclusively to communicative matters. The sample is too small to make generalizations about referencing patterns in the respective EH subcategories, nevertheless these data do suggest a tendency (see Table 9). Here, virus EHs show a penchant for content-based reference, whereas charity EHs veer slightly toward metadiscursive referencing. This fits in well with general perceptions of the two topics: whereas virus warnings are perceived as fact-based and informational, charity EHs are primarily marked by their emotive angle. On a more general note, it is worth noting the overwhelming variety of subject lines. None of the three subsets in Table 8 includes two identical subject wordings (although there are some partial matches, such as V5/V7 and C8/C9). This is remarkable since subject lines are adopted by default in most email programs when an email is forwarded. Apparently, users who forward the messages have a strong urge to make changes to their textual material, and the subject line provides a very easy point of entry for such interactions. This tendency for interaction with the text is taken up in the analysis of message archaeologies in Section 4.2. Finally, the



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

‘Netscape AOL Merger’ (ID: 109)

‘Budweiser Frogs’ (ID: 98)

Table 8.  Real-life variation in subject lines in three items from the corpus. V1

Subject: Budweiser screen saver - beware!!

V2 V3

Fwd: FW: Attention to this

V4

Virus alert - I got this and I wonder if it is true...

V5

# Subject: URGENT: VIRUS WARNING!!!!!!!!!

V6

Subject: VIRUS ALERT!!!

V7

[TMIC] Fw: [providersplayground] Fw: Virus Warning

V8

Subject:

V9

Subject: (fractint) virus

V10

# Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: Virus Watch]

G1

[htdig] Fw: [festival] (Fwd) FWD: Fwd: (Fwd) Try this to see what happens

G2

[TMIC] Check this out!!

G3

virus: Re: Fw: [Money, Money, Money] An echain letter I received

G4

Subject: Fw: forward thing but you get money

G5

Subject:

G6

[Fwd: Fwd: FW: This aint no joke and is profitable]

G7

Fwd: Fwd: Fw: FW: money

G8

Fw: How to earn extra money on your off hours Fw: Jason Bromley [email protected]: Fw: Netscape/AOL Merger Subject: Just passin’ it on

G9

‘Rachel Arlington’ (ID: 58)

G10 C1

Subject:

virus

Computer Virus

: Virus

Off Topic

-Reply -Forwarded –Forwarded

FW: (Fwd) FW: Need Money?

[smee] Fwd: FW: TO MY CHILD (aol is tracking thisDO NOT DELETE READ THISPLEASE](fwd)

C2

Please keep this going

C3

PLEASE READ THISIT IS IMPORTANT TO ME

C4

Help this little girl live

C5

Subject: To My Child (Please, Don’t Delete (It’s being tracked), I had to send this on after reading it..... [Mayapada Prana] [Fwd: [gejolak_muda] Fwd: [milis hanyawanita.com] Fw: [secretary] Fwd: FW: Please forward]

C6 C7

Re: Fwd: Please help the child!

C8

Subject: Leukaemia - Please read then forward

C9

Subject: Fw: Leukaemia

C10

Subject: FW: To my child (don’t delete ~ its being tracked)

55

56

Email Hoaxes

Table 9.  Types of reference in the sample of subject lines. EH type virus hoax giveaway hoax charity hoax

content-based reference

metadiscursive reference

10  7  7

4 6 9

high amount of technically inserted material is conspicuous. The long chains of ‘forward’ tags are reminiscent of the quote tags described above; in this sample, G1 holds the record with a chain of 5 “fw” tags. Additionally, six subject lines contain acronym tags. Such tags are usually automatically inserted by mailing list servers to highlight the message’s affiliation with the list; they tend to be abbreviations in squared brackets, such as “[htdig]”. While this is not surprising as these real-life data are predominantly taken from mailing lists, both G1 and V7 have two of these tags within one header – evidence for a text’s cross-dissemination from one mailing list to another.

3.2.2 Message body: Embedded structure As the word count analysis has shown, message length varies considerably; as a consequence, it is problematic to ascribe one clear-cut type of structure to the message body of EHs. Yet certain generalizations can be made. Very often, EH messages consist of two more or less distinct structural entities termed core message and framework message in the following discussion. The core message is the essential text as it is presumably devised by the originator of an EH; it contains the hoax’s storyline and deceptive scope. Accordingly, the representational data in the corpus are core message texts; the average word count of 221 put forward in Section 3.1.2 is based on core messages. Yet in the course of the serial communication process so central to EH transmission, an additional text structure tends to accumulate around this primary text, namely the framework message. Such text is added by individual users in the forwarding process. It is therefore not surprising that this text structure is much more susceptible to change, and that real-life data show much more variation in the framework message than in the core narrative. The framework message may easily be edited, deleted, or expanded in every forwarding step. It can also occur that a portion of the framework message eventually becomes associated with the core narrative. These mechanisms of textual archaeology are explored in detail in Section 4. In the following, some basic properties of this message-in-a-message construct are given. The following examples of framework messages are based on the Mydek subcorpus described above.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Framework message: Openings While not per se a necessary element of EHs, an opening element of some sort occurs very frequently in front of the core message. This can be as minimal as a brief greeting that precedes the text, as in this real-life example: Example 19.  A very brief framework message opening to the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH (ID: 119.) Source: http://tinyurl.com/2fuzsj. >Hi ! Everybody, > >LITTLE JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN (…)

However, most framework message openings are considerably longer: another instance of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH cited above contains an introductory framework message of 5667 words (see below). At least three typical elements can be identified that account for such textual extension: address clusters, greetings, and user comments. Address clusters. When an email is forwarded or quoted, most email programs insert the header information of the original message at the top of the text body. In the course of the dissemination of a hoax, this step is repeated again and again, so that a substantial amount of extraneous information can accumulate. While this also includes technical information (such as the name of the mail server, virus check status, etc.), it is the lists of addressees which tend to take up the most space. It is here that the proliferative power of EHs becomes truly visible; in terms of message structure, this aspect of forwarding creates the typical ‘address clusters’ that introduce EHs. It would take up several pages to render a particularly impressive example of such clustering; here is just a brief excerpt from one such case. The full opening part of this item encompasses 5667 words; with 348 words, the example shown here makes up just 6% of the upper framework message. Example 20.  A short excerpt from an EH address cluster. Source: http://tinyurl.com/2flevt. > IMPORTANT...........PLEASE HELP FULFILL THIS LITTLE GIRLS WISH!!!!!!!! > > ----------------> > Forwarded Message: > > Subj: Fwd: This is for a brave little girl...ITS NOT NIRVANA OR A CHAIN > > LETTER!!! d... > > Date: 97-06-02 17:30:33 EDT > > From: Grunggyrl > > To: ALIENSON, HappyJelly, MK Outkast, CyberHOG 3 > > To: OtherOtter, NIRVANA J2, NIRVANA324, MChornesky

57

58

Email Hoaxes

> > To: MAnSoNbOy9, [email protected], A QBailey > > To: D7 Bleach, Pabano, Alien310, SilverTK33 > > > > ----------------> > Forwarded Message: > > Subj: This is for a brave little girl...ITS NOT NIRVANA OR A CHAIN > LETTER!!! > > dont del. > > Date: 97-06-02 14:01:32 EDT > > From: Nirvanart3 > > To: Nirvana86, Kurtgirl97, SappyD7, Cobain666K > > To: JBommer814, VvKURTCvV, SummrNkanE, Ilene24 > > To: Vedder77, Jessban, Lemon 19, TommyAndy, Coke OO7 > > To: Roach69, Ddpanthers, KCobain954, Girlly15 > > To: Kurt620, Imodium99, Ascetical, Nirvana949 > > To: NOCLUE8861, TWIGGY3146, NrvanaFan, XNIRVANAX > > To: Crisi01, NRvNaPunK, Carot12345, Anny67 > > To: KurtAlways, Grunggyrl, HUGGERS, Nirvan5530, Coeyy > > To: Prin14cess, Nirvana li, Boddah6794, Evil 1313 > > To: WahooLouie, X 4 skier, SuicideFrk, SLVRCHRNIR > > To: Kurt 9812, PenceSux, Drmrbm, Sliver6982 > > To: TrcyBonham, Nrv64, KurtC4evr, Ks10sne1 > > To: NrvanaFrek, Krt4evr, DDallas751, ReApEr6954 > > To: Jabuk12, Sk8er00411, JanL21, YACK1111, ELIANRI > > To: Cat at 9, ObiWan2129, CobainBeck, Kpk156 > > To: Studog123, CobainMM, Nirvan6543, Unknown530 > > To: Mort chat, Reaper2468, Byebye6677, Grl44 > > To: ArchDeluxe, NIRVANAIII, Cobain1043, Super P260 > > To: NegativeCr, Juliet5014, XBaSsGuRLX, Mogulmouse > > To: Mtbiker627, FireGrl69, Ztinkerbel, Manson6933 > > To: CruZer83, CYBR PEEP2, Downer D7, RaPeBoX > > To: Pumpk58462, DAL121, DaScrrooge, ScrubBuddy > > To: Pumpkbugg, Brown Kity, Mike 1675, NIRVANA588 > > To: Alien14007, Muffinmn41, Lithium320, PMcwill979 > > To: FreekShow, KURTGRL, Cobained, NIRVANAISM > > To: Zodiac925, CANASK, FENDER98, Mbdrum2000 > > To: Punkster27, HELLMINDER, NCREEP69, Farmerkurt > > To: Cancermn99, Phryzz, Nirvanawe, GrydRydr > > To: Zen1234489, Pith12, CobainRulz, Probie271 > > To: Neervanahh, Hammett700, Mitch42306, AJ4523 (…)

It is clear that such accumulations can easily be deleted manually, and many participants in the communication chain certainly do so; here is a metadiscursive statement from one item regarding the issue:



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Example 21.  A metadiscursive utterance that topicalizes the issue of address clusters. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yty8gp. (…) > PS FROM RCHELMINSK: > AFTER i GOT THIS LETTER, i HAD TO SEVERLY CUT IT DOWN BECAUSE THERE WERE SO > MANY NAMES ON IT!!!!!!!! DON’T BE A FOOL, THIS GIRL NEEDS U!!!!!!! (…)

If certain users choose not to delete these insertions, this may have psychological reasons. The sight of such a cluster of names may greatly increase a sense of participation. Letting the address clusters stand as an integral element of the message may thus both act as a justification of the own sending process, and as a covert persuasive tactics aimed at the addressees as potential future forwarders. Whatever the precise rationale behind not deleting such massive accumulations, it must be felt very strongly, as this structural element may seriously inhibit the readability of the core narratives. Greetings. In traditional message discourse (letters etc.), greeting formulas are so much a sine qua non element of opening sequences that the terms ‘greeting’ and ‘opening’ are used more or less interchangeably. In email communication, the need for an opening address appears to be less mandatory. Thus in the email study by Gains (1999), 37% of the academic emails and 92% of the commercial emails contained no opening (Gains 1999: 85, 91). In the framework messages of EHs, the maximum expectancy would be one greeting sequence for every address cluster (that is, one greeting per forwarding step). However, the actual occurrence of greetings in framework messages appears to be strikingly lower. In the ‘Jessica Mydek’ subcorpus of real-life data, the 30 messages contained a mere 8 overt greeting formulas in their framework messages. In the analysis, greeting formulas were relatively narrowly defined as sequences at the beginning of the texts containing a greeting word (such as ‘hey’ or ‘hello’), or a vocative (such as ‘everybody’), or both. Table 10 gives a list of the greeting formulas that occurred. It is remarkable that the standard greeting formulas one might expect in such openings (such as ‘dear friends’) do hardly occur. In this small sample, examples 1 and 4 are arguably the most common formulas (although example 1 is slightly deviant in terms of its unusual punctuation); the basic “hey” of example 6 is rather . The striking difference in these ratios would have to be discussed. Gains suggests that the high amount of opener omission in the commercial set may be due to “a convention for use” of the particular mailing system (Gains 1999: 85). However, the two shaping factors on which he speculates, namely “the very clear heading format” and “the large proportion of messages for multiple distribution” (ibid.) are debatable.

59

60 Email Hoaxes

Table 10.  Greeting formulas from the framework messages of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ subcorpus. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

>Hi ! Everybody, >>>>>> > > >> To all, To all : Hey Everybody! Ok folks, > hey > > Here yall > > u guys

uncommon as a greeting in written discourse and is probably used here as an orality marker. The other examples have an instruction-giving quality to them – this is particularly the case for the memo-style “to all” in 1 and 2, and to the elements “ok” and “here” in 5 and 7. The precise linguistic nature of these vocatives will be analyzed in the section on deictics. While this sample is not representational, it can be summarized: greeting formulas can and do occur interstitially between address clusters; however, they are by no means found to be necessary. Instead, where they do occur, there seems to be a slight functional shift from the usual conative/appellative purpose of greetings to a more action-based stance. It may be the case that users do not feel the need fore more conventionalized politeness gestures because the core narrative, being the message proper of an email hoax, takes over this function. That the wording of the greetings has a certain tendency toward the instructional may be due to the fact that such greetings as occur are closely intertwined with a third element of opening sequences, namely user comments. User comments. The next element that can logically follow after greeting formulas is an actual utterance by the forwarding user – the body of the framework message. In comparison to greeting elements, user comments are surprisingly frequent: the subcorpus in question contains 52 individual items (versus only 8 greeting sequences). The messages vary somewhat in length. Some contain only two to three words (the shortest being “why not?”), the three longest texts range around 70 words. However, the large majority of the items are elements consisting of one or two phrases or sentences and thus are relatively short. The term ‘comments’ has been chosen here due to the relative shortness of the items. Interestingly, certain tendencies can be distinguished with regard to message content. Three basic types of user comment appear to be recurrent: explanations about the message in question; directives; and apologies and justifications. Table 11 gives examples for each type of message content. As can be seen, there is a certain overlap between these categories; it is therefore problematic to give quantities for their occurrence. In terms of function,



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

the high presence of directives and explanations indicates that EHs are a very ‘speech-acty’ discourse type. The use of speech acts is discussed in later sections. Even more striking is the frequent use of apologies and justifications. The strong presence of such face-saving strategies indicates that users anticipate that their message may be problematic to some of its receivers (a feeling that is nevertheless overridden by the urge to disseminate the message). However, the mailing list origin of the real-life data under scrutiny here may have some influence on the substantial occurrence of these items: many mailing lists have more or less rigid topic restrictions, others have a general ‘no-spam’ policy (where spam takes on the global meaning of ‘generally extraneous, proliferative material’). To some extent, the face-saving utterances may therefore be due to the awareness that mode-specific conventions are being violated. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that such elements also occur in more standard mailbox-to-mailbox transmission of EHs. Framework message: closings Some kind of ‘signing off ’ is the final logical element in a typical interpersonal message: closings can consist of an established greeting, a bare name, or even more unconventional turn-taking signals. Interestingly, closing formulas in the framework message tend to be located not at the physical end of the email, i.e. below the core message, but next to the individual users’ openings and comments. In other words, user messages, if they occur in the framework message, form a structural unity. However, the Mydek subcorpus suggests that closing formulas, just as greetings, are considered optional. The Mydek subcorpus, with its 30 real-life items, contains approximately 220 framework messages. Of these, the large majority of user messages consist of a bare comment; only 12 closings, displayed in Table 12, occur. It is evident that elaborate closing formulas are the exception rather than the rule. 7 items contain some variation of ‘thank you’; 10 contain a name (or, as in 2, an acronym, or, as in 9, a corporate signature). Examples 1 and 2 contain religious references as they have become common in North American greeting formulas. The eccentric formula and elaborate identification in example 4 are probably references to the specifics of the particular mailing list (e.g. a role-play theme). Again, it can be summarized: closing formulas can and do occur in framework messages, however, they are perceived as optional and tend to be curt rather than elaborate. While closing formulas tend to be located above the core narrative, it is another automatically inserted element that often forms the physical end of an EH and thus justifies the ‘framework’ metaphor, namely the footer information. As with address clusters at the top, this technical feature can lead to a certain footer clustering at the bottom of messages. The Mydek subcorpus contains 37 such elements. They can be broadly divided into three types: advertisements, addresses, and mottos. Advertisements are usually inserted by the popular free email

61

Email Hoaxes

directives

explanations

Table 11.  User comments from the Mydek subcorpus. >>>>>> > > >> Scroll down to bottom, you just have to read it. >From one of my other motorcycle lists... >>>Reading and passing this on benefits the American Cancer Society. > > Keep scrolling > > this is for a small little girl with cancer. she is suffering. please > scroll > > to the bottom. take the box and move to the very bottom. :) >>>Please pass this on! Please continue this chain letter. This is for a brave little girl. Thanks. > > Read this guys > > I HOPE YOU WILL SEND THIS ALONG > > THANKS > > Here yall are have a heart and send it out.I did and I’m usually a cold > > hearted bast!!!!!!!! >>>Sorry guys and gals...Had to do it.

My friend died from cancer 2 weeks

>>ago.

apologies/justifications

62

>>> >>>ALWAYS REMEMBERING VINNIE!!!!! I hate chain letters..... I don’t do chain letters..... however.....I believe this is a good cause. If not, the only thing wasted is a moment. > > My dad had cancer... > > Sorry about sending this to all of you, but i want to help and save a > life >>>>>> > > >> > >Sorry for the inconvenience. But i just have to.

­ rograms – a form of “viral marketing” (Boase and Wellman: 2001: 50). More p rarely, similar tags are inserted by mailing list programs as in example 22. Ads make up 14 of the 37 footer elements in the subcorpus. Example 22.  Footer information inserted by a mailing list program, taken from the Mydek subcorpus. The VF/VFR mailing list--see http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr-list/ for subscribe/unsubscribe, policy and archive information.

Address information is the most typical element of a user signature to be automatically attached to the bottom of an email. In forwarded email, such signatures often cluster together. The subcorpus contains 14 address signatures, with one cluster of 3 directly adjacent items. The role of names in EHs is explored in detail in Section 3. Finally, personal signatures may contain mottos or other personal statements. This may include quotes, ‘inspirational’ sayings, or ASCII art. Sometimes, their references may be rather obscure; in close-knit communities, such mottos appear



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Table 12.  Closings from the Mydek subcorpus. 1 2

>>>>>> > > >> Thanks and God Bless, >>>>>> > > >> Bob >>>>>> > Thanks >>>>>> > > and may >>>>>> > > >> the Lord bless your hearts.

3 4

>>>>>> > > >> DZFE >Thanks. >matt i salute you as free people glen ehrec mcmahon druid of the outer circle shire of darkwood creek

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

m.k.a. Andrew lockwood Thanks. >>Patrick >>>Val Lipow Thanks for your time, Amy M Thanks Lemoore Computers and Internet services. > > Love ya > > BRYAN Thank you! Michaela

to take on almost avatar-like functions. Example 23 displays one relatively conventional motto, and one more obscure reference, both found in the subcorpus. Example 23.  Two typical signature mottos, taken from the Mydek subcorpus. > > >> > Do more than exist - LIVE > > >> >

Do more than touch - FEEL

> > >> >

Do more than look

- SEE

> > >> >

Do more than hear

- LISTEN

> > >> >

Do more than talk

- SAY SOMETHING

------------------------------------------------------------Do not meddle in the affairs of the SWAT Kats, .

for they well armed and destined to win.

Do not meddle in the affairs of our Commander, .

for he has a blaster and knows how to use it.

The upper is a popular ‘inspirational’ quote on the Internet, sometimes attributed to John H. Rhoades. The lower is a double allusion to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and a 1990s manga (bridging two popular online topics). In total, the Mydek subcorpus contains nine such elements.

63

64 Email Hoaxes

Core message Inserted between these framework elements is the core message, the actual textual matter of EHs. According to the message-in-a-message principle, core messages are expected to be macrostructurally similar to any other interpersonal message: opening – message body – closing. Openings and closings. A tendency that was already discernible in the framework messages is also present in the core messages: openings and closings are merely optional text elements. Of the 147 representational items in the corpus, only a third (44) contain a greeting formula; with 59 occurrences, closings are more frequent than openings but still occur in less than half of the messages (40.1%). By far the most frequent opening formula is a simple “Hi” with 13 occurrences; there follow “Hello” and “Dear friends” with 5 occurrences each. “Dear all” occurs three times, “Dear reader” twice. The remaining 16 openings are single occurrences. As for closings, the majority (44) of the greeting formulas found in the corpus involves the proper name of a person or an institution: in a few cases, they consist of the name alone; more typically, the names are embedded in a traditional formula with a greeting followed by the name or signature. Particularly in giveaway EHs, closings tend to imitate the elaborate closing signatures of business letters as in the following example: Example 24.  Closing formula found in the ‘Honda’ giveaway EH (ID: 116). (…) I thank you for your time and business. Sincerely, Kageyama Hironobu Senior Honda Marketing Advisor

Of the closings not containing names, the majority (10) consists of thanking formulas, ranging from a simple “thanx” to more elaborate forms such as “Thank you for your kindness, hopefully you can help us”. The remaining items are singular occurrences; as in the closings of framework messages analyzed above, religious formulas such as “God bless” can be seen here. The syntactic shape of openings and closings, in particular pronominal choice and the use of singular vs. plural forms, has already been touched upon in the analysis of address forms. Interestingly, a distinctive distribution can be made out between the five content-based types (see Table 13). Clearly, openings and closings occur preferentially in giveaway and especially charity EHs. In part, this may be due to a factor that was seen earlier with regard to subject lines: charity EHs (and, to a certain degree, giveaway EHs) have a more emotional, interpersonal quality to them. By contrast, virus EHs are perceived as more information-oriented. More importantly, this tendency is linked to a



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Table 13.  Distribution of openings and closings in the representational corpus.

openings: yes no closings: yes no

virus

giveaway

charity

urban legend hoaxed hoax total

 6 40

17 23

18 34

 3 10

0 6

  44 103

10 36

19 21

26 16

 3 10

1 5

  59   88

­ arrative feature that is analyzed more closely in Section 6.2.4: EHs often incorn porate a narrative persona, and particularly in the case of giveaway and charity EHs, this can amount to a built-in level of fictionality. Quite clearly, the perceived overtness of such a ‘narrator’ is greatly enhanced through the presence of distinct greeting formulas. In this sense, the preponderance for such politeness features in giveaway and charity EHs is not at all surprising. Message body. It appears appealing to give a clear-cut model for the structure of message bodies in EHs. This has been done successfully for other discourse phenomena: in the tradition of Swales (1990), Barron (2006) develops a ‘move structure’ analysis for spam “to describe the schematic structure through which a particular communicative purpose is realised” (Barron 2006: 882). Blommaert (2005: 9–18) does a similar structural analysis for Nigeria mails, based on the perception that there is “striking generic uniformity” (Blommaert 2005: 9) in his corpus. However, the same cannot be said of the EH corpus discussed here: the individual items are too heterogeneous to be captured by one generic move schema. The sheer variation in length forbids such an approach; also, it is to be expected that the different content-based types show differences in move structure. This is supported by the fact that Barron’s analysis is restricted to one highly specified subtype of spam, namely on emails from medical suppliers; and Blommaert distinguishes four Nigeria subtypes, two of which he analyzes as having distinct discourse patterns. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to capture the typical schema of EHs. In particular, the authors of the CIAC hoax archive suggest a three-step move structure: hook ↓ threat ↓ request

65

66 Email Hoaxes

The three moves are described as follows: First, there is a hook, to catch your interest and get you to read the rest of the letter. Hooks used to be “Make Money Fast” or “Get Rich” or similar statements related to making money for little or no work. Electronic chain letters also use the “free money” type of hooks, but have added hooks like “Danger!” and “Virus Alert” or “A Little Girl Is Dying”. These tie into our fear for the survival of our computers or into our sympathy for some poor unfortunate person. When you are hooked, you read on to the threat. Most threats used to warn you about the terrible things that will happen if you do not maintain the chain. However, others play on greed or sympathy to get you to pass the letter on. The threat often contains official or technical sounding language to get you to believe it is real. Finally, the request. Some older chain letters ask you to mail a dollar to the top ten names on the letter and then pass it on. The electronic ones simply admonish you to “Distribute this letter to as many people as possible.” They never mention clogging the Internet or the fact that the message is a fake, they only want you to pass it on to others. (http://tinyurl.com/222bov)

While it may be doubted that this move structure would stand up against an indepth analysis, there is no question that these elements do play an important role in EHs. To capture them in more established linguistic terms, it may be helpful to channel these three concepts into two central notions from discourse analysis, namely narrative and speech acts. As both aspects will be treated in individual sections later, here is only a brief description of their value as structural features. Narrative. Both the suggested moves ‘hook’ and ‘threat’ refer to the sensationalist quality that is usually inherent to EHs. To stand out in a users’ mailbox and compete with the innumerable informational offers of the Internet, an EH must have a ‘point’; it must be eminently tellable. The most fundamental sociocognitive mechanism in human interaction to capture and relate such tellable experience is narrative. It is therefore no surprise that many EHs are constructed as narratives or at least contain sizable narrative chunks in their core message. Regarding the structure of narrative, the schema that Labov (1972) introduced for oral narratives of personal experience has found broad acceptance and may well be adapted for other types of narration (in this case, written narrative of others’ experience in EHs). According to Labov (1972: 363), a “fully-formed” narrative typically has the following move structure:

. The ‘hook’ function in the CIAC model seems particularly geared toward the subject lines of EHs. However, the above analysis of subject lines has shown that they are not at all restricted to such topic references, but instead frequently have a metadiscursive notion. It therefore seems reasonable to see ‘hooking’ the reader as a more general textual quality.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

abstract ↓ orientation ↓ complicating action ↓ evaluation ↓ result or resolution ↓ coda

It can be assumed that this structure is present in the narratives of EHs as well. A full-fledged analysis is given in Section 6. From a structural perspective, it is worth noting here that narratives are not necessarily located at the beginning of a core message. While they may occur in an initial position, they can also be placed at the end of the text structure (e.g., this is often the case with fictional users’ experiences that are sometimes given); alternatively, the whole text may be structured as one integral narrative. In summary, narrative is a typical structural feature of EHs that is particularly apt for the ‘hook’ and ‘threat’ functions mentioned above. If it occurs, it is likely to follow a well-established pattern that is a structural constant of narrativity in general. Speech acts. The two suggested moves ‘threat’ and ‘request’ further refer to a second fundamental aspect of interpersonal discourse, namely direct speech acts. Quite clearly, the descriptions ‘threat’ and ‘request’ are chosen with regard to the directives that are perceived to be so typical of EHs. A more in-depth analysis below will show that other speech act types, while less frequent, also play an important role in the textual architecture. As to the structural positioning of speech acts, the CIAC model seems to suggest that ‘threats’ and particularly ‘requests’ are likely to be located at the end of the core message. While it is certainly not wrong to assume that many EHs finish with a speech act, their location is by no means restricted to this final location. To the contrary, speech acts can be positioned at nearly any point in the core message. Indeed, Table 8 above shows that speech acts occur in a substantial 13 of the 30 subject lines analyzed. As has already been pointed out above, speech acts also figure in the framework message.

3.2.3 Additional material Occasionally, an EH is accompanied by non-textual material. This typically concerns pictures which are embedded via attachments. In the corpus, 11 items are

67

68 Email Hoaxes

accompanied by a picture. Strikingly, 10 of them are charity emails – the overriding strategy here seems to be the exploitation of the emotional appeal of children’s pictures. The only other case occurs in a giveaway hoax, where the supposed reward for forwarding the message, in this case a Sony PSP console, is depicted (the ‘Sony PSP’ giveaway EH, ID: 133). The other form of added material in the corpus is in a textual form. In most of the cases, the external material consist of addresses and URLs, but some real forms of ‘intertextuality’ can be observed: thus one item contains a jocular list of new Barbie doll models; three contain poems; and one contains a cookie recipe (the ‘Neiman Marcus’ urban legend, ID: 47). Finally, another strategy of adding nontextual material which is not present in the corpus but has been reported on anti-hoax websites is the attachment of PowerPoint presentations. This format allows for a tight interweaving of textual and visual elements, and its sequential structure bears obvious parallels to the sequential structuring of narrative. Since these occurrences are marginal in number, they will not be considered in the further analysis. As has been seen with other aspects such as HTML versus ASCII email format, anything that possibly inhibits easy proliferation – and nontextual attachments certainly count as such a factor – has small chances of success at becoming a typical feature of EHs. The structural analysis of EHs can be summarized as follows. Basically, EHs display an embedded message-in-a-message structure consisting of a framework and a core text. The framework message is more predictable in terms of its structure, due to its dependency on technical factors. However, the core message (more precisely: its body) is the only necessary and sufficient structural element of an EH; all other elements are optional and non-sufficient. An encompassing schema of EHs is given in Figure 4.

3.3

Summary

This chapter has aimed to provide an extensive assessment of formal characteristics that are recurrent in EHs. Many of the aspects initially described here are given a more detailed analysis in later sections. Thus the notions of irony and speech-actiness are treated in a more holistic view in the discussion of pragmatics (Section 5); names and geographical denominations as well as issues of deictic anchoring are taken up in the narrative analysis in Section 6; matters of typography, message length and textual change are closely analyzed in the following Chapter 4. What should have become clear from this initial assessment is that virtually every formal aspect of email hoaxing has more or less definable ­functional ­motivations.



Chapter 3.  Formal aspects of EHs

Figure 4.  A structural outline of EHs. This schema includes all possible elements of an EH; the only necessary element is the message body depicted within the core message.

Most salient features found in the core messages have a strong persuasive quality that fosters message reliability. Most features that are added through framework messages in the process of forwarding are of an interactional nature which encourages message dissemination. Maybe the most important result of this analysis is indeed the striking duality between core and framework message that was described in the structural analysis in Section 3.2: the organization of EHs into a core text and a surrounding textual environment is a central property of the discourse phenomenon. This dual structure strongly informs the analyses carried out in the following chapters.

69

chapter 4

The dynamics of EH transmission Chronological aspects

It is widely accepted that the linguistic shape of discourse will usually be influenced by the technical aspects of its production and transmission. In particular, this is one of the central tenets of CMC research. The analysis of vocatives in Section 3, amongst other factors, has shown this link to be present in EHs as a discourse phenomenon. However, it appears that the connection between the discourse itself and its mediation is quite more far-reaching in EHs than in other discourse types. Proliferation, one of the central criteria described in the prima facie analysis in Section 2, depends essentially on a dynamic system of message transmission. Email hoaxing therefore is anything but one-time, monolithic communication – it has a built-in chronological factor that few other discourse types seem to rely on to this degree. This section outlines the mechanics of this timedependent discourse phenomenon and some of its linguistic consequences. The first part analyzes the dynamics of EHs as a communication system. It identifies the various stages in the life cycle of an EH as a whole; it then goes on to take a closer look at the microstructure of the chain of communication that is so typical of EHs. The second part is concerned with message archaeology: it demonstrates how this dynamic conception has an impact on the textual material proper of EHs. It analyzes variation in the form and structure of particular messages, and discusses possible functional aspects of this kind of textual change.

4.1

Transmission patterns: The life cycle of EHs

4.1.1 Biological metaphors in discourse studies As can be expected, the transmission patterns of discourse phenomena form an intricate and complex field of study. This is particularly true for cases such as EHs which are marked by an integral element of variation and change. To give a principled, empirical account of communicant behavior and the ensuing communication patterns goes beyond the scope of this study; this is a task for psychology and sociology. In the absence of such empirical studies, it is nevertheless possible

72

Email Hoaxes

to make generalizations about communication pathways in EHs – to model the general life cycle of this discourse phenomenon. The concept of the ‘life cycle’ of an EH is borrowed from biological terminology. At times, terms and ideas from the life sciences appear to be irresistible for the humanities. For poststructuralism, this tendency was famously exposed in the polemic by Sokal and Bricmont (1998). In communication studies, it seems that models from biology and ecology are particularly prone to adaptation: ecoand sociobiological metaphors and analogies abound. Most famous in this field is probably the memetics approach as introduced by Dawkins (1976): this endeavor to map principles of genetics to the cultural domain has unsurprisingly been applied to EHs (Chattoe 1998). Boase and Wellman (2001), arguing from a social networks perspective, explore the ‘virus’ metaphor by explicitly asking: “Are there similarities between biological viruses, computer viruses and viral marketing other than the common term in their names?” (Boase and Wellman 2001: 39). In their study on the related field of rumor, Rosnow and Fine (1976) note that many earlier accounts of rumormongering rely on concepts such as “incubation, propagation, metastasis (…) and germs” (Rosnow and Fine 1976: 22). Consequently, Rosnow and Fine draw on such accounts to develop their own model of the “life and death of a rumor”: “From these case studies on the evolution and devolution of rumor, three general stages emerge: birth, adventures, and death” (Rosnow and Fine 1976: 21f.) The life cycle proposed here for EHs is inspired by chronological approaches such as Rosnow and Fine’s. However, it should be emphasized that the biological imagery is strictly used in a metaphorical sense here. This is not always the case in comparable approaches as cited above: many ‘memologists’ are quick to postulate links between the genetic and the cultural spheres that go far beyond a relation of analogy. The aberrations made by some poststructuralists – and criticized by Sokal and Bricmont (1998) – should act as a deterrent to overly bold claims in this field. Biological models and methods may well prove to be adequate tools for studies in the humanities, but the mere attractiveness of a catchy metaphor is not sufficient evidence thereof. With this caveat in place, a tripartite model, as used by Rosnow and Fine, suggests itself for the transmission pattern of EHs. The first and most straightforward stage is called genesis in the present account (Rosnow and Fine’s “birth”). The second phase, which Rosnow and Fine quaintly call “adventures”, is described here as “circulation”. In chronological terms, this stage is by far the most elongated in the life cycle of an EH; it is therefore given close attention in Section 4.2. The final segment is less clear-cut. Rosnow and Fine unambiguously speak of the “death” of a rumor as its final stage, despite acknowledging that “some rumors never die, but become part of the established popular belief structure” (1976: 42). This third



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

section, tentatively called “stasis” here, will discuss whether EHs can be assigned a definite end point, and what the alternatives are.

4.1.2 The genesis of EHs At a first glance, the genesis of an EH may be perceived as somewhat paradoxical. In many popular discussions, EHs are seen as the flotsam and jetsam of the Internet – they are perceived as just being ‘there’, and their origin is hardly ever taken into account. In such a view, EHs figure as a relatively stable element that is passed along in cultural memory and has no definable starting point. It is important to stress that this conception is imprecise from a communication-theoretical point of view. As medially written messages with an at least basically stable textual core, EHs necessarily must have been created at a specific point in time, by a specific originator, or sender s1. This basic assumption is vital for an accurate communicative model of email hoaxing. No precise information exists to date concerning the identity and psychology of EH originators. Again, this is a field where studies in sociology and psychology are needed. However, it seems likely that parallels in motivation and identity exist between EH originators and hackers (in the specific sense of originators of computer viruses). The hacker subculture is well-studied, particularly from a psychological perspective (see e.g. Taylor 1999; Voiskounsky and Smyslova 2003; Turgeman-Goldschmidt 2005). Of particular interest here are potential motivations for engaging in hacking activities. Taylor (1999) gives a list of six motivational factors, among them urge of curiosity, enjoyment of feelings of power, and peer recognition. Voiskounsky and Smyslova (2003) focus on the psychological paradigm of ‘flow’. Turgeman-Goldschmidt (2005) discusses hacking in terms of ‘social entertainment’ and emphasizes its aspects like “fun, thrill and excitement” and “curiosity for its own sake” (Turgeman-Goldschmidt 2005: 12f.) In short, the major psychological factor here seems to be a sense of achievement, the feeling that ‘it can be done’, or, in the words of one survey participant, of being able to “screw the system” (in Turgeman-Goldschmidt 2005: 21). It can be hypothesized that similar psychological factors are valid for the originators of EHs. Designing a successful EH message that makes its way around the Internet – and is possibly even ennobled by its admission to an anti-hoax site – may certainly generate a sense of achievement. It is hard to see other potential motivations: as analyzed in Section 2, textuality (as the absence of any material or physical consequences) is a main characteristic of EHs. Of course, the conceptual differences between creating a virus and an EH are considerable: whereas a hacker is essentially defined by his or her computing skills, the creation of an EH depends largely on rhetorical

73

74

Email Hoaxes

skills. Besides, hackers are known to be organized in more or less tight-knit communities, which greatly enhances the recognition factor. EH creators, for all that is known, lack such a subculture or scene. Due to these two factors – the textual nature of EHs and the lack of a direct peer group – the gratification effect would appear to be much less direct for EHs than for viruses. It is for this reason that EHs may be perceived to be gratuitous: they appear to yield no direct payoff, not even for their originator. This is also in stark contrast to other related phenomena whose originators do have clear and comprehensible motivations. Thus most traditional studies of rumor (Rosnow and Fine 1976; Shibutani 1966; Allport and Postman 1965, 1946) are largely concerned with wartime and political rumors – in other words, with propaganda designed to influence a broad public. Similarly, many studies dealing with pre-digital hoaxes analyze newspaper canards which are intended to heighten sales figures (Fedler 1989; MacDougall 1958). In this sense, the motivation of EHs may appear comparatively vague; still, the occasionally occurring irony markers as discussed in Section 3 are a good indicator for the stance of their original senders. While the overall motivation of EH originators can be assumed to function in this general way, it is harder to analyze how the creation of individual EHs at specific points in time is prompted. A small number of EHs are linked, through their content or timing, to an identifiable event or reference. For example, the first appearance of the ‘Olympic Torch’ virus EH (ID: 17) coincided with the 2006 Olympic Games in Turin. As mentioned in the introduction, two dates that acted as catalysts for the appearance of EHs were the approach of the new millennium (referenced e.g. in the ‘M&Ms’ giveaway EH (ID: 115) and the events of 9/11 (referenced e.g. in the ‘WTC survivor’ virus EH (ID: 28) and the ‘Long Island Malls’ urban legend (ID: 146)). Occasionally, EHs contain references to a specific point in time that might act as a natural expiry date. Thus the ‘sulfnbkJune’ variant of the ‘sulfnbk’ virus EH (ID: 19) contains the following statement: “Virus software can not detect it. It will not become active until June 1, 2001, at that point it will become active and will be too late”. Since this dating obviously interferes with the message’s proliferation potential, it is not surprising that another version exists (ID: 20) where the date reference is omitted. Quite generally, as can be expected, the huge majority of EHs are general enough in content and referencing to be sufficiently robust over a long period of time. The typology introduced in Section 2 gives a good indication about why and how most EH messages are created. Apparently, a ‘genre norm’ has evolved with remarkable speed, so that EH writers intuitively gear their texts toward one of the categories – virus, giveaway, etc. Thus a sizeable proportion of EHs are not genuinely new but strongly inspired by the existing texts within the respective category. Going even beyond



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

this ­ conceptual similarity, certain EHs are only textual variants of a precursor hoax: that is the case if a significant text proportion is identical between two (and sometimes many more) EHs. The mechanisms behind such textual variants are analyzed more closely in the section on message archaeology. Finally, there is a small range of EHs with a known originator. This is the case for some hoaxed EHs: for example, the ‘GoodTimes Spoof ’ hoaxed hoax (ID: 91) is, according to http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBMalCode.shtml#goodspoof, at least suspected to have been written by Patrick J. Rothfuss. The author of the ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH (ID: 105) was identified through careful investigation; the case is discussed in Section 4.2.4. Known authorship also concerns those borderline cases where a once genuine message has been distorted into an EH. Finally, the ‘Irina’ virus EH (ID: 88) is the only known EH that evolved out of an overly naïve publicity endeavor. According to the Daily Telegraph homepage (http://tinyurl.com/y98mwg), “Guy Gadney, the former head of electronic publishing at Penguin, sent out a bogus letter to newspapers and television stations claiming to be from Prof Edward Prideaux at the College of Slavonic Studies in London. (…) Mr Gadney said: ‘We had hoped that [the bogus letter] would be caught by a second letter to explain that the hoax letter was a teaser campaign for an interactive book. It is very unfortunate that we have created a scare – it was not our intention.’” In sum, such cases of known authorship are highly exceptional. The vast majority of EHs can be assumed to be created with full intention by originators who remain anonymous and are motivated by a sense of self-affirmation or achievement.

4.1.3 EHs in circulation Once an EH has been designed by its originator, it needs to be introduced to the communication circuit. Again, it can only be speculated how this transition is achieved in practice. On the one hand, the dissemination of such a morally problematic message seems to demand anonymity (as it would easily be the case with oral forms – see Rosnow and Fine (1976: 31ff.). On the other hand, EHs function best within social networks: the originator s1 would therefore either need a network of accomplices taking part in the charade, or pretend to be communicating a bona fide message. This communicative problem will be explored further in Section 5. What may ease this transition, and in general give a boost to the transmission rates of EHs, is the existence of more or less prefabricated social networks by Internet service providers such as AOL or MSN. These services were particularly

75

76

Email Hoaxes

popular during the late Nineties – arguably the high time for the appearance of new EHs. These online spaces provided an entry to the Internet for many new and inexperienced users; at the same time, their nickname systems created an atmosphere of quasi-intimacy. For these two reasons, such networks may be an easy starting-point for the dissemination of EHs. In any case, a lot of EH transmission takes place here. Many items from the Mydek subcorpus, analyzed in Section 3, suggest this, as their address clusters consist of nicknames instead of real email addresses (see the excerpt in Section 3.2.2.1 for an example). Be it through the platform of a service provider or through the more conventional channel of private email: once an EH has been planted by the sender s1, it enters a serial chain of communication. In a theoretical model, the forwarding system should generate a rapidly spreading, pyramid-shaped diffusion schema. The authors of http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org calculate with a forwarding rate of 10 messages per user which leads to one million sent messages in only six forwarding steps; in addition, they warn: “Note that this example only forwards the message to 10 people at each generation while people who forward real hoax messages often send them to many times that number” (http://tinyurl.com/2f5s9d). It should be clear that such scenarios virtually never occur in real diffusion patterns; that is the reason why so called ‘pyramid schemes’ (“Make Money Fast” etc.) are nonfunctional, and why EHs are far less dangerous than was assumed in their early days. In reality, it is probable that the attrition rate of individual message strands is quite high – message chains may be discontinued by an individual sender sn for a wealth of reasons (see next section). In this light, a ‘bulge’ structure may be more fitting than the ‘pyramid’ image to describe the diffusion of EHs. At the beginning of an EH chain, the number of participants is likely to increase for purely mathematical reasons, although the novelty factor may also play a role in users’ readiness to forward a message; where this pattern is not the case, the EH simply is unsuccessful. After a certain period, however, the discontinued branches are likely to outweigh the ongoing message chains. As to the maximum length of individual message chains, no precise numbers exist. It is generally assumed that message chains can acquire a considerable length, and an impressionistic look at the data confirms this. The automatically inserted quote tags give a rough indication of the forwarding steps that one email has been through. In the Mydek subcorpus, the highest number of quote tags in one item is an impressive 27. Taking into account that quote tags indicate a minimum – as users may copy and paste the core message instead of using the forward function – this hints at an indeed considerable potential in chain length. A number of studies on communication chains have been conducted in the ‘Small World’ approach. This experiment, coined by Travers and Milgram (1969),



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

tries to map how many communication steps are needed to connect two individuals chosen at random with each other. The results of Travers and Milgram – namely, that it takes six steps on average – have been essentially corroborated and expanded upon by more recent research (see particularly Dodds et al. 2003). Two aspects from the study by Dodds et al. may be relevant for EHs: first, the success of a chain was strongly incentive-based – if the participants perceived its potential as low, the chains took considerably longer (2003: 828). Secondly, the success of chains depended not so much on “hubs” (highly connected individuals) as on more loose acquaintances – as Dodds et al. conclude, their study supports “the longstanding claim that ‘weak’ ties are disproportionately responsible for social connectivity” (2003: 827). Both these factors seem to be strongly the case in EHs: they are successful if people perceive them as a worthy cause; and they appear to function best through relatively loose social networks. While many assumptions and givens in Small World research are quite distinct from EHs, especially with regard to the respective pragmatic conditions, this approach to investigating social networks and how they transport information may be fruitful for further CMC studies.

4.1.4 The end of the life cycle: Message death, message stasis? In their study on rumor, Rosnow and Fine (1976: 44) are quite pronounced about the final stages of that phenomenon: “Most rumors are born, have a period of prominence, and then disappear (…) this disappearance usually takes one of three forms – disproof, irrelevance, or dissipation.” While other alternatives are briefly mentioned – that a rumor becomes “part of the established popular belief structure” (1976: 42) or that a sleeper effect may keep the rumor alive “long after the source of the information has been discredited” (1976: 45) – the point of the argument seems intuitively clear. Many tales that serve as rumors – or EHs – are bound to a particular event or era (one of Rosnow and Fine’s central examples is the 1969 rumor about the supposed death of Paul McCartney). Also, tales depend on a certain newsworthiness or tellability (see Section 6 on narrativity): as there is “not much prestige in retelling the same old story” after a certain time, rumors may “die because people grow tired of an issue and shift their attention to other matters” (Rosnow and Fine 1976: 48) – this is the ‘dissipation’ factor mentioned above. These basic mechanisms are certainly valid for EHs just as much as for rumors; a large number of the items in the representational corpus may nowadays have become marginal in actual EH circulation. And yet, the socio-technical configuration of EHs seems to prompt a life cycle that is different from Rosnow and Fine’s model. The medially written form of EHs is strongly conducive for a certain

77

78

Email Hoaxes

text preservation: quite simply, a piece of discourse that exists in written form, and can be managed by modern forms of text processing and filing, is much less likely to disappear than a medially oral discourse. It therefore seems closer to reality to speak of ‘stabilization’, or ‘stasis’, as the final stage in the life cycle of an EH, rather than of its ‘death’. Several quite distinct mechanisms of stabilization can be observed; in particular, this concerns the various loci where texts may be stored or otherwise preserved. Here is a brief description of the more prominent strategies. Recycling. As mentioned in the description of EH genesis, not all EHs that evolve are genuinely new. In many cases, textual material from existing items is adopted and reused with minor changes. Although such recycling procedures often change precisely those elements which make an EH recognizable – salient features such as the subject line, names of people, places, or products, etc. – a considerable amount of the existing hoax’s textual structure is nevertheless preserved in this way. Oral transmission. This is an exceptional case as it does not concern the written dimension. EHs are able to make medium switches in both directions. It has surfaced at various points that EHs are conceptually close to other discourse phenomena, particularly to traditional oral folklore. There are well-established cases where a classic oral urban legend (kidney theft, syringes in cinema seats, etc.) has made it into the digital medium; reciprocally, tales that began as EHs may make the transition if users begin to retell them orally. This will be particularly the case with items that are not intrinsically bound to the digital medium: for example, virus warnings only make sense in an email context, and many giveaway and charity EHs achieve particular salience through the fictional ‘email tracker’ element. However, EHs that are closer to the urban legend type are certainly amenable to such a medium switch: thus many charity EHs are good candidates for this strategy. Individual storage. Since ample storage space – both online and on hard drives – has long become a normality in computer usage, users are no longer in the need of deleting non-essential emails. It is easy and affordable to store messages, and private mailboxes have therefore become a prime repository for EHs. Of course, this is a purely private locus cut off from the public sphere of the Internet – in this sense, EHs stored in mailboxes are ‘dormant’ messages. However, due to the ease of processing and forwarding messages in email programs, such texts have a considerable potential to become reactivated. Alternatively, recipients of EHs may make printouts of the messages. Again, this would amount to a medium switch. It is unlikely that EHs are printed (for circulation, for storage, or other purposes) in a great number, as many of them do appear to be relatively context-bound. Yet it should be noted that for other texts which are conceptually



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

very close to EHs – fun chain letters etc. – reproduction and circulation in spaces such as offices play an important role. This link is further explored in the final section on genre. Anti-hoax websites. Anti-hoax websites, as described in Sections 1 and 2, have long become the central loci of EH message compilation. Next to the major sites which have been presented and quoted in this study, there are innumerable more small-scale initiatives: some of them private, many of them on the IT websites of universities and similar organizations. Of course, such websites have pragmatic conditions that are quite distinct from other bona fide display of EHs: they reproduce the texts with the metadiscursive purpose of warning about such types of discourse. Many of these websites contain disclaimers to point out their purpose and to prohibit abuse. Here is an example from www.breakthechain.org: “Duplication of content from BreakThechain.org for electronic distribution (i.e. e-mail messages, message boards, chat rooms, web sites) without express permission from the author is prohibited”. The effectiveness of such disclaimers is unverifiable; it seems to be the case that many of the websites themselves, particularly the smaller ones, draw amply on the material provided by the major sites. Independently of their intention, anti-hoax websites are the most important factor in the online preservation of EHs. Personal homepages and blogs. Finally, the texts of EHs can be observed to resurface on personal homepages and their more contemporary successors such as blogs and MySpace accounts. Unlike anti-hoax websites, these displays retain the overall pragmatic condition of the communication chain: users who post EHs on their sites do so because the texts are felt to be sufficiently relevant or important. Nevertheless, both forms of message display, anti-hoax and private sites, share an interesting feature: the texts in question make a transition from the dynamic setting of message proliferation to the static context of a homepage. It seems, then, that in some cases the messages are found to be alluring enough to engage with without the communicative context of forwarding and sharing. However, it should be noted that not all types of EHs are equally amenable to this form of personal display. Two types are featured preferentially: charity EHs with their emotional angle (see e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2mkqes for one of the many reproductions of the ‘Rachel Arlington’ charity hoax); and urban legends, particularly if they have a focus on health issues (see e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2orole, an alternative medicine site displaying the ‘Asbestos in Tampons’ urban legend as if it were a piece of scientific writing). In sum, it seems justified to speak of ‘stasis’ rather than the ‘death’ of EHs: the various forms and loci of preservation described here – and others may evolve as new socio-technical modes become available – appear to effectively prevent

79

80 Email Hoaxes

the complete disappearance of individual texts. The macrotextual (or ‘genre’) perspective suggests quite a different tendency. Judging from the entries on anti-hoax websites, it seems that the high time for new EHs is passing. Email hoaxing appears to have had its peak around the turn of the century, and although it is too early for definite conclusions, this discourse phenomenon may be on its way to stabilization or even (to revert to ecological metaphors) fossilization.

4.1.5 Summary: A model for the transmission pattern of EHs The various stages of an EH’s life cycle have been described here largely from a qualitative, text-driven viewpoint. It is equally possible to model this life cycle in a more abstracting communication model. Since such a model is necessary for the pragmatic account given in Section 5, it is briefly introduced here. The originator of the EH is the sender s1. By bringing the message into circulation a first generation of receivers is created. All participants in the communication chain after s1 fulfill a double role: they are receivers and simultaneously potential senders. For reasons of uniformity, all potential senders are coded s (even if they only fulfill the role of receiver and do not continue the communication chain). Therefore, the first generation of receivers, and second generation

Figure 5.  A schematic outline of communication processes in the EH life cycle. Rectangles: communicants; hexagons: forms of stabilization; solid lines: step in the communication chain; dotted lines: summarize several steps.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

of potential senders, can be consecutively numbered as s2.1, s2.2, s2.3, etc. As the next generation of receivers/senders branches out in the following communication step, the individual strands are labeled according to their progenitor: thus the strands issuing from s2.1 are termed s2.1.1, s2.1.2, and so on. The diagram in Figure 5 displays an idealized pyramid scheme up to the third generation. Beyond this point in the communication chain, some of the more lifelike communicative steps are indicated. The communication process may simply be stopped, as in the strands s2.1.1, s2.1.2, etc.; various patterns of non-participation will be analyzed in Section 5. The branches going out from s2.2.1 and s2.3.3 show cases of stabilization as described above; it can be thought here particularly of cases such as display on anti-hoax websites or on personal homepages, where the texts become static entities yet remain in the public domain. Finally, the strand at the bottom, issuing from s2.5.2, indicates the possibility of text recycling where an existing EH becomes the textual basis for a new variant. In this case, a receiver sn becomes in turn the sender sn1 of a new communication chain – and a new EH life cycle.

4.2

The chronology of texts: Message archaeology

4.2.1 A philological and ethnographical approach The chronological analysis has so far been focused on the communication process that is specific for EHs: that is, on communicant roles and on different stages of message diffusion. The following analysis returns to the object of analysis proper by investigating chronology from a text perspective. The initial observation that motivates this exploration is a very basic one: the texts of EHs tend to undergo changes over time. At first sight, this assertion may seem hardly surprising or even noteworthy. This is probably due to the fact that we are so well-acquainted with variation in a broad range of everyday genres. Textual variation occurs in folklore and urban legends, in rumor and gossip, in jokes, song texts and cooking recipes, and in many other types of discourse. We are therefore well-attuned to texts that are sensitive to chronological change and as a consequence become conserved in a number of coexisting variants. Yet EHs are different in a central aspect. While most of these variation-prone genres are cases of medial orality, EHs are medially written texts. It is not surprising that texts which are predominantly transmitted orally display a degree of deviation after a certain time span; a dissemination process that relies on human memory and replication skills has a built-in degree of fuzziness. The case is different with EHs, however. It has been described at several points that EHs are ideally adapted to the system of email communication: the technicality of the medium affords a

81

82

Email Hoaxes

specific mode of communicating. In particular, this concerns technical features which have long become standard for nearly all email programs: forwarding, multiple addressing, managing recipient lists, storing messages digitally. These features, and particularly the latter one, not only encourage the transmission of EHs. They should also in theory enable a faithful message transmission without any changes or deviations, even over a considerable time span, as neither recalling nor retyping the message is demanded from a communicant who chooses to pass it on. In short: EHs should not change – and yet they do. This finding is particularly remarkable if we assume a certain principle of economy to be valid for communicative transactions such as the dissemination of an email hoax: if users have the possibility of giving an exact replica of the message with minimum effort, they would be expected to choose this option. The fact that participants in an EH chain of communication obviously do not consistently disseminate the messages without alterations allows for interesting hypotheses. There must be strong motivational factors to override both the economic principle and the technical ease of mere forwarding. It appears that it is important for a certain percentage of users to engage and interact with the texts they are passing along. This phenomenon is given a thorough analysis in this section. A close examination of these texts is undertaken to illustrate how variation occurs on all discourse levels, both in a qualitative and in a quantitative way. This analysis serves to develop an explanation model for the functional aspects of such communicant behavior. Real-life data, as introduced in Section 2, have been consulted at several points in the analysis so far. For a study in the message archaeology of individual EHs, they are the primary data source. Postings on mailing lists and similar loci not only have the advantage of being amply available and searchable via Google, but also provide the exact date of the communication event, as well as a broad range of other contextual data. Based on this type of material, the ‘message archaeology’ approach is grounded in at least two traditions of text analysis: Philology. The approach is a philological one – in that it aims at a faithful text reconstruction. A careful comparison of time-dependent textual variants can be used to establish a ‘textual history’ for an individual EH. Such comparative work can elucidate at what point in time variations appear for the first time, where they are likely to have their origin, and which of the variants appears to have been more or less successful. The ultimate goal of uncovering a text’s original version, as it is performed in literary philology studies, may be problematic for the case of EHs, as the author generally remains unknown. Nevertheless, it is usually possible to extrapolate a variant that is reasonably early in the EH’s life cycle; in some cases, the likely date and/or locus of origin can be pinpointed with surprising accuracy.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

Ethnography. Besides the purely textual data, this approach also yields valuable contextual information. In this sense, studying the message archeology of EHs also has an ethnographic angle to it. It is a form of observing genuine cases of EH communication in their original environment. While ethnography often implies an element of immersion or immediacy (e.g. through active participation by the researcher) that is not given in this approach, the automatic archiving function of mailing lists offers a faithful reproduction of the communication event – its participants, chronology, etc. Interesting contextual factors include: the nature of the platform where the communication occurs (virtually every mailing list has a content-based focus); the identity of the communicant (newbie/frequent poster/…); reactions and follow-ups to the communication event. Besides, textual material from such loci is ideally suited to analyze the accumulation of an EH’s framework message, as was demonstrated in Section 3. With these methodological precursors in mind, the message archaeology of three different EHs will be excavated here. The three case studies have been chosen to give an impression of the predominant EH categories, namely charity, virus, and giveaway EHs. First, the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH is a prominent example of the charity EH subtype; it also has the advantage of being well-studied in terms of its chronology. A second account explores two closely intertwined virus EHs, namely the ‘A Virtual Card/An Internet Flower For You’ cases. Finally, the third case study examines the ‘Microsoft Beta’ EH that can be said to have established the category of giveaway EHs. The procedure of establishing a message archaeology is simple. As described in Section 2, chunks from the representational text are used for an extensive Google research (in many cases, it is valuable and even necessary to employ more than one n-gram). The useful – that is: non-metadiscursive – hits are arranged chronologically and with respect to similarities or discrepancies that emerge between message strands. From this principled text collection, the text history can be reconstructed; while gaps in the model must necessarily remain with a communication process as complex as that of EHs, a reasonably realistic approximation is feasible. After the archaeology has been traced for each of the three cases, an overview is given on the kinds of change that appear most frequently in the textual material.

4.2.2 The ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH The ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH (ID: 119) is arguably one of the oldest and most widespread EHs. The item has been introduced in the analysis of framework and core message structure; example 25 is a reprint of the original message text:

83

84

Email Hoaxes

Example 25.  The ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH (ID: 119). LITTLE JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND VERY RARE CASE OF CEREBRAL CARCINOMA. THIS CONDITION CAUSES SEVERE MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS AND IS A TERMINAL ILLNESS. THE DOCTORS HAVE GIVEN HER SIX MONTHS TO LIVE. AS PART OF HER DYING WISH, SHE WANTED TO START A CHAIN LETTER TO INFORM PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION AND TO SEND PEOPLE THE MESSAGE TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT, A CHANCE THAT SHE WILL NEVER HAVE. FURTHERMORE, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND SEVERAL CORPORATE SPONSORS HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THREE CENTS TOWARD CONTINUING CANCER RESEARCH

FOR EVERY NEW PERSON THAT GETS

FORWARDED THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE GIVE JESSICA AND ALL CANCER VICTIMS A CHANCE. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, SEND THEM TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AT [email protected]

It is likely that this text was the first to introduce the notion of tracking emails for a good cause, thereby setting a standard for many later imitations. The Jessica Mydek EH is entirely fictitious: as described in the section on irony markers, ‘Jessica Mydek’ is one of the more rude onomastic puns. While the American Cancer Society is a real institution, it has frequently been pointed out that a nonprofit organization of this orientation is much more likely to receive, rather than make, donations. Besides, it is worth noting that the term “cerebral carcinoma” is not part of established medical jargon: of more than 300 Google hits for the phrase, the overwhelming majority refers to the EH in question; the Pubmed database does not contain the collocation. It is therefore a typical example of impressive yet imprecise jargon as it is frequently used in EHs. Due to its popularity and longevity, the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH has attracted the attention of many Internet folklorists. In particular, a detailed account on http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/medical/cancer. asp tries to trace the development of the text (called there the “American Cancer Society Hoax”). While not all points of the Snopes list could be verified here, that overview is an important source for the present analysis. The original version, as rendered above, is generally believed to date from January 1997, according to the Snopes documentation. It is close to impossible to provide non-falsifiable proof for this, as the Internet necessarily provides an incomplete picture (and Internet searches, in turn, are likely to yield only a fraction of the existing material). However, there are at least no findings that would contradict this assumption. The earliest Google hits for this text date indeed from January 1997, a 1996 (or earlier) version has not been discovered. Considering the textual side, it is highly probable that this version is indeed the original. Despite its shortcomings in content (see above), it is conspicuously well-crafted in terms of stylistics: the style is consistent and persuasive, and it has a clear structure and complex syntax; there are no typographic errors, and the typographic appearance is remarkably homogeneous. Since this is hardly ever the case in the later life stations of EHs, this version does appear to be a good candidate for the initial version.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

Apparently the message did not have a particularly long lifespan in this pure form. Most corresponding Google hits date from February through July 1997; there are fewer hits for the rest of 1997, and hits for 1998 are exceptional. There is no item in the Google data from 1999 or later that corresponds directly to the initial text. Interestingly, a number of hits show a very good correspondence to the original; however, the upper case writing has been converted to a more standard typography. An example can be found at http://tinyurl.com/y7drvl. This is a very interesting formal shift and one that takes some effort as it has to be carried out manually. Within this first period in the life cycle of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH, two major variations can be observed. Both concern additions to the text, and the pattern is a very typical one: a chunk of discourse is added to the text, either in initial or final position, by one user as a part of the framework message; through repeated forwarding, the addition merges into the core message so as to become an integral part of the text. The first variation seems to have occurred very early on: it is an addition at the bottom of the text that can be found as early as February 1997. The following example dates from February 20, 1997: Example 26.  A first variation in the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH.  Source: http://tinyurl.com/y4stmx. (…) >THIS.

>IF >> >>> THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, SEND THEM TO THE AMERICAN CANCER

>SOCIETY AT >> >>>[log in to unmask] >>> >>>>> >>>Three cents for every person that receives this letter turns out >to be >a >> >>>lot of money considering how many people will get this letter >and how >> >>>many people they, in turn, pass it on to.

Please go ahead and

>forward >> >>>it to whoever you know; it really doesn’t take much to help>out.

The text is quite typical of framework message addenda, containing as it does a reiteration of the content and a cluster of acknowledgment speech acts. Note that this version already contains a row of 6 quote tags, which suggests that the addendum may be even older. This addition is possibly directly linked to a second one. In many early examples of the message, a name and address are found at the end of the text: Example 27.  A frequent addendum at the end of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y9dgef. >>Jean Ann Linney, Ph.D. >>Professor and Department Chair >>Department of Psychology >>University of South Carolina >>Columbia, SC 29208 >>PHONE: 803-777-4301 >>FAX: 803-777-9558

85

86 Email Hoaxes

This is a classic case of ‘False Attribution Syndrome’: the suggestion that such a message may stem from a professor of psychology would give it a considerable credibility boost. However, the personal information has all the signs of an automatically added signature. Furthermore, it is likely that it was added in the same step as the “Three cents for every person…” addition: all Google hits containing the address also contain the other addition (usually in a typographically consistent manner); by contrast, not all items containing the addendum also contain the address – it may be speculated that the address is more prone to deletion, as it is more exposed at the final position, and is felt to be less content-relevant. In sum: a first variation appears around February 1997, consisting of a text chunk and, optionally, an address, in text-final position. Here is a final example that contains both and displays their typographical consistency: Example 28.  Another case of the first variation. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yd3eg5. (…) > SOCIETY AT [email protected] > Three cents for every person that receives this letter > turns out to be a lot of money considering how many > people will get this letter and how many people they, > in turn, pass it on to. Please go ahead and forward it > to whoever you know- it really doesn’t take much to > help out. > ******************************************** Jean Ann > Linney, Ph.D. > Professor and Department Chair > Department of Psychology > University of South Carolina > Columbia, SC 29208 > PHONE: 803-777-4301 > FAX: 803-777-9558

The second major variation that occurs in this first period is the addition of a discourse chunk in text-initial position. It is usually rendered as follows: Example 29.  Variation no. 2: a text-initial addendum. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yhvuar. >>No comedy here. It’s about a seven year old girl with cancer.

Read it

>>and pass it on to as many people that you can. Occasionally we get to >>use this medium for some actual good, rather than trading barbs across >>the waves.

And once in a while things like this bring us back to

>>reality, allowing us to count ourselves lucky in life. Let’s put our >>network to work here! >> >>It will only take you a second to forward this message.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

>>JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND VERY (…)

This metadiscursive statement obviously obtains its persuasive power through its group-orientation and the use of first person plural pronouns; in particular, the directive to “put our network to work here” seems to have a strong pragmatic impact, as it is frequently repeated or paraphrased at other points in the framework message. Interestingly, this text chunk in turn seems to derive from two distinct framework messages. Here is a case where the distinction can still be seen: Example 30.  The possible origin of variation no 2. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ymk3eo. Hi Ron, No comedy here. It’s about a seven year old girl with cancer. Read it and pass it on to as many people that you can. Thanks. Mike. FORWARDED MESSAGE from Kim Cameron (KCAMERON@INTRLINK) at 5/06/97 12:05 PM Hey everybodyDitto the note from Erik.

Please send this one on.

-Kim ------------------------------------FORWARDED MESSAGE from Erik Fosshage Hi Gang... Occasionally we get to use this medium for some actual good, rather than trading barbs across the waves.

And once in a while things like this

bring us back to reality, allowing us to count ourselves lucky in life. Let’s put our network to work here! -E. >>>>It will only take you a second to send this message. >>>>******************************************************************* >>>>JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND (…)

This exchange dates from May 8, 1997 – it seems to be a rare case where a textual change can be pinpointed to a precise date. In its condensed form, it became a highly frequent addendum that occurs in a number of textual variants. There are even cases where the text itself contains minor changes (for example, one item replaces “trading barbs” by “sending bunk”) – which indicates that it is fully perceived as a part of the core message. After these fairly straightforward variations, the development of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ EH becomes more complex. A number of messages exist which no longer contain any textual material from the original, yet which are too ­conspicuously

87

88

Email Hoaxes

prone to it in terms of content to be unrelated. The themes that recur in practically all of them are: a small girl, a diagnosis of cancer, the three cents donation, and a mention of the American Cancer Society. The four major cases of such parallel texts are briefly described here. Even if a direct connection cannot be proven, it is highly probable that this is merely a ‘missing link’ situation: the successor texts are expected to have evolved out of the original at some undocumented point in time. The first of these is the ‘Elmo’ variant. It consists of two parts: an ASCII drawing of ‘Tickle Me Elmo’ and a short message containing the Mydek EH reference: Example 31.  The ‘Elmo’ variant. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y8ypxh. >>>I got this today.... Pass it on! >>> >>>

For cancer research...Tickle me!

:-)

>>> >>>

Elmo

>>>

__

>>>

__

.’

>>>

_.-|

‘.’

>>>

.~

`.

o | o

|-._

`.__.’.__.’^

~.

>>> >>>

.~

>>>

\-._^

^

>>>

`\

/

`--...--’

/’

`-.._______..-’

>>>

__/

>>>

>>> / |

^

/ ^ /|

.’

^

.’ ^ .

>>>

`.

^

/\

| |/ /_

^

.’

/\

\__

.’^

>>>

>>>

~. ^_.-/

\___/ ^_.-’ /’

`\_

>>>

^ |

`-._

>>>

\

^|

`__\

`.__.’^ .\ \ .

^

.’

\/

^ \’.__.’ ^

|

>>>

For every new person that this is passed on to The American Cancer

>>>

Society will donate 3 cents to cancer research.

>>>

Forward this to everyone you know.

>>>

Thanks for helping!!

Please help us.

The documentation on the Snopes site claims that a variant exists containing the ‘Elmo’ text only, but this could not be verified with Google data. It is not surprising that the picture would have been the central attraction of the message: ASCII drawings were very popular in the Nineties, and the ‘Tickle Me Elmo’ stuffed toy had been a major fad in 1996 (see http://tinyurl.com/tnnmv). In any



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

case, the strong textual parallels to the original are obvious. According to Snopes, this ­variant was first documented in February 1997; however, the first finding here dates from March 27, 1997. Unlike the original, this variant has a relatively broad time span: many hits date from 1998, and a few of them are even found for 1999. The next variant engendered a maze of subvariants itself – the major ones are discussed here. The basic text that is at the core of this variation reads as follows: Example 32.  Variation no 4 – the basic text. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yemlkm. o.k. you guys..... this isn’t a chain letter, but a choice for all of us to save a little girl that’s dieing of a serious and fatal form of cancer. please send this to everyone you know...or don’t know at that.

this little

girl has 6 months left to live her life, and as her dieing wish, she wanted to send a chain letter telling everyone to live their life to fullest, since she never will.

she’ll never make it to prom, graduate from high school, of get

married and have a family of her own.

but by you sending this to as many people

as possible, you can give her and her family a little hope, because with every name that this is semnt to, the american cancer society will donate 3 cents per name to her treatment and recovery plan.

one guy sent this th 500 people !!!!

so, i know that we can send it to at least 5 or 6. come on you guys.... and if you’re too damn selfish to waste 10-15 minutes and scrolling this and forwarding it to EVERYONE, than one: you’re one sick bastard, and two: just think it could be you one day....and it’s not even your $money$, just your time.

i know that ya’ll will impress me !!!!

i love ya’ll !!!!!

Again, the textual parallels with the original are obvious: the sick girl, the 6 month lifespan, the dying wish, the ACS, etc. Stylistically, however, this text is tangibly removed from the original: it displays typical features of online orality, such as lowered orthography standards, a distinct addressee orientation, and the use of a lower register. In sum, this text appears to be a rewriting of the original. Snopes indicates March 1997 as the date of origin for this variant; again, the first item documented here is slightly younger, dating from April 9, 1997. Small variations occur between the above item and others – some have a slightly corrected orthography or minor lexical changes, many omit the “o.k. you guys” opening. The next material change to this version was, again, the inclusion of an address: starting possibly in November 1997 (the earliest recorded case in the Google data), the above text is frequently accompanied by this signature: Example 33.  The ‘Shields’ signature. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ydhbrv. (…) > >>>> Dr. Dennis Shields > >>>> Professor > >>>> Department of Developmental and Molecular Biology

89

90 Email Hoaxes

> >>>> Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University > >>>> 1300 Morris Park Avenue > >>>> Bronx, New York 10461

Dr. Shields is arguably the most famous case of False Attribution Syndrome: his signature quickly became firmly associated with this EH, and variants of it are circulating to the present date – here is a comment by a blog writer from 2003: “Wow. I just received this (…) It was originated by a doctor there (Dr. Dennis Shields, Department of Developmental and Molecular Biology, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, New York 10461 if you’re interested)” (http://tinyurl.com/y4gsgn). Shields acknowledged that he forwarded the email but had to issue repeated statements about his non-involvement with the text. The next variation was even more successful. Interestingly, it usually occurs in conjunction with the ‘Shields’ signature, so it may be assumed that it was created on the basis of a ‘Shields’ version. From December 1998 (November 1998 according to Snopes), the text from example 38 is often preceded or followed by the ‘Slow Dance’ poem: Example 34.  The ‘Slow Dance’ poem. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yzk4dc. SLOW DANCE Have you ever watched kids On a merry-go-round? Or listened to the rain Slapping on the ground? Ever followed a butterfly’s erratic flight? Or gazed at the sun into the fading night? You’d better slow down. Don’t dance so fast. Time is short. The music won’t last. Do you run through each day On the fly? When you ask “How are you?” Do you hear the reply? When the day is done Do you lie in your bed With the next hundred chores Running through your head? You’d better slow down Don’t dance so fast. Time is short. The music won’t last.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

Ever told your child, We’ll do it tomorrow? And in your haste, Not see his sorrow? Ever lost touch, Let a good friendship die Cause you never had time To call and say “Hi”? You’d better slow down. Don’t dance so fast. Time is short. The music won’t last. When you run so fast to get somewhere You miss half the fun of getting there. When you worry and hurry through your day, It is like an unopened gift.... Thrown away. Life is not a race. Do take it slower Hear the music Before the song is over.

The poem itself has long been traced to its originator David L. Weatherford, an amateur writer of inspirational texts (http://www.davidlweatherford.com). This known origin notwithstanding, the text made the surrounding EH more popular than ever; quite clearly, additional material is a strongly motivating factor in the transmission of EHs (as was already the case with the ‘Elmo’ variant). This item is still widely circulated as of mid-2006; in some cases, the actual EH has been all but stripped away from the messages, so that the poem remains as the actual center. While this kind of uncommented appropriation is typical of the disregard for copyright matters on the Internet, it appears to ultimately have benefited the author, as he himself states: “Ironically, someone fraudently used my poem, and it is the best thing that ever happened to me as a writer” (David L. Weatherford, personal communication). A final variant stems from January 2000 (Snopes – first example in the Google data: September 2000) and concerns, again, an addition in text-initial position: Example 35.  A 2000 addition to variation no. 4. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ygy3xv. This poem written by a terminally >

ill young girl in a New York Hospital.

>

It was sent by a medical doctor - Dr. You

>

Cheng Ma. Please do what you can to help

>

fulfill this young girl’s dream by also reading

>

what is in the closing statement AFTER THE POEM.

(…)

. Permission to reprint the poem granted by the author.

91

92

Email Hoaxes

The purpose of this addition is quite clear: it establishes a connection between the EH text and the poem. In earlier versions, the poem simply precedes or follows the core text without any overt textual link. The inclusion of Dr. Yeou-Cheng Ma’s name may have a double motivation: she is a pediatrician at Einstein College (which ties in with the ‘Shields’ signature); besides, her being the elder sister of renowned violoncellist Yo-Yo Ma, and a known violinist herself, may have been felt to give the discourse chunk some glamour. Two further variations have been documented, but as their diffusion appears to be marginal, they are not further pursued here. They both concern the inclusion of supposed messages by (more or less) celebrities – one referring to racing car driver Tom Kendall (August 1997) the other to rock singer Dave Matthews (November 1998). As with the Yeou-Cheng Ma case, the motivation is clear here: the inclusion of well-known names makes the text more attractive. A fifth strand of variations leads even further away from the ‘Jessica Mydek’ original: not only does it present a new paraphrase of the original text, but crucial details are altered here – the precise diagnosis, the child’s name, the amount of money, etc. Two factors nevertheless suggest that these variants are directly related to the Mydek text. For one, the overall plot and structure still shows compelling similarities to the original. More importantly, there is one textual variant which directly links this new text with existing variants described above. This is the new variant: Example 36.  Variation no. 5. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yxvr63. Hello. My name is Tamara Martin and I have severe lung cancer due to second hand smoke. This chain was a final attend to get me healthy again. Every letter sent gets 6 cents. Please send this to 10 people. (by the way for those who take 2 minutes to send this, what comes around goes around.)

It is not quite clear when this version first surfaced. The Snopes documentation dates it to the “early summer of 1997”; the first item in the Google data is from November 1997. Importantly, a strand of this variation exits where the ‘Dave Matthews’ version alluded to above and the new variant are conjoined. Here is an excerpt of one such case: Example 37.  A case where variation no. 5 is merged with the older variant. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ydy9gs. (…) >>>>>puppy, and >>>>>> two: just think it could be you one day....and it’s not even your >>>>>$money$,



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

>>>>>> just your time.

I know that ya’ll will impress me !!!!

I love

>>>>>ya’ll !!!!! >>>>>> Love, >>>>>> Greg Harduk >>>>>>

<< Hello. My name is Tamara Martin and I have severe lung

>cancer >>>>>due to >>>>>> second hand smoke.This chain was a final attend to get me healthy >>>>>again.Every (…)

This conjoint version appears first in late 1998. It remains unclear whether variation no. 5 emerged independently or in conjunction with ‘Jessica Mydek’ variants; in sum, it appears likely that this variation is a case of ‘recycling’ as described in the life cycle analysis. The ‘Tamara Martin’ text could thus be described as an individual new EH that was generated from the ‘Jessica Mydek’ template. What seems particularly noteworthy about this item is that it, in turn, exists in a myriad of versions, as the name of the child in question has been frequently changed. It is probably most established and diffused as the ‘Amy Bruce’ variant, which introduces the Make A Wish Foundation instead of the ACS: Example 38.  The ‘Amy Bruce’ variant of variation no. 5. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y4yv8n. Hi, my name is Amy Bruce.I am 7 years old, and I have se=vere lung cancer from second hand smoke. I also have a large tumor in my bra=in,from repeated beatings. ­

The doctors say I will die soon if this isn’t fi=xed, and my family

can’t pay the bills.The Make AWish Foundation, has agreed= to donate 7 cents for every name on this list. For those of you who send th=is along, I thank you so much, but for those who don’t send it,what goes aro=und comes around. Have a Heart, please send this.Please, if you are a kind p=erson, send this on.

This variant was introduced in July 1999, according to Snopes; the above example is from March 2000. Other names that have been associated with this EH include:

David Lawitts (Summer 1997) Rick Connor (November 1997) Timothy Flyte (December 1997) David “Darren” Bucklew (April 1998) LaNisha Jackson (December 2000) Kayla Wightman (October 2004)

93

94 Email Hoaxes

The dates given here are taken from the Snopes documentation. As most of these variations are no longer sufficiently traceable, no further textual material is given here. Finally, a quite different type of variation can occur at any point in the life cycle of an EH, namely translation into another language. Translating a text is a very cost-intensive kind of interaction – it demands considerable resources of time and cognitive energy. This kind of variation, more than all the others, shows quite clearly that economy is not the foremost principle in EH transmission. For the ‘Jessica Mydek’ hoax, evidence for translation in a number of languages is available. The following are excerpts from Italian, Spanish, and Hungarian versions: Example 39.  An Italian translation of the original ‘Jessica Mydek’ text. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y8sjue. La piccola Jessica Mydek ha sette anni e soffre di un tumore cerebrale, questo stato provoca diversi tumori maligni, essendo una malattia terminale i dottori le hanno diagnosticato sei mesi di vita, e come

suo

ultimo desiderio Jessica vuole iniziare una catena di E.mail informando della sua condizione mandando un messaggio alla gente affinche’ viva il massimo e sfruttando ogni momento della loro vita delle opportunita’ che lei

non avra’.La societa’

americana della lotta contro il cancro insieme ad altre imprese sponsorizzatrici donano tre centavo di dollaro (che saranno destinati alla ricerca del cancro) per ogni persona che inviera’ questo messaggio. Per favore date a Jessica e a tutte le vittime del cancro una

opportunita’. Se esistesse

qualche dubbio, manda questa E.mail alla societa’

americana per la lotta

contro il cancro a: mailto:[log in to unmask]

Example 40.  A Spanish version, again corresponding to the original. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y6wjqg. LA PEQUENA JESSICA MYDEK TIENE SIETE ANOS DE EDAD Y SUFRE DE UN AGUDO Y MUY RARO CASO DE CARCINOMA CEREBRAL. ESTA CONDICION PROVOCA DIVERSOS

TUMORES

MALIGNOS EN EL CEREBRO, SIENDO UNA ENFERMEDAD

TERMINAL. LOS DOCTORES LE HAN

PRONOSTICADO A JESSICA SEIS MESES DE

VIDA. COMO PARTE DE SUS ULTIMOS DESEOS, ELLA QUISO INICIAR UNA CADENA DE E-MAILS INFORMANDO DE SU CONDICION Y ENVIAR EL MENSAJE A LA GENTE PARA QUE VIVA AL MAXIMO Y DISFRUTEN

DE CADA MOMENTO DE SU VIDA, UNA

. Translations have been found for most variations in all three of the message archaeologies presented in this chapter. Since no detailed translation study is attempted here, no further examples are given for the following cases; the examples presented here serve as showcase items for the phenomenon as a whole.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

OPORTUNIDAD QUE ELLA NUNCA TENDRA. ADICONALMENTE, LA SOCIEDAD AMERICANA DE LUCHA CONTRA EL CANCER JUNTO CON OTRAS EMPRESAS SPONSOR ACORDARON DONAR TRES

CENTAVOS QUE

SERAN DESTINADOS A LA INVESTIGACION DEL CANCER

POR CADA PERSONA QUE ENVIE ESTE MENSAJE. POR

FAVOR, DENLE A JESSICA Y A TODAS LAS VICTIMAS DEL CANCER UNA

OPORTUNIDAD.

Example 41.  A brief excerpt from a Hungarian variant based on the ‘Slow Dance’/ ’Yeou Cheng Ma’ text. Source: http://tinyurl.com/uybdd. (…) > > > > >

Ezt a verset egy nagyon beteg kisl> ány írta egy New York-i

> > > kórházban. > > > > >

Orvosa, Dr. Yeou Cheng Ma küldte tovább.

> > > > > > > > > >

Kérlek, tegyél meg mindent azért, hogy beteljesítsd a kislány

> > > álmát > > > > > és > > > > >

olvasd el a záró sorokat is A VERS UTAN.

> > > > > > > > > >

LASSU TANC

> > > > > > > > > >

Láttál-e már valaha gyerekeket a körhintán?

> > > > >

Vagy hallgattad-e az esot, amint a földre zuhog?

> > > > >

Követted-e egy pillangó szeszélyes röptét,

> > > > >

bámultad-e már a napot a kifakuló éjben?

> > > > >

Jobb lesz, ha lassítasz.

> > > > >

Ne táncolj oly gyorsan.

> > > > >

Az ido rövid.

> > > > >

A zene nem marad.

(…)

A final example shows a further, even more intricate twist. The following message was sent to a North American mailing list by a user easily identifiable as German based on her name and her email address (omitted here) from German account provider GMX: Example 42.  A possible back-translation from German. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yk2bdl. (…) Sorry for this off-topic posting. But I hope that you take a minute or two to read this and help the American Cancer Society. Thank you! Michaela

95

96 Email Hoaxes

This is about a 7-year-old girl, Jessica Mydek. She suffers from an incurable brain tumour, the docs say she has 6 months left. Her last wish was to start this email-”chain” that’s supposed to be spread all around the world and inform about Jessica’s situation. She wants to say, “all the best to everyone and enjoy life as much as you can”. The ACS (American Cancer Society) organized donations of 3 cents (US) for every e-mail that is sent to them. So please do the following: Please send a mail to the ACS ([email protected]). You don’t need to write anything, just include the body of this message. And please forward this to everyone you know. Remember: There’s a donation of 3 cents for EACH mail. Thank you very, very much!!!

It is highly likely that this version is a sentence-to-sentence back translation of the original text. While the text displays a high English proficiency, some aspects suggest that this variant was created by a non-native speaker. For example, the simple past in “The ACS (…) organized” is unusual; a present perfect construction would be more standard in this co-text. Also, the use of “mail” instead of “email” is typical of German speakers. It may further be noted that the description of the reward system contains a specification of the currency (“3 cents [US]”). A German translation of the Mydek text has not been documented; however, the makeup of this version suggests that a German text exists and was the template for this back-translation. This message archaeology has taken into account only the major variations in the textual material of the hoax; without a doubt, many more changes could be registered, particularly on a microlinguistic level. However, even this cursory overview should have given a good impression of the malleability of EHs and their propensity to change under dynamic conditions. The schema in Figure 6 gives an overview on the message archaeology of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH. It summarizes the major variants and developmental stages of the item and indicates the pathways between individual variants.

4.2.3 The ‘Internet Flower’/‘A Virtual Card For You’ virus EHs As described earlier, virus EHs are the earliest and most prototypical form of email hoaxing, with documentation reaching back as far as 1988. For this case study, two items from a later period have been chosen: the two virus EHs ‘Internet Flower’ (ID: 1) and ‘Virtual Card’ (called ‘Worst Ever Virus’ in the representational corpus, ID: 2), which have a closely intertwined message archaeology, went into circulation in the first years of the new millennium. They have been chosen

1

5.1(f): Kayla Wightman

4.2(a): Slow Dance 4.3: Dave Matthews 5.1(c): Dave Matthews/ Tamara Martin 5.1(d): Amy Bruce 4.2(b): Yeou-Cheng Ma 5.1(e): LaNisha Jackson

5.1(b): David Bucklew

4.2: Dennis Shields 5.1: Tamara Martin 5.1(a): Rick Connor

4.1: Tom Kendall

5: David Lawitts

2: no comedy here

4: ok you guys

Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

1: Jean Ann Linney 3: Elmo



2

4.2 (a)

5.1(f)

5.1(e)

5.1(d)

5.1(c)

5.1(b)

5.1

5

5.1(a)

4.3

4

4.2 (b)

4.1

4.2

ORIGINAL

3

12/00

01/00

11/98

04/98

12/97

10/97 11/97

09/97

07/97 08/97

06/97

05/97

04/97

03/97

02/97

01/97

[various translations]

Figure 6.  The message archaeology of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH. The upper section indicates the names of the major variants. The lower section gives a timeline; where periods are not to scale, it is indicated by dotted arrows.

to demonstrate that complex patterns of change are not limited to the ‘golden era’ of email hoaxing during the late Nineties. The message archaeology of this EH may be more complex than others in that it appears to be based on a number of textual ‘building blocks’, or modules, which are combined and reassembled in various combinations over time. Its origins can be dated to early 2000. In this period, two EHs began to circulate in an originally independent manner. Module number one is the conspicuously short ‘Internet Flower’ virus EH: Example 43.  The original ‘Internet Flower’ virus EH (ID: 1). Source: http://tinyurl.com/yloyqr. Intel announced that a new and very destructive virus was discovered recently. If you receive an email called:

97

98 Email Hoaxes

“An Internet Flower For You”, do not open it. Delete it right away! This virus removes all dynamic link libraries from your computer. Your computer will not be able to boot up. SEND THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR CONTACT LIST!!

The above example dates from August 2000 and is the earliest case in the Google hits from real-life sites. However, the EH appears in the newsletter of an Indian Internet service provider dated March 22, 2000 (http://tinyurl.com/yy4kh9); and an anti-hoax site of Ball State University notes January 27, 2000 as the date of first appearance (http://tinyurl.com/2g3amr). The above version is very likely to be an original text, being cohesive both in its structure and its typography. It contains the telltale signs of a virus EH: mention of a software company (Intel) and computer jargon (“dynamic link libraries”). Unsurprisingly, the message’s warning has no basis in reality – no virus with this or a similar name was or is known. More or less simultaneously, the ‘Virtual Card’ virus EH began to circulate. Here is an example from October 2001: Example 44.  The original ‘Virtual card’ virus EH (ID: 2). Source: http://tinyurl.com/yk52mz. PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR CONTACT LIST !! A new virus has just been discovered that has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive ever! This virus was discovered yesterday afternoon by McAfee and no vaccine has yet ! been developed. This virus simply destroys Sector Zero from the hard disk, where vital information for its functioning are stored. This virus acts in the following manner: It sends itself automatically to all contacts on your list with the title “A Card for You”. As soon as the supposed virtual card is opened, the computer freezes so that the user has to reboot. When the ctrl+alt+del keys or the reset button are pressed,the virus destroys Sector Zero, thus permanently destroying the hard disk. Yesterday in just a few hours this virus caused panic in New York, according to news broadcast by CNN. This alert was received by an employee of Microsoft itself. So don’t open any mails with subject: “A Virtual Card for You.” As soon as you get the mail, delete it!! Even if you know the sender!!! Please pass this mail to all of your friends. Forward this to everyone in your address book.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

The BSU anti-hoax site dates the ‘Virtual card’ EH to January 10, 2000 – that is, even earlier than the ‘Internet Flower’ text (albeit in the same month). As the ‘Internet Flower’ hoax, this item contains ample reliability-simulating references (McAfee, Microsoft, CNN). One remarkable feature of the text is its relatively detailed description of the supposed mechanism behind the fictitious virus, which goes beyond the mere mentioning of technical jargon that is typically found in EHs. Other salient elements are the assertions that “no vaccine” exists (an unusual wording focusing on the ‘virus’ metaphor) and that the item supposedly “caused panic in New York”. Real-life examples from the early stage of this item have not been found – although it persists, in this form, into the years 2005/2006. However, the sources mentioned above give a relatively reliable indication of the time of its origin. The Indian newsletter from March 2000 cited above contains this slightly shortened version: Example 45.  A shortened version of the ‘Virtual Card’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yy4kh9. Don’t open any mails with subject “A Virtual card for you”. As soon as the supposed virtual card is opened, the computer freezes so that the user has to ­ reboot. When the Ctrl + Alt + Del keys or the Reset button are pressed, the virus destroys Sector Zero, thus permanently destroying your hard disc. It sends ­ itself automatically to all contacts on your list with the title “ A Virtual Card for You”.

At some point, these two original texts merge into one EH. By far the most Google hits for either item stem from a version where both EHs are conjoined. The textual union is achieved in a conceivably basic manner: the ‘Internet Flower’ text is simply suffixed to the ‘Virtual Card’ text through the conjunction “Also:”. Here is an excerpt that shows the smooth link between the two texts: Example 46.  The merger between the two original texts. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yxy95k. (…) >

>just a few hours this virus caused panic in New York, according to news

>

>broadcast by CNN (www.cnn.com). This alert was received by an employee of

>

>Microsoft itself. So don’t open any mails with subject “A Virtual Card for

>

>You”. As soon as you get the mail, delete it. Please pass on this mail to

> all >

>your friends. Forward this to everyone in your address book. I would rather

>

>receive this 25 times than not at all. Also: Intel announced that a new and

>

>very destructive virus was discovered recently. If you receive an email

>

>called “An Internet Flower For You”, do not open it. Delete it right away!

99

100 Email Hoaxes

The precise moment of this merger cannot be reconstructed. Since both forms date from early 2000, one would expect textual evidence for the merger in 2000. However, the Google data suggest that this is not the case. The above example is the first traceable case of the merged text; it dates from February 12, 2001. After this point, the number of items escalates: there are various hits for March 2001, and gradually more for later months and years. Therefore, February 2001 can be assumed to be the date of origin for this version. Before the next variations based on this merger occur, a third strand needs to be taken into account for this complex textual history. In 1999, an Internet worm named PrettyPark (alias: W32/Pretty) became virulent for a short period. When it resurfaced in early 2000, this provoked the creation of an EH called “Pretty Park” (ID: 16). This example is from May 2000: Example 47.  The ‘PrettyPark’ virus EH (ID: 16). Source: http://tinyurl.com/yyypw8. DO NOT OPEN “PRETTY PARK.” It is a virus that will erase your whole “C” drive. It will come to you in the form of an e-mail from a familiar person. I repeat, DO NOT OPEN.

DELETE RIGHT AWAY.

It gets into your address book.

A “friend” sent it to me, but called & warned me before I opened it.

She was

not so lucky and now she can’t even start her computer! Forward this to everyone in your address book.

I would rather receive this warning 25 times

than not receive it once!

This virus EH is one of the border cases in the representational corpus: while it does have a basis in real life – namely the PrettyPark worm – the information it gives is highly inaccurate. It is conceivable that this text was written by a genuinely affected and concerned user; nevertheless, through its inaccuracy and lack of deictic anchoring, it easily made the transition from bona fide warning to fullfledged EH. Regarding salient textual features, the narrative passage regarding the “friend” is probably the most noticeable element of the text. Another passage that stands out is the “25 times” assertion. In February 2001, nearly coinciding with the ‘Internet Flower’/’Virtual Card’ merger, the ‘Pretty Park’ EH became a part of the larger textual network described here. A new virus EH went into circulation that took its textual material from both strands. The earliest traceable version dates from February 20, 2001: Example 48.  The ‘Family Pictures’ EH (ID: 15). Source: http://tinyurl.com/ypc78r. >DO NOT OPEN “NEW PICTURES OF FAMILY” >It is a virus that will erase your whole “C” drive. It >will come to you in the form of an E-Mail FROM A FAMILIAR PERSON >. I repeat a friend sent it to me, but >called & warned me before I opened it. >



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 101

>He was not so lucky and now he cant even start his >computer! > >Forward this to everyone in your address book. >I would rather receive this 25

times

than not at all.

>Also: Intel announced that a new and very >destructive virus was discovered recently. If you >receive an email called “FAMILY PICTURES,” do not open >it.

Delete it right away! This virus removes all

>dynamic link libraries (.dll files) from your >computer. Your computer will not be able to boot up

The only genuinely new element in this text is the fictitious name “New pictures of family” or “Family Pictures”. The first part (“DO NOT (…) not at all”) is a direct recycling of the ‘Pretty Park’ hoax text; the rest of the message is adapted from the ‘Internet Flower’ text. Some minor changes are visible – for example, the person in the narrative part is changed from “she” to “he”, and the phrase “from a familiar person” is now capitalized. In some parallel versions, the term “.dll files” is misspelled “.all files” or “.allfiles”, a case of semantic remotivation possibly generated by users not familiar with computer terminology. Note that the second part of this version is introduced by the familiar “Also:”; it is therefore highly probable that this textual module was taken from the merged 2001 version of the ‘Internet Flower’ EH. These different variants led parallel existences in the subsequent period; some of them, such as the ‘Virtual Card’/’Internet Flower’ merger continue to be well-diffused even five years later. Yet it appears, from the Google data, that the summer and fall of 2001 constituted a peak in the popularity of these messages. It is probably no coincidence that this period intersects with the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. Indeed, a large number of items sent in late 2001 contain metadiscursive statements in their framework messages which show how strongly some users felt a link between terrorist attacks and (supposed) online threats. Here are two cases which were both contained in ‘Virtual Card’/‘Internet Flower’ merger emails: Example 49.  Cases of metadiscursive commentary after 9/11. Sources: http://tinyurl.com/yc5b52 and http://tinyurl.com/ykzhgs. > >Subject: Extremely serious virus warning- from Microsoft and CNN! > >Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:50:28 > > > >As if regular terrorists weren’t bad enough... > > > > > WORST EVER VIRUS (CNN Announced)

102 Email Hoaxes

> > >>> > > > > >>> > > PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR CONTACT LIST !! (…) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 10:17 AM To: MFOS-STAFF Subject: FW: CAUTION!! This is the worst virus ever. WORST EVER VIRUS (CNN Confirmed) > ALERT! > CAUTION! > WARNING! > PLEASE READ AND SEND THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR > E-MAILING LIST!! > PLEASE PRINT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. > PASS THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, > ASSOCIATES, EMPLOYER, CO-WORKERS AND NEIGHBORS. (…) > Yours truly, > Your DHSC Income and Marketing Strategist. > P.S.: Terrorism is no longer on the ground, in the > air, in our waters, in our skies, in our > transportation resources, in dangerous chemicals, it > is now in our communications and technology systems > and the Internet. Just a thought!!

The second example in particular captures the general feeling of anxiety that dominated the period after 9/11; for example, the mention of “dangerous chemicals” refers to the perceived threat of anthrax attacks. It is not surprising that in this climate of general insecurity, subjectively felt Internet safety issues would have been seen to be on a par with more material hazards. In particular, the ‘Virtual Card’/‘Internet Flower’ EH with its dramatic rhetoric seems to have profited from this mood: the assertions that it was the “most destructive virus ever”, that “no vaccine has yet been developed”, and that “in just a few hours this virus caused panic in New York” strikingly resemble the dramatic style of news coverage prevalent in the wake of 9/11. In this light, it is hardly surprising that a virus EH making direct reference to 9/11 soon appeared. A short while after the tragedy – Break The Chain speaks of “just days” (http://tinyurl.com/2dog4) – a virus EH called ‘WTC Survivor’ (ID: 28) went into circulation. The earliest instance traceable in the Google data is from October 21, 2001:



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 103

Example 50.  An early version of the ‘WTC Survivor’ EH (ID: 28). Source: http://tinyurl.com/yjtlbj. Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:29 PM Subject: Fw: Warning- New Virus: “WTC Survivor” Warning- New Virus: “WTC Survivor” Dear All, “WTC Survivor” It is a virus that will  possible erase> your whole “C” drive. It will come to you in the form of an E-Mail from a familiar person. A friend sent it to me,but called and warned me before I opened it.He was not so lucky and now he can’t even start his computer! Forward this to everyone in your address book. I would rather receive this 25 times than not at all. If you receive an email called “WTC Survivor” do not open it. Delete it right away! This virus removes all dynamic link libraries (. dll files) from your computer.

As can be seen, this variant is a direct recycling of the ‘Family Pictures’ text (and thus, ultimately, based on ‘Pretty Park’ and ‘Internet Flower’). The minor ­deviations in the example above, such as the insertion of “possible” in line 5, are artifacts not reproduced in further strands. Very early on, a slightly extended version can be found where an element from a framework message is integrated into the core text, as in this case from October 24, 2001: Example 51.  A frequent addition to the ‘WTC Survivor’ text. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yl3pa8. Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:50:15 -0500 Subject: Fwd: FW: Warning- New Virus: “WTC Survivor” Dear All, BIGGGG TROUBLE !!!! DO NOT OPEN “WTC Survivor” It is a virus that will erase (…)

This catchy addition, with its capitalization, phonetic spelling and excessive punctuation, appears to have been very successful as it can be found in a large number of later instances. Two further framework elements are gradually integrated into the core message within the following year. In early 2002 – the first case recorded here is March 19, 2002 – an explanatory statement is added, again in text-initial position: Example 52.  A second addition to the ‘WTC Survivor’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ybrd2e. FOR THOSE THAT DONT KNOW, “WTC” STANDS FOR THE WORLD TRADE > > CENTER ......WHICH MAKES THIS VIRUS REALLY DANGEROUS BECAUSE PEOPLE > WILL > > OPEN IT RIGHT AWAY.....THINKING ITS A STORY RELATING TO

104 Email Hoaxes

> 9/11.....PLEASE BE > > CAREFUL....... :) > > > > BIGGGG TROUBLE !!!! DO NOT OPEN “WTC Survivor” It is a virus (…)

While it appears surprising that the acronym ‘WTC’ should have necessitated an explanation during that period, this addition was quite successful in terms of message archaeology: it is found in most later versions. Minor variations exist between items. In some strands, the colloquial relativizer “that” is corrected to more standard “who” in the phrase “for those that don’t know”; occasionally, “its”, in “thinking its a story relating to 9/11”, is changed to “it’s”. As has been witnessed in earlier cases, the capitalization of this paragraph has been changed to a more regular typography in a small number of cases – a variation that involves retyping of the relevant text. By the end of 2002, a third and final addition had been made to this introductory passage. The first instance recorded in the Google data is from December 1, 2002, with many hits for the following days and weeks, although the wording of the addition suggests it might have been added around the first 9/11 anniversary: Example 53.  A final addition to the ‘WTC Survivor’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/ylb2yx. > During the next several weeks be VERY cautious about opening or > launching any e-mails that refer to the World Trade Center or 9/11 > in any way, regardless of who sent it. PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL YOUR > FRIENDS AND FAMILY. For those that don’t know, (…)

The motivation for this add-on is clear: the earlier addition, beginning with “for those that don’t know” is relatively vague due to its cataphoric reference. It may have been felt necessary to clarify its reference. This last addition led to the form which the ‘WTC Survivor’ virus EH eventually took on, and in which it continues to be circulated. The following example is from May 22, 2006: Example 54.  The final form of the ‘WTC Survivor’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/y47lap. During the next several weeks be VERY cautious about opening or launching any e-mails that refer to the World Trade Center or 9/11 in any way, regardless of who sent it. “PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. FOR THOSE WHO DON’T KNOW, “WTC” STANDS FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. REALLY DANGEROUS BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL OPEN IT RIGHT AWAY, THINKING ITS A STORY RELATING TO 9/11! BIGGGG TROUBLE !!!! DO NOT OPEN “WTC Survivor” It is a virus that will erase your whole “C” drive.. It will come to you in the form of an E-Mail from a familiar person. I



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 105

repeat, a friend sent it to me, but called and warned me before I opened it. He was not so lucky and now he can’t even start his computer! Forward this to everyone in your address book. I would rather receive this 25 times than not at all. So, if you receive an email called “WTC Survivor”, do not open it. Delete it right away! This virus removes all dynamic link libraries (.dll files) from your computer. PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE!

The ‘WTC Survivor’ strand of this message archaeology became one of the most well-diffused virus EHs of the new millennium. This is not so surprising: the perceived link between 9/11 and the dangers of Internet communication have been described above. However, it is quite likely that the message’s mention of 9/11 is in itself an alluring factor for many users. It has been speculated that the ‘WTC Survivor’ EH takes its success from exploiting communicants’ terror fears (see e.g. http://tinyurl.com/y8lhnu for such a point of view). While this is certainly relevant to a certain degree, tellability may be an even more important factor in this hoax’s success: there is an inherent sensationalism in the scope of this particular EH which makes it eminently alluring and thus, ultimately, successful. Still, that is not the final step in this particular textual history. In February 2006, a further message recycling was prompted by another event: Example 55.  The ‘Olympic Torch’ virus EH (ID: 17). Source: http://tinyurl.com/y6lt83. PLEASE FORWARD THIS WARNING AMONG FRIENDS, FAMILY AND CONTACTS: >>You should be alert during the next days: Do not open any message with >>an attached filed called “Invitation” regardless of who sent it. It is >>a virus that opens an Olympic Torch which “burns” the whole hard disc C >>of your computer. >>This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in >>his/her contact list, that is why you should send this e-mail to all >>your contacts. It is better to receive this message >>25 times than to receive the virus and open it. If you receive a mail >>called “invitation”, though sent by a friend, do not open it and shut >>down your computer immediately. This is the worst virus announced by >>CNN, it has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus >>ever. This virus was discovered by McAfee yesterday, and there is no >>repair >yet for this kind of virus. >>This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the >>vital information is kept. >> >>SEND THIS E-MAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, COPY THIS E-MAIL AND SEND IT TO >>YOUR FRIENDS AND REMEMBER: IF YOU SEND IT TO THEM, YOU WILL BENEFIT ALL >>OF US.

106 Email Hoaxes

This variant went into circulation just before the Olympic Games in Turin (which began on February 10, 2006); the text indirectly refers to this event by mentioning an “Olympic Torch”. Without a doubt, the most striking feature of the text in terms of content is the curious reference to the “Olympic torch which ‘burns’ the whole hard disc C of your computer”. On the one hand, this is a typical security warning as it is contained in all virus EHs. At the same time, the elements “Olympic Torch” and “burns” are clearly to be understood in a metaphorical sense (even more so as “burns” is placed between inverted commas) – the supposed danger is not described in a technical sense. It is well possible that this phrase is meant as an explicit irony marker – nevertheless, this has not prevented the text from becoming well-diffused in a short period of time. In terms of message archaeology, this item is not as straightforward as the ‘WTC Survivor’ variant. Some parts of it are new (such as the part described above); some are paraphrases of older EH elements, such as the “25 times” assertion that originally stems from the ‘Pretty Park’ EH. Also, the opening sentence warning to be “alert during the next days” is conspicuously close to the opening of the ‘WTC survivor’ item as displayed in examples 59 and 60: thus it can be speculated whether a step of back-translation may have occurred here. However, a sizeable portion, starting with “This is the worst (…)”, is directly adopted from the ‘Virtual Card’ EH going back to January 2000. Finally, even this recent development already has parallel versions. At the time that this study was conducted, an ‘Olympic Torch’ variant was becoming increasingly popular that adds an older EH referring to Osama bin Laden to the original text. Here is an excerpt from a June 2006 example: Example 56.  A variation of the ‘Olympic Torch’ virus EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/wofn6. >>>>Emails with pictures of Osama Bin-Laden hanged are being sent >>>> >>>>>>> and the moment that you open these emails your computer will >>>> > crash >>>> >>>>>>> and you will not be able to fix it! >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This e-mail is being distributed through countries around the >>>> >>>>>>> globe, but mainly in the US and Israel. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Don’t be inconsiderate; send this warning to >>>> >>>>>>> whomever you know. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> If you get an email along the lines of “Osama Bin >>>> >>>>>>> Laden Captured” or “Osama Hanged” don’t open the attachment. >>>> >>>>>>>



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 107

>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 2. Please read the attached warning issued today. >>>> >>>>>>> P LEASE FORWARD THIS WARNING AMONG FRIENDS, FAMILY AND >>>> >>>>>>> CONTACTS: ; >>>> >>>>>>> You should be alert during the next days: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Do not open any message with an attached filed >>>> >>>>>>> called “Invitation” regardless of who sent it . (…)

These recent changes, occurring well into the first decade of the new millennium, may be taken as an indicator that this particular message archaeology is still far from stabilization. In sum, the ‘Virtual Card’/‘Internet Flower’ message archaeology has revealed itself to be similarly complex as the ‘Jessica Mydek’ case, but with a quite different tendency. Most of the major variations documented here are probably cases of recycling, where an existing text is knowingly adopted as the template for a new EH. There are only a few variations in the ‘WTC Survivor’ strand where framework message parts are incorporated into the core message; one technique largely absent from the first case study is the merging of individual EHs, as it could be observed here in three instances. The message archaeology of the ‘Virtual Card’/‘Internet Flower’ case is schematically summarized in Figure 7. Maybe most strikingly, this schema displays what a central role textual mergers play in this particular message archaeology. It also gives an impression of the considerable time span of the case caused by its reactivation in 2006 through the ‘Olympic Torch’ variant.

4.2.4 The ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH This third and final case study examines the category of giveaway EHs. As described in Section 2, virtually all giveaway EHs are built around the fictitious entity of an email ‘tracker’ or ‘tracer’; this element usually provides the backbone for a narrative framework and an incentive for message dissemination. It seems apt, then, to reconstruct the message archaeology of the EH which appears to have first introduced the concept of ‘email tracking’, and thus would have acted as the ancestor for an entire subcategory of email hoaxing. The item in question is the ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH (ID: 105) which dates back to late 1997. Like the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH, this case has the advantage of being welldocumented. One reconstruction of the item’s history has been compiled on the Snopes website (http://tinyurl.com/96al); another one, with minor ­discrepancies,

5.1: Olympic Torch/ Osama

5: Olympic Torch

4.3: During the next

4.2: For those that…

4.1: biggg trouble

4: WTC Survivor

3: Family Pictures

2: Virtual Card/ Internet Flower

1(c): Pretty Park

1 (a)

1(a): Virtual Card 1(b): Internet Flower

108 Email Hoaxes

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

11/01

03/02

12/02

02/06

03/01

02/01

05/00

01/00

1 (c)

3

10/01

1 (b)

5.1

5

2

Figure 7.  The message archaeology of The ‘Internet Flower’/’Virtual Card’ virus EHs. The upper section names of major variations; the lower section indicates a timeline; the main body shows major steps and interrelations in the life cycle.

can be found on the private homepage http://www.glires.com/spam.html. Both documentations will be referred to here, although not all of their claims could be verified. In November 1997, an email began circulating that claimed to be written by Bill Gates himself. The following version is dated November 24, 1997; the Glires site indicates November 18, the Snopes site November 21 as date of origin: Example 57.  The first version of the ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH (ID: 105). Source: http://tinyurl.com/ykep8g. >>>>> >>>>>Hello everybody, >>>>> >>>>>My name is Bill Gates.

I have just written up an e-mail tracing

>>>>> >>>program >>>>> >>>>that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to.

I am



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 109

>>>>> >>>>experimenting with this and I need your help. Forward this to >>>>> >>everyone >>>>> >>>you >>>>> >>>>know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list will receive >>>>> >>>$1000 >>>>> >>>>at my expense.

Enjoy.

>>>>> >>>>>Your friend, >>>>> >>>>>Bill Gates >>

This is the first time that the notion of ‘email tracing’, and a subsequent recompensation of the participants, is introduced. The peculiarities (and possible irony signals) of this text have frequently been pointed out, especially the unofficial nature of its style (for example, the absence of the brand name Microsoft) and its colloquial tone (such as the closing “your friend, Bill Gates”). This text is one of the few exceptional cases where the origins of an EH have been reconstructed. The Glires site traces this original text back to Bryan Mack, a computer science student from Iowa, who wrote the message as “a private joke between two friends” that got out of hand. This account of the message’s origin is corroborated by an article in Wired (Jonathon Keats, July 2004; cf. http://tinyurl.com/296vv). This background may explain the lighthearted – and hardly convincing – makeup of this text. Nevertheless, this original text easily made the transition from private joke between friends to widely diffused EH. In addition, the first variations soon made their appearance. The first massively successful variant appeared in early 1998. The earliest documented date is January 9, 1998 (again, the accumulation of quote tags suggests an even earlier date of origin): Example 58.  The first variation of the ‘Microsoft Beta’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/w5gql. >>> > > Forwarded Message: > >>> > > Subj: PLEASE READ! YOULL BE GLAD YOU DID! > >>> > > Date: 98-01-09 11:12:36 EST > >>> > > From: XyCreator > >>> > > To: Slacker224, CORCY, Fcetwoface, BaksideOli > >>> > > > >>> > > TO: MASSAOL > >>> > > FROM: GatesBeta > >>> > > ATTACH: Tracklog/Track883432/~TraceActive/On.html > >>> > > > >>> > > Hello Everyone, > >>> > > And thank you for signing up for my Beta Email Tracking > >>> Application > >>> > > or (BETA)

110 Email Hoaxes

> >>> > > for short. My name is Bill Gates. Here at Microsoft we have just > >>> > > compiled an > >>> > > e-mail tracing program that tracks everyone to whom this message > >>> is > >>> > > forwarded > >>> > > to. It does this through an unique IP (Internet Protocol) address > >>> > log > >>> > > book > >>> > > database. > >>> > > We are experimenting with this and need your help. Forward this > >>> > > to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone > >>> > > on the list you will receive $1000 and a copy of Windows98 at my > >>> > > expense. > >>> > > Enjoy. > >>> > > Note: Duplicate entries will not be counted. You will be notified > >>> > by > >>> > > email > >>> > > with further instructions once this email has reached 1000 people. > >>> > > Windows98 > >>> > > will not be shipped unitl it has been released to the general > >>> > public. > >>> > > Your friend, > >>> > > Bill Gates & The Microsoft Development Team. >>

This variant is a direct elaboration on the first text. All elements of the original are conserved, as this comparison shows (elements of the original are emphasized): Example 59.  The late 1997 (left) and early 1998 (right) versions in direct comparison: recycled material in the later version is boxed for emphasis. Hello everybody,

Hello Everyone,

My name is Bill Gates. I

And thank you for signing up

have just written up an e-

for my Beta Email Tracking

mail tracing program that

Application or (BETA) for

traces everyone to whom this

short. My name is Bill Gates.

message is forwarded to. I

Here at Microsoft we have just

am experimenting with this

compiled an e-mail tracing

and I need your help.

program that tracks everyone

Forward this to everyone you

to whom this message is

know and if it reaches 1000

forwarded to.

people everyone on the list

through an unique IP (Internet

will receive $1000 at my

Protocol) address log book

expense. Enjoy.

database. We are experimenting

Your friend,

with this and need your help.

Bill Gates

Forward this to everyone you

It does this



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission

know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list and a you will receive $1000 copy of Windows98 at my expense. Enjoy. Note: Duplicate entries will not be counted. You will be notified by email with further instructions once this email has reached 1000 people. Windows98 will not be shipped unitl it has been released to the general public. Your friend, Bill Gates

& The Microsoft

Development Team

It is easy to see how this variation is motivated: while it adopts the narrative framework of the original EH, it inserts a range of reliability-generating elements. Thus it makes mention of brand and product names (Microsoft, Windows98); it makes the closing sound more official by introducing a “Microsoft Development Team”; and it adds – largely nonsensical – computer jargon (“IP (Internet Protocol) address log book database”, “Beta Email Tracking Application”). It can further be noted that the second variation contains faked header information that simulates provenance from “GatesBeta” as well as an attachment suggestively entitled “Tracklog/Track883432/~TraceActive/On.html”. In sum, this variant carefully extends the original to sound more reliable and convincing. Taking into account the wide dissemination of this variant, the strategy appears to have been quite successful. This first step in the message archaeology is a case of EH recycling, although the term ‘expansion’ may be more fitting. The next significant textual variation occurred a few months later. This third version began circulating, in all probability, in late August 1998: Example 60.  The third variant of the ‘Microsoft Beta’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yytc27. >>WALT DISNEY JR. >>GREETING >>Hello Disney fans, >> And thank you for signing up for Bill >> Gates’ Beta >>Email Tracking

111

112 Email Hoaxes

>>My name is Walt Disney Jr. >>Here at Disney we are working with Microsoft which has just >>compiled an e-mail tracing program that tracks everyone >>to

whom this message is forwarded to. It does this

>>through an unique IP (Internet Protocol) address log book database. >>We are experimenting with this >> your help.

and need

Forward this to everyone

you know and if it reaches

>> 13,000 people, 1,300 of the people = on the list will receive $5,000, >>and the rest will receive a free trip for two to Disney World for one >>week during the summer of 1999 at our expense.

Enjoy.

>> Note: Duplicate entries will not be counted. You will be notified by >>email with further instructions once this email has reached 13,000 >>people. >>Your friends, >>Walt Disney Jr., Disney, Bill Gates, & The Microsoft Development Team.

Obviously, the major change in this variant is that it introduces Disney as an additional narrative entity: “Walt Disney Jr.” (a fictional person) appears as the conjoint originator of the message, and the reward is slightly adapted – in particular, a “free trip for two to Disney World” is added. Other changes are largely grammatical corrections, although infelicities such as the spelling “an unique” are left uncorrected from the earlier text. While the simulated header information is absent in this version, there is a – somewhat obscure – opening stating “WALT DISNEY JR. GREETING” before the opening formula proper. It is interesting to note that this text, unlike most other EHs, contains a certain temporal deictic anchoring, as it dates the reward to “the summer of 99”. While such anchoring might conceivably be omitted in later variations, this does not seem to be the case here. The ‘Disney’ variant indeed stops circulating by the summer of 1999, the latest traceable item being from May 17, 1999: cf. http://tinyurl.com/yg3ew2. Nevertheless, additions were made during the virulent period of this EH variant. A number of framework message elements are integrated into the text shown above in a large number of traceable items. Indeed, these add-ons seem to have been made at a very early point in the text’s life cycle, as they appear as early as August 1998. Here is the structure that appears most frequently: Example 61.  A frequent addition to the ‘Disney’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yadkea. >> > >Apparently this is true and worth a shot!!! >> > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > >Folks, >> > >I called Disney my self.

It’s no lie.

GET IT DONE!

>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 113

>> > +++>> >> > >>>Disney message & $5,000.00 >> > >>>If you read below you will see the note from Walt >> > >>>Disney Jr. & Management at Disney World. >> > >>>Basically if this messages reaches 13,000 people, >> > >>>everyone will receive $5,000.00 or a free, all expenses paid, trip >> > to >> > >>Disney >World in anytime during the summer of 1999. >> > >>>See the note below - its worth it!!!! >> > >>>Everyone is to resend to 15 individuals. >> > >>>Please read and forward to as many friends as >> > >>>possible...we’ve checked up on >> > >>>this and this is no joke of a chain letter or something >> > >>>if this reaches 13,000 people...duplicate entries don’t >> > >>>count, though...So, please help & pass on... >> > >>>thank you, and here you

go!!!

(…)

The makeup of these framework messages, with their metadiscursive, reiterating nature, is quite typical. Considering the typographic partitioning, it is highly likely that this text chunk is made up of three individual framework elements that became merged into one. Yet this combined version appears to have been the most successful strand – items that contain only a part of this addition are few and far between. The next branch in the message archaeology of this EH is considerably further removed. Importantly, the next variation in its life cycle does not conserve chunks of textual material in the way most variants do: in this sense, the following item is an autonomous EH (and is treated as such in the corpus – ID: 109). However, the parallels in its narrative concept, and particularly the adoption of the terms “email tracking system” and “beta test”, let it appear reasonable to view it as a member of the ‘Microsoft Beta’ EH family. The following text appeared in early 1999 (Snopes gives April 1999 as date of origin, this example is from May 7, 1999): Example 62.  The ‘Netscape AOL merger’ EH (ID: 109). Source: http://tinyurl.com/y4hm62. >Hi this is pretty cool! Netscape and AOL have recently merged >to form the largest internet company in the world. In an effort to >remain at pace with this giant, Microsoft has introduced a new email >tracking system as a way to keep Internet Explorer as the most popular >browser on the market. This email is a beta test of the new software and >Microsoft has generously offered to compensate those who participate in >the testing process. For each person you send this email to, you will >be given $5. For every person they give it to, you will be given an

114 Email Hoaxes

>additional $3. For every person they send it to you will receive $1. >Microsoft will tally all the emails produced under your name over a >two week period and then email you with more instructions. This beta >test is only for Microsoft Windows users because the email >tracking device that contacts Microsoft is embedded into the code of Windows >95 and 98.

Both the similarities and the differences to previous versions are striking. On the one hand, the supposed mechanism is described in a very similar way, including, as shown above, an identical terminology. Also, prominent place is given to the brand name Microsoft and its product lines (Windows 95/98). At the same time, an entirely new narrative context has been added to this conceptual backbone. The message begins with a reference to a real-life occurrence: Netscape was indeed bought up by AOL in November 1998, only months before this EH went into circulation. While a connection between this event and the text undoubtedly exists, its statement that this merger created “the largest internet company in the world” is distinctly exaggerated.10 The surprising narrative twist that reinstalls Microsoft as the focus of the text is, of course, entirely fictional. Interestingly, many items of that stage in the message archaeology contain an additional ending that adds a further layer of narrativity. Here is an example of this ending: Example 63.  A frequent variation of the ‘Netscape AOL merger’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yb6ldx. (…) > I know you guys hate forwards. But I started this a month ago > because I was short on cash. A week ago I got an email from Microsoft > asking me for my address. I gave it to them and yesterday I got a > check in the mail for $800. It really works. I wanted you to get a > piece of the action. You won’t regret it.

This addendum looks very much like an integrated framework message. However, the logic of its contents make it highly improbable that this text is indeed a bona fide addition by a forwarder, as it describes events that would have occurred after the actual forwarding. It is likely, therefore, that this is merely a simulated ­framework message. Whatever the pragmatic status of the addition, it is highly frequent in the Google data. The next major variation in this strand followed in September/October 1999. Although the narrative framework is again slightly changed, and much of the

10. Such statements are probably better-known from the 2000 merger between Time Warner and AOL – which, famously, failed to live up to expectations.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 115

t­ extual material is rewritten, the similarities are striking. Here is the earliest traceable version from September 29, 1999: Example 64.  The second version of the ‘Netscape AOL merger’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/yd3h6s. >I am forwarding this because the person who sent it to >me is a good friend and does not send me junk. >Microsoft and AOL are now the largest Internet company >and in an effort make sure that Internet explorer >remains the most widely used program, Microsoft and AOL >are running an e-mail beta test. When you forward this >e-mail to friends, Microsoft can and will track it (if >you are a Microsoft Windows user) for a two week time >period. For every person that you forward this e-mail >to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00, for every person >that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will >pay you $243.00 and for every third person that >receives it, you will be paid $241.00. Within two >weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address >and then send you a check. I thought this was a scam >myself, but two weeks after receiving this e-mail >and forwarding it on, Microsoft contacted me for my >e-mail and within days, I received a check for >$24800.00.

While the text may appear quite autonomous at first sight, there are a number of text chunks known from the earlier version. The term “the largest Internet company” is directly adopted; and the description of the reward system (“for every person (…) $241.00”) is largely identical to the original shown in example 68. Major differences are particularly evident in the fictional framework of the text. In this variant, the Netscape-AOL connection does not figure; instead, a merger between Microsoft and AOL is claimed or at least insinuated. This is, of course, totally fictional; it should also be noted that this version weakens the motivation of the further narrative, as the Netscape-Microsoft antagonism is lacking. From a more microlinguistic perspective, the augmentation of the reward sums is particularly noticeable: all sums have the digit 24 added, which makes for considerably higher amounts of money. Finally, the introductory and closing parts of this text are worth noting. The text-initial sentence (“I am forwarding this (…) junk”) is almost certainly a former framework message; it appears in many, but by no means all, instantiations of the message. The final part (beginning with “I thought (…)” is strongly reminiscent of the strategy seen in example 63. While it appears like a framework addition at first sight, a closer look at its contents reveals that this is only a simulated framework message – the narrator persona relates events

116 Email Hoaxes

(“two weeks later”) that could not yet have happened at the moment of forwarding the message. This material is therefore likely to be an integral part of the EH itself; its simulated real-life experience is merely a further strategy of enhancing the text’s credibility. The third major variation in this strand went into circulation around late 1999/early 2000. In this variant, the supposed company merger is now attributed to Intel and AOL. The earliest documented version is from February 6, 2000: Example 65.  The ‘IntelAOL merger’ item (ID: 30). Source: http://tinyurl.com/y8m2f4. >

> >>>I’m an attorney, and I know the law.

>

> >assured

This thing is for real.

Rest

>

> >>>AOL and Intel will follow through with their promises for fear of

>

facing >

>

> >>>multimillion dollar class action suit similar to the one filed by

> >an

>

Pepsico

>

> >>>against General Electric not too long ago.

>

> >>>going to help them out with their e-mail beta test without getting a

>

> >little

>

> >>>something for our time. My brother’s girlfriend got in on this a few

>

> >months

>

> >>>ago. When I went to visit him

I’ll be damned if we’re > all

for the Baylor/UT game she showed me

> her >

> >>>check.

It was for the sum of $4,324.44 and was stamped “Paid In

> Full”. >

> >>>Like I said before, I know the law, and this is for real. If you

> don’t >

> >>>believe me you can email her at jpiltman(at)baylor.edu.

>

> >answer

>

> >>>any questions you guys might have. Thanks, Dirk. I know I’m already > in.

>

> >>>Moore, Dirk” wrote: If you don’t do this, you must be really, really

>

dumb.

>

> >>>From:

>

> >because

>

> >>>the person who sent it to me is a good friend and does not send me > junk.

>

> >>>Intel and AOL are now discussing a merger which would make them the

>

> >largest

>

> >>>Internet company and in an effort make sure that AOL remains the > most

>

> >>widely

>

> >>>used program, Intel and AOL are running an e-mail beta test. When > you

>

> >>>forward this e-mail to friends, Intel can and will track it (if you

> are >

She’s eager to

James M. Schwarnica This is not a joke. I am forwarding this

a

>

> >>>Microsoft Windows user) for a two week time period. For every person

>

that



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 117

>

> >>>you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $203.15, for > every

>

> >>person

>

> >>>that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you > $156.29

>

> >>and

>

> >>>for every third person that receives it, you will be paid $17.65 > Within

>

> >two

>

> >>>weeks,Intel will contact you for your address and then send you a

>

check. I

>

> >>>thought this was a scam myself, but a friend of my good friend’s > Aunt

>

> >>>Patricia, who works at Intel actually got a check for $4,543.23 by

>

> >>>forwarding this e-mail.

Try it, what have you got to lose????

The core message of this text (starting with “Intel and AOL are now (…)”) is largely identical with the Microsoft/AOL variant. Minor changes are made regarding the reward sums; also, the final testimonial contains a rather longwinded description (“a friend of my good friend’s Aunt Patricia, who works at Intel”) that is probably intended as an irony signal. It should be noted that the textual recycling has been carried out in a rather superficial manner; thus Microsoft is still mentioned as the money-giving institution although it plays no role in the narrative scheme. However, the most striking feature of this EH is without a doubt its long introductory section. Again, this introductory part strongly looks like an accumulation of framework messages, but many factors suggest that it was an integral part of the text from the onset: thus no version can be traced that lacks the “I’m an attorney (…)” section; also, the Baylor university email address (“jpiltman(at)baylor.edu”) has never existed (cf. http://tinyurl.com/96al). The use of legalese jargon (“multimillion dollar class action suit”) is, again, a way of underscoring the importance of the supposed scheme; as Martin Miller, author of the Glires site, aptly put it, it is “trying to give the reader the sense that they have the power to make big companies ‘pay’” (http://www.glires.com/spam.html). In this sense, the present version of the EH puts on display the sentiment which may be said to underlie the entire subcategory of giveaway EHs. Reinforcing this tendency, a slightly later version contains another text-initial addition. The earliest traceable case is from July 10, 2000: Example 66.  A frequent addition to the ‘IntelAOL merger’ EH. Source: http://tinyurl.com/wz5p4. (…) >

To all of my friends, I do not usually forward messages but this is

>

from my good friend Pearlas Sanborn and she really is an

> attorney.....If > she >

says that this will work - it WILL work.

> got to

After all, what have you

118 Email Hoaxes

>

loose? - >

SORRY EVERYBODY.....JUST HAD TO TAKE THE CHANCE!!!

I’m an

attorney, ­ >

and I know the law.

This thing is for real.

Rest assured AOL and

(…)

Again, the juridical theme is present. It cannot be ascertained whether this is a genuine, or a fabricated, framework message. However, the latter option seems more likely, as the name ‘Pearlas Sanborn’ (Or, in some versions, ‘Sandborn’), has never been connected with a real person (see e.g. the Wired article, http://tinyurl. com/296vv). Genuine or fictitious addition, this longer version was highly successful in terms of circulation. The Snopes documentation cites further versions that could not be verified based on Google data. However, as a final instantiation in this strand of the textual history, a version appeared in mid-2002 that combines the ‘Microsoft’ and the ‘Intel’ variants. Due to its considerable length, it is not reprinted here; the earliest version, dating from August 21, 2002, can be found at http://tinyurl.com/3d9r9j. The account of this message archaeology has so far shown a significant number of variations on the basis of the November 1997 original. However, the reverberations of this EH go considerably further. In mid-1999 (the version shown below is from June 21, 1999), the following text began to circulate: Example 67.  The ‘GAPTracking’ giveaway EH (ID: 41). Source: http://tinyurl.com/y5pbxa. > > >>>>Abercrombie & Fitch have recently merged to form the largest hottie > > >>>>outfitter company in the world!

In an effort to remain at pace with

> > this > > >>>>giant, the GAP has introduced a new email tracking system to > determine > > who > > >>>>has the most loyal followers.

This email is a beta test of the new

> > >clothing > > >>>>line and GAP has generously offered to compensate those who > > participate in > > >>>>the testing process.

For each person you send this e-mail

> to, > > you > > >>>>will be given a pair of cargo pants.

For every person they give it

> > to, > > you > > >>>>will be given an additional Hawaiian print T-shirt, for every person > > they > > >>>>send it to, you will receive a fishermans hat! GAP will tally all



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 119

> the > > >emails > > >>>>produced under your name over a two week period and then email you > > with > > >more > > >>>>instructions. > > >>>>This beta test is only for Microsoft Windows users because the email > > >>>>tracking device that contacts GAP is embedded into the code of > Windows > > 95 > > >>>>and 98. > > >>>>If you wish to speed up the “clothes receiving process”

then you

> can > > email > > >>>>the GAP’s P.R. rep for a free list of email addresses to try, at.... > > >>>>[log in to unmask] > > >>>>mailto:[log in to unmask] > > >>>>(this was forwarded to me, it’s not me saying this...) > > >>>>A week ago, I got an email from the GAP asking me for my address I > > gave it > > >>>>to them yesterday and I got a box load of mechandise in the mail > from > > the > > >>>>GAP!!!!!

It really works!

It is evident that the focus of this text is quite different: the subject has shifted from software firms and service providers to clothing companies and their products. At the same time, the narrative progression of the message is very similar to the previously described texts, and this is hardly surprising: this EH is a slightly changed version of the Netscape/AOL text from May 1999. The only significant changes concern brand names and ensuing lexical choices (for example, the monetary sums are replaced with products such as “a pair of cargo pants”). The ironic stance is barely concealed in this email hoax, as is evident through statements such as “this email is a beta test of the new clothing line”. In terms of its circulation, it does not appear to have been widely successful: only three reallife examples were traceable at the time of the present study. However, it appears that this variant was the progenitor of a long line of variations where the narrative focus concerns a product. The first spin-offs make explicit reference to the A&F/ GAP text (although none of the successors conserves any of its textual material). This can be seen, for example, in the ‘Old Navy’ EH (ID: 48), which evolved in mid-1999. This version is from October 6, 1999:

120 Email Hoaxes

Example 68.  The ‘Old Navy’ EH (ID: 48). Source: http://tinyurl.com/y526xm. >>>>>>

DEAR OLD NAVY SHOPPER:

>>>>>> >>>>>>

I AM LAURA THIMIS, THE FOUNDER OF OLD NAVY. AS

>>>>>>

YOUKNOW, THERE HAS BEEN

>>>>>> >>>>>>

SOME PRMOTION THINGS GOING ON WITH ABERCROMBIE AND

>>>>>>

FITCH

>>>>>>

AND THE GAP.

>>>>>>

NOW I WANT TO BE PART OF THE

INTERNET PRMOTION “GIG”.

>>>>>>

FOR

EVERY 10 PEOPLE THAT YOU SEND THIS TO, YOU

>>>>>>

GET

>>>>>>

A FREE $25.00 GIFT CARD

>>>>>>

FOR

>>>>>>

ANY OLD NAVY STORE, IN ANY PART OF THE

>>>>>>

WORLD,

>>>>>>

FROM THE U S A TO CHINA,

>>>>>>

FROM

>>>>>>

ICELAND TO PARIS!!

MAKE SURE THAT YOU

>>>>>>

SEND

>>>>>>

THIS TO LOTS AND LOTS AND

>>>>>>

LOTS

>>>>>>

OF PEOPLE!!!!

AFTER YOU SEND THIS TO AT

>>>>>>

LEAST

>>>>>>

10 PEOPLE, YOU WILL RECIVE

>>>>>>

YOUR

>>>>>>

FREE OLD NAVY GIFT CARD IN 2-4 WEEKS!!!!

>>>>>>

WATCH

>>>>>>

THE MAIL!!!!!!!!

>>>>>>

Thank You!!!!

>>

In terms of narrative structure, this EH is already far removed from the original: there is no mention of Microsoft, a tracking system, or any other IT reference. However, it does refer to “some promotion things going on with Abercrombie and Fitch and the Gap”. Other giveaway EHs have similar references, such as the ‘J. Crew’ EH (ID: 112) or another GAP EH (ID: 40). In the years that followed – particularly in 1999 and 2000 – a broad range of new-generation giveaway EHs went into circulation. Neither do they contain any textual material of the early texts, nor do they refer to the same product groups – their scope ranges from free plane tickets to champagne. In the light of the message archaeology described here, it nevertheless seems justified to ultimately treat them as successors of the original ‘Microsoft Beta’ text. Figure 8 sums up the textual history of this EH in a schematic overview. A noteworthy aspect of this message archaeology is the

3.4: Microsoft Intel 3.4

3.2(b): Pearlas Sanborn

3 2(a): IntelAOL

3.2

3.2 (a)

3.2 (b)

09/99

02/00

07/00

1

08/02

07/99

05/99

08/98

01/98

3.3

3.3 (a)

3

12/97

11/97

3 2: MicrosoftAOL

3.3(a): J. Crew

2.1: GET IT DONE 2.1

3: Netscape AOL 3.1: I know you guys 3.3: A&F/GAP

2: Disney 2

3.1

ORIGINAL

1: Microsoft Beta

Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 121

The Microsoft Beta original version



Figure 8.  Message archaeology of the ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH. The upper section indicates the names of textual variants; the lower section provides a timeline. The main body schematizes the major steps in the items’ life cycle.

abundance of indirect transitions, where no textual material is directly adopted. A further specificity is the clear-cut termination of the topmost branch (the ‘Disney’ variant) in May 1999. Figure 9 provides a schematic summary of the three message archaeologies presented here over a scale of ten years, putting their chronological development in relation to each other and elucidating their respective patterns of productivity and stabilization. While the message archaeologies in this overview are slightly stylized, the direct comparison reveals the considerable bandwidth of patterns in textual variation and change. Thus the ‘Mydek’ text shows a high rate of change in the very first months, whereas the ‘Microsoft Beta’ case remains relatively stable for more than a year before a phase of high productivity sets in. Textual mergers play a major role in the ‘IF/Virtual Card’ case; they occur only at one point in the ‘Microsoft Beta’ archaeology, and play no role at all in the ‘Mydek’ case. ­Finally, the ‘Microsoft Beta’ archaeology is the only item with a branch displaying a ­

122 Email Hoaxes

Figure 9.  An overview on the three message archaeologies presented here. From top to bottom, the clusters show the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH, the ‘An Internet Flower/Virtual Card For You’ virus EHs, and the ‘Microsoft Beta’ giveaway EH.

clear-cut termination; in all other branches, the dates refer merely to first occurrence but imply a principally open ending for the variant in question. While these case studies have thus revealed a broad range of options for variation and change in EHs, it can be concluded that a range of patterns have been shown to recur repeatedly.

4.2.5 Summary: Forms of textual change The three case studies presented here should have demonstrated what a central role the chronological factor plays in the textual shape of EHs. In the above accounts of the respective message archaeologies, emphasis has been placed on a faithful chronological reconstruction of the successive changes. This perspective has only permitted a fleeting glance at the huge variety of change loci and pathways. Therefore, the following summary gives a more systematic account of variation types. One central result is quite apparent from the three case studies: namely that changes can and do occur at virtually every textual level. To structure this wealth of features, the mechanisms of change are organized into two categories



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 123

here: quantitative change (i.e. mechanisms that lead to textual reduction or extension) and qualitative change (i.e. change that manipulates textual elements). Message reduction. On the assumption that changes in EHs occur in accordance with a principle of economy, it would be expected that text reductions should be the most frequent type of variation. After all, making a text shorter requires little energy and is likely to occur inadvertently in the process of forwarding from time to time. However, this section has given ample proof that economy does not appear to be one of the driving forces of variation and change in EHs – in that case, much less variation would occur in general. Text shortenings are not as frequent as might be expected: indeed, the case studies presented here have shown them to be highly exceptional cases. The only clear-cut instance of text reduction in the data examined here occurs in the Jessica Mydek EH: in the transition from the original to the ‘Elmo’ variant, only the final section of the text is conserved, resulting in a reduction from 134 to 36 words. Even so, it can be argued that this reduction is made possible only through the addition of extraneous material – in this case, the ASCII drawing. Reduction in text length may be witnessed in a small number of other transitions. For example, the ‘Family Pictures’ variant from the second case study is slightly longer than its direct successor, the ‘WTC Survivor’ text (word count: 135 vs. 110). However, such reductions are largely circumstantial and due to qualitative changes such as paraphrases or lexico-grammatical corrections; the length difference in such cases is merely an unintentional by-product. In sum, text shortenings can be said to occur only as a highly marked form of textual change in EHs, and only in concurrence with other factors (addition of external material, qualitative changes, and the like). This tendency is remarkable and must be taken into account for a functional interpretation of chronological change. Message extensions. As can be seen from the data presented here, text extensions are by far the more frequent form of quantitative change in EHs. In fact, nearly all variational transitions described in the case studies appear to involve a certain lengthening of the previous text variant; however, in many of these cases, it is a qualitative change that accounts for the lengthening. Textual extension through the addition of discourse chunks was found to occur in at least four ways: Signatures. As could be seen in the ‘Ann Linney’ and the ‘Dr. David Shields’ examples, signatures are typical candidates for extensions in a text-final position; these are cases of textual lengthening which occur inadvertently. Framework messages. The inclusion of framework elements into the core message is undoubtedly the major pathway for text extension. It appears repeatedly in all three case studies. Framework additions may occur both in initial and final

124 Email Hoaxes

­ osition; in either case, their content is usually oriented toward metadiscursive isp sues. Again, such extensions are probably created unintentionally in most cases External material. The addition of material that is not directly related to the text may not be frequent but appears to make for highly successful EH variants. In the case studies, two examples were discussed: the ASCII ‘Elmo’ and the ‘Slow Dance’ poem, both of which occurred in the ‘Jessica Mydek’ charity EH. External material does not necessarily consist of text elements, since pictures, web links and the like may also be included. Text combinations. Finally, it has been shown that two distinct EH texts can occasionally be merged into one. This was the case with ‘Internet Flower’ and ‘Virtual Card’ in the second case study, and with ‘MicrosoftAOL’ and ‘IntelAOL’ in the third. It is debatable in how far these combinations really constitute extensions, as no genuinely new text material is generated in such cases. From a purely quantitative perspective, they certainly account for the most dramatic word count increases between variants within one message archaeology. Qualitative change. Chronological change in EHs can be called ‘qualitative’ if it affects not so much the structure of the text per se but the makeup of its individual parts. To use the traditional semiotic concept, quantitative change can be described as syntagmatic, whereas qualitative change is a matter of paradigmatic choice.11 As mentioned above, qualitative change occurs at virtually every discourse level. The following major categories have been identified in the case studies: Typographic/orthographic corrections. Changes can be observed at this lowest discourse level. To be sure, changes in typography are often due to technical settings and thus unintended by the user. Nevertheless, evidence for manual typographic changes were seen at various points in the case study: this concerned particularly transitions from capitalized to small-cap texts, as was seen in later version of the original ‘Jessica Mydek’ text, and in variants of the ‘For those that don’t know’ addition to the ‘WTC Survivor’ EH: both discourse chunks are capitalized in the original but rendered in a more regular typography in later versions. While orthography has not been the focus of the case studies presented here, there are cases where misspellings are corrected in later versions. For example, the ‘Tamara Martin’ strand of the first case contains the phrase “This chain was a final attend to get me healthy again”; in later versions, the misspelling is corrected to “attempt”. Similar cases appear repeatedly in longer message archaeologies.

11. It should be noted, however, that the alignment of both axes must be pictured as opposed to the traditional model. For the graphic representation of a sentence, the syntagmatic axis is horizontal; for the graphic representation of a piece of discourse such as the email hoax, it is vertical.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 125

Lexico-grammatical modification. As with orthography, corrections (and less clearly motivated changes) occur on this next discourse level. For example, a case of correction toward a more standard English was described in the ‘WTC Survivor’ strand of the second case study, where the relativizer “for those that don’t know” was replaced with “who” in later versions. In the same case study, a case of grammatical modification could be seen that appears to be unmotivated by correctness standards: the phrase “and now she can’t even start her computer” that appears in the ‘Pretty Park’ EH was changed to “and now he cant even start his computer” in its direct successor, the ‘Family Pictures’ EH. The motivation for the gender change in the pronouns is unclear – it may well be an adaptation to a user’s personal environment. Note that congruency between the two pronouns is maintained, whereas a misspelling is introduced with “cant”: change toward less correct forms is thus equally possible. Content-related change. Change that affects the very gist of the EH in question has been seen at frequent points in the case studies. Particularly in cases of EH recycling, salient factors that are central to a text’s narrative conception will change: names of narrative entities (persons, diseases, locations, viruses, etc.), amounts (of money, time, etc.), dates and other content-rich elements may be subject to change. This mechanism, which is due to intentional changes in all likelihood, accounts for a large number of new EHs that are created through recycling. Indeed, it becomes difficult at this point to maintain a clear-cut distinction between variations within one EH, and genuinely new items. Paraphrases. On a more macrotextual level, paraphrases of a text as a whole could be seen in the case studies. Paraphrases can occur while all content-related variables remain unchanged: this was the case in the ‘Jessica Mydek’ back-translation from German, and in the slightly longer elaboration of the original ‘Bill Gates Beta’ EH. At the same time, paraphrases are frequently present where contentbased recycling occurs: this is the case in texts such as the ‘Tamara Martin’ or the ‘Olympic Torch’ EHs, which deviate from their antecedents both in wording and in terms of salient content features. In both cases, paraphrasing is a highly timeintensive mechanism of change – the user who effects it closely engages with the discourse and actively produces a new version. Translations. Translated versions were shown in detail for the ‘Jessica Mydek’ case, and have further been found for all items discussed here; interestingly, translations often exist not only on the basis of the original text, but are produced at various stages of the message archaeology. A broad range of target languages was identified, and while Western languages were in the majority, translations for other audiences (Arabic, Asian, etc.) are equally traceable. Translation is the most radical, and complex, form of textual variation: it brings about a cross-cultural transition of the text, and demands considerable temporal and linguistic

126 Email Hoaxes

r­ esources on the part of the communicant who produces the new version. In this sense, translations of EHs show, more than any other form of change, how relevant these messages are felt to be by many users.

4.3

Conclusion: EH dynamics in a functional perspective

This section has emphasized the intrinsic role of temporal aspects in EHs. It has described, in the first part, that a life cycle with a complex communication structure is a necessary aspect of email hoaxing – the dynamics of serial communication are a sine qua non condition of the discourse phenomenon as a whole. In the second part, ample real-life evidence has shown that variation and change are integral elements of the textual makeup of EHs – the marks of time that accumulate in an EH message during its circulation do not lessen its impact in any way. In sum, this facilitates their diffusion in multiple branches and simultaneously shapes their linguistic form. When a discourse phenomenon is so intricately linked with a non-linguistic factor, it is highly probable that this connection is not merely coincidental, but that a functional relation exists. Such a relation, as should have become clear, can be assumed in the case at hand. As has been seen, communicants use the dynamic conception of EHs to modify the texts: they strive to actively engage and interact with the discourse. This was already witnessed with regard to subject lines in Section 3.2.2; the analysis presented here has revealed the full scope of possible textual change. The propensity for change is remarkable as EHs are not inherently conceived for textual interaction and variation, in striking contrast to many other CMC forms such as wikis, blogs, etc. Interestingly, nearly all forms of interaction seen in the case studies were supportive or in some way text-enhancing: orthography and typography changes show a tendency toward regularization; explanatory and accommodating framework statements abound; whole texts are transposed into other languages. This is a strong indicator of how relevant EHs are felt to be at least by a considerable number of users. Of course, different modes of interaction have been described in this section: while most changes are made with full intention, some occur inadvertently (e.g. the incorporation of signatures); while many additions are made with a genuine wish to sustain the text in question, others are mainly intended to create new EHs (most notably the cases of EH recycling). These are issues of varying pragmatic conceptions that are addressed in the following section. Nevertheless, the overall impression that remains from the data presented here is that people who participate in the chain of communication of an EH do so because they see in the text something meaningful and worthy of attention.



Chapter 4.  The dynamics of EH transmission 127

As Fernback12 aptly puts it, “the mediated transmission of oral folklore and legends lends it an authoritative character as the authentic voice of all humankind” (2003: 33). This functional analysis of temporality in EHs from a user perspective points to an important functional interpretation on the textual side. The case studies in the second part of this section have shown that the urge in users for interaction with EHs generates various strands of message versions – or, to return to the initial biological metaphor, various phenotypes of the original. Due to this variety of coexisting forms, email hoaxing is strongly akin to modern concepts of folklore. In contrast to traditional theories of folklore that were restricted to oral traditions and artifacts from rural or even indigenous communities, more recent approaches have begun to take into account the written products of a post-industrial society as a new form of folkloristic expression. Methodologically, these approaches focus on two qualities that the folkloristic data have to display, namely multiple existence and variation (e.g. Dundes 1965;13 Dundes and Pagter 1992). Multiple existence denotes, quite simply, the notion that a textual artifact exists in at least two (and, usually, many more) places simultaneously. This is strongly the case for EHs, as the transmission pattern studies presented in Section 4.1 has shown. Variation implies that not all of these simultaneously existing items are completely identical, but that small-scale differences are noticeable. This phenomenon has been the driving force behind the three case studies presented in Section 4.2. Due to this conceptual closeness, it may be suggested here that EHs represent a new form of folklore: they could be described as an instantiation of Digital Folklore (DF). Labels such as ‘netlore’ have been intuitively employed before to describe the phenomenon of EHs. This study of temporality in EHs for the first time delivers empirical evidence that this connection is not just metaphorically tempting but accurate in a technical sense. As has been described in the opening paragraphs of this section, the technological means of email programs are not naturally conducive for the manual engineering of texts. The fact that users go to great lengths in order to nevertheless interact with these messages, as they would in more traditional forms of folklore, shows just how strong this connection between email hoaxing and folklore may be. Finally, it should be noted that the approach by Dundes and Pagter (1992) was targeted toward items of ‘officelore’ that are transmitted by photocopiers and fax machines. The conceptual closeness to EHs is obvious; the concept of DF will be returned to in the final chapter on genre. 12. Referring to larger folkloristic studies such as Brunvand (1981) and Dégh (1994). 13. Another criterion from Dundes (1965) is irrationality, topicalized in Section 5.

chapter 5

The pragmatics of EHs

This chapter gives a detailed analysis of the pragmatic mechanisms that operate in and through EHs. It has become evident at various points in the present study that email hoaxing as a discourse phenomenon is most distinctly characterized by peculiarities in its pragmatic patterns. To echo the most fundamental formula of pragmatic theory, it is particularly relevant to analyze how people do things with EHs. Inherent to this perspective is the question of speaker motivation: why do users create EHs? Why do others disseminate them? What communicative needs are being fulfilled for communicants through the interaction with EHs? These questions, which touch upon the very fundamentals of email hoaxing, are addressed both from theory-driven and data-driven perspectives here. The first, and central, part of this section is concerned with the theoretic modeling of pragmatic processes in EHs: based on a cooperation-oriented concept of pragmatics, it outlines the pragmatic duality that characterizes EHs and sketches a model of hoaxing as a complex speech act. This theory-based view is complemented by a close examination of relevant real-life data such as metadiscursive comments on the pragmatic status of EHs by users who participate in the chain of communication.

5.1

Pragmatics and cooperation – pragmatics as cooperation

In linguistic theory, the concept of cooperation is well-established – at least in the sense that it is inextricably associated with the Gricean theoretical apparatus of conversational maxims and implicature. Indeed, Grice’s programmatic paper (1975) postulating a Cooperative Principle (CP) laid the foundation for later examinations of cooperation and, in this sense, for a broad section of pragmatic theory in general. Of particular interest for the present study are not so much the mechanics of the Gricean model (that is, the maxims of conversation and the phenomenon of implicature, which Grice himself describes in detail), but rather its fundamental assumptions about communication as a rational, intentional, and

130 Email Hoaxes

purposive type of interaction. A few quotes from Grice (1975) may illustrate this orientation (emphasis added): [Our talk exchanges] are characteristically, at least to some degree, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. (45) We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected (ceteris paribus) to observe, namely: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. (45) (…) the assumption which we seem to make, and on which (I hope) it will appear that a great range of implicatures depend, [is] that talkers will in general (ceteris paribus and in the absence of indications to the contrary) proceed in the manner that these principles [the maxims] prescribe. (47f.) In any case, one feels that the talker who is irrelevant or obscure has primarily let down not his audience but himself. So I would like to be able to show that observance of the CP and maxims is reasonable (rational) along the following lines: that anyone who cares about the goals that are central to conversation/communication (e.g., giving and receiving information, influencing and being influenced by others) must be expected to have an interest, given suitable circumstances, in participation in talk exchanges that will be profitable only on the assumption that they are conducted in general accordance with the CP and the maxims. (48f.)

The tenor of these passages is clear: communication is cooperative in the sense that speakers adhere to a certain standard of rationality, or at least intentionality and purpose, in their talk exchanges; this common goal is pursued as strongly as human nature and our everyday contexts of speaking permit us to. The actual processes of communication are then mitigated, in Grice’s model, by more specific parameters such as clarity, sincerity, etc. – precisely, the maxims of conversation. With this conceptual framework in mind, Gricean pragmatics could be described as a discipline that analyzes the implementations and consequences of cooperative demands in real-life discourse. Two aspects of the Gricean account may be noted at this point that are problematic for the present study. For one, Grice fails to give a rationale for his claims about linguistic cooperation. Secondly and more importantly, cases of non-cooperation are implicitly acknowledged – e.g. in the somewhat obscure parenthesis “(ceteris paribus and in the absence of indications to the contrary)” (Grice 1975: 47f.) – but never satisfyingly explained, let alone integrated into his model of communicative behavior. These imprecisions notwithstanding, the impact of Grice’s approach on linguistic theory is well-known; together with the writings by Austin and Searle, it can be said to have initiated the ‘Pragmatic Turn’ in the domain of language



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 131

research. Interestingly, speech act theory as the second pillar of this tendency is equally informed by the assumption of communication as cooperation (e.g. in Searle 1969, in particular Chapter 2). However, it is even more noteworthy how the Gricean program has shaped pragmatic theory as a whole. Most of its successors since the Seventies are implicitly shaped by or explicitly based on the idea of cooperation. A striking early example of this tendency is politeness theory as it was originally outlined by Brown and Levinson (1987). The approach by Brown and Levinson is overtly conceived as an elaboration of Grice’s CP, which incidentally anticipates “other maxims (…) such as ‘be polite’” (Grice 1975: 47). Brown and Levinson’s system of face threat and face saving is strongly reminiscent of Gricean implicatures: it assumes that acts of politeness are, prima facie, irrational because they diverge “from a highly rational maximally efficient mode of communication” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 55) and concludes that “the only satisfactory explanation scheme will include a heavy dash of rationalism” (ibid.). Brown and Levinson go as far as to limit their theory to “all competent adult members of a society” (1987: 61) and exclude “juvenile, mad, incapacitated persons” (ibid.: fn. 7), thereby acknowledging that cooperation is not all-encompassing, and that linguistic acts of non-cooperation are a fact of life. However, the lack of a theory of non-cooperation is not remedied there either. In recent years, pragmatic research in a Gricean tradition has become more complex and diverse: a number of competing theoretical strands have taken over the field. The most well-known of these is probably Relevance Theory as established by Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995), which first introduced a cognitive dimension to the debate. In parallel, several approaches have been subsumed, for want of a better term, under the label ‘Neo-Gricean’: examples are Levinson’s theory of presumptive meanings (e.g. Levinson 2000), Horn’s take on implicature (e.g. Horn 2003), and Bach’s ‘impliciture’ (e.g. Bach 1994). Even more recently, efforts have been made to reinterpret post-Gricean pragmatics in terms of Optimality Theory (e.g. Blutner 2000). This generation of pragmatic theories has distinct agendas that have little impact on the issues at stake in the present study: they are mostly concerned with utterance interpretation, inferencing processes, and literal vs. non-literal meaning. In spite of all conceptual differences, however, the newer pragmatic theories have in common their grounding in the Gricean tradition. In this sense, they share this common ground: that communication is a cooperative effort, and that speakers and hearers assume it to be so. This common denominator of modern pragmatic research is well captured in Mey’s formulation of a ‘Communicative Principle’: “when people talk, they do this with the intention to communicate something to somebody” (1993: 55). This principle is general enough to accommodate varying theoretical approaches yet captures the essence of communication as a cooperative effort.

132 Email Hoaxes

Returning to the original Gricean concept, it was mentioned above that it lacks an explanation of the causes and mechanisms that may lie behind the cooperative nature of communication. Grice does offer some general speculations on the subject: A dull but, no doubt at a certain level, adequate answer is that it is just a well-recognized empirical fact that people DO behave in these ways; they have learned to do so in childhood and not lost the habit of doing so; and, indeed, it would involve a great deal of effort to make a radical departure from the habit. It is much (Grice 1975: 48) easier, for example, to tell the truth than to invent lies.

Grice probably saw the deficiency of this argument as he states to be “enough of a rationalist to want to find a basis that underlies these facts, undeniable though they may be” (ibid.). Indeed, the explanation reproduced above appears unsatisfying to modern ears: it is highly improbable that such a general and overarching principle as Grice claims cooperation to be should be merely a product of education or habits. In addition, the conclusion that telling the truth is “much easier” due to education fails to convince – many routines of life that we learn through education to be beneficial for our own and other people’s lives (behavior patterns such as eating a healthy diet, careful driving, or regular exercise) do not become second nature to the individual or omnipresent in society solely through their repeated evocation. It is clear, then, that the fact of cooperativity in language exchanges, which is so tangible in everyday experience, needs a deeper rationale than the intuitive reasoning presented above. In the decades that have passed since the first Gricean endeavors, models grounded in evolutionary biology have increasingly been put forward for the explanation of social phenomena. This concerns in particular theories of language and of language evolution. There is, quite simply, no reason why language should be detached or exempt from the evolutionary principles that shape human existence. While no full-fledged theory exists to comprehensively explain and disentangle the factors of evolution, language, and cooperation, increasing evidence for such a connection has been put forward recently in disciplines as diverse as biology, linguistics, anthropology and narratology. In its most far-reaching form, an evolutionary view on language and cooperation is aimed at language evolution itself.14 Put in general terms, language is recognized to be a uniquely human property that was able to evolve as a particularly intricate form of social interaction. For example, Dunbar (1996) traces 14. While linguistic theory has long abstained from such evolutionary explanations and treated them as mere speculation, recent approaches show a renewed interest in cultural evolution; for a good overview on biological vs. cultural evolution, see Rosenbach forthc.



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 133

a direct line of evolution of increased group size (in humans as opposed to other primates), via new habitats and a changed diet, to increased brain size and, ultimately, linguistic capacity; language is seen, in this model, as a more efficient equivalent to grooming rituals that ensure group coherence in primates. In this view, the emergence of human language would be motivated not so much by its value as a tool for information, but as a way of socially engineering cooperation between group members; as Dunbar catchily puts it, “language evolved to allow us to gossip” (1996: 79). Many approaches take an overall similar view. For example, Dautenhahn (e.g. 2003, 2004) extends Dunbar’s view of language as “social glue” (Dautenhahn 2004: 132) to narrative and proposes a Narrative Intelligence Hypothesis (NIH), according to which “the evolutionary origin of communicating in stories co-evolved with increasing social dynamics among our human ancestors”; she contends that “the format of narrative is particularly suited to communicate about the social world” (Dautenhahn 2004: 133). This adaptation to narrative will be pursued further in Section 6. A further range of approaches that is largely in line with Dunbar’s theory is subsumed in Knight et al. (2000), a collection that explicitly addresses social functions of language emergence. In particular, the papers by Knight (2000), Noble (2000) and Dessalles (2000) put the cooperative nature of language at the centre of attention. Interestingly, Dessalles makes an explicit connection to the Gricean model (and to Sperber and Wilson’s concept of relevance). Arguing that social status may be an important factor accounting for the exchange of relevant information, he notes: “If relevant information is given to obtain social status, we understand the speakers’ willingness to make their contribution as clear and relevant as possible, as Grice observed” (2000: 71). Finally, the approach by Tomasello (e.g. 1999), although geared more toward cognitive abilities in general, shares many of these assumptions. One notion which unites all of the models mentioned here – but is particularly important for Tomasello’s work – is the cognitive capacity of “Theory of Mind” (ToM): the ability to recognize that others have beliefs and intentions, and to make hypotheses about these exterior minds. While many aspects around ToM are still being debated – for example, whether it is a quality limited to humans, or whether other social animals can display it – this may be seen as a simple yet powerful rationale of the concept of intentionality that is closely linked to cooperation in language. To sum up, evolutionary approaches to communication and cooperation are only beginning to emerge; competing and sometimes contradictory theories are still under discussion and may remain so for a considerable while. Regarding the evolution of language itself, it may be doubted whether a watertight account is possible at all; as Noble remarks, “theories of the origin of language are necessarily speculative” (Noble 2000: 40). Within the limits of a slightly more modest theoretical goal, it should have become plausible to assume that cooperation

134 Email Hoaxes

as suggested by pragmatic theorists appears to be well-grounded in evolutionary accounts of social and cultural functions in humans. The precise mechanics of this – whether cooperation was a driving force, or a by-product, in the evolution of language – may be a matter for evolutionary biology to uncover. In any case, growing evidence suggests that this link is not merely metaphorical but historically relevant and correct. The approaches introduced here set the stage for a pragmatic analysis of EHs. In short, it will be assumed that • • •

cooperation as intentional, purpose-driven interaction is at the hub of our communicative exchanges; cooperative behavior is not merely an instrument of logic and linguistic theory but is grounded in evolutionary accounts of communication in humans; cooperation is the standard and unmarked case in communicative exchanges; however, everyday experience suggests that cooperation may be suspended in particular talk exchanges: speakers can and do behave highly non-cooperatively. This final point is obviously of particular relevance for a treatment of EHs.

In the following analysis, the original terminology and assumptions of Grice are adopted at least in their basic conception – as was shown above, all more recent pragmatic theories have followed Grice in terms of a cooperative grounding. Besides, the Gricean approach has the applicability of a best-practice system (in contrast, for example, to the rather bulky terminological apparatus of Relevance Theory). Where this pragmatic description of EHs makes use of notions such as cooperation, implicature or maxim breaches, it does so primarily in the sense of Grice (1975). It is worth noting, however, that this analysis has discourse-analytical rather than language-philosophical aims; as opposed to studies in pragmatic theory, the basic entity ‘utterance’ is understood here in a much more macrotextual sense (that is, as an entire text rather than an isolated phrase or sentence).

5.2

Dual pragmatics: Mechanisms of (non-)cooperation in EHs

When subjected to a pragmatic analysis from a cooperation perspective, EHs present the observer with a seemingly paradoxical situation. Depending on the vantage point, an EH may be perceived as either utterly cooperative, or as utterly non-cooperative. At first sight, both hypotheses appear to be supported by ample justification:



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 135

1. EHs are manifestly non-cooperative: Deception was introduced as a sine qua non characteristic of EHs in the initial analysis in Chapter 2. Thus every EH contains, by definition, assertions that are patently false, or which are too outdated, suggestive, or exaggerated to be true. In some cases, these assertions are manifestly false by virtue of contradicting well-established general knowledge; in many other cases, the validity of such claims can be verified, particularly via the Internet (e.g. with the help of anti-hoax websites, through press reports from involved corporations, etc.). An utterance that is so blatantly false in spite of its easy verifiability clearly violates the CP, in particularly the maxims of quantity (“make your contribution as informative as is required”) and quality (“do not say what you believe to be false”; “do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence”). Therefore, from a content-based perspective, EHs are manifestly non-cooperative utterances. 2. EHs are manifestly cooperative: Within a chain of communication, communicants quite clearly pass EHs along with the best of intentions. The sheer act of forwarding the message gratuitously, without any exterior prompting or necessity, is an indication of cooperative behavior. In a more text-based view, the cooperativity of the message exchange is not jeopardized either. While the maxims of quantity and quality make the requirements described above, namely to be appropriately informative and to make truthful assertions, they refer merely to the beliefs and assumptions of the speaker in question. Users who forward EHs are convinced enough of the assertions made in the message to propagate it; in this sense, their communicative behavior is not in conflict with the CP requirements. Therefore from a user-based perspective, EHs are manifestly cooperative. An initial analysis thus yields a seemingly paradoxical result: EHs appear to be utterances that are cooperative and non-cooperative simultaneously. Such a constellation is not in line with the basic conceptions of pragmatic theory. How can this inconsistency then be resolved? It is contended here that this pragmatic paradox is not due to an error in reasoning or to conceptual inaccuracy. The conflict cannot be resolved because there is no need to resolve it: a dual pragmatic constitution is inherent in the makeup of EHs. Even more fundamentally, it is claimed here that the pragmatic duality of email hoaxing is not coincidental or circumstantial: as will be shown, it is one of its main characteristics, and may be a central reason for the success of EHs as a discourse type. These functional implications will be examined more closely after an analysis of the provenance of pragmatic duality in EHs.

136 Email Hoaxes

Figure 10.  Iterations as the basic ‘turn-taking’ unit of EH communication. The diagram displays the first two steps of iteration (the second being carried out by three individual communicants) in a communication chain.

As was described in detail in Section 4, email hoaxing is a form of serial communication that depends crucially on the chronological factor. Its basic discourse unit is not so much a reciprocal exchange, such as turn-taking in more standard conversational situations, but a unidirectional iteration that establishes a network of communicants (see Figure 10). This system of iteration and network-building engenders a kind of ‘multiple sendership’. As the life cycle of a particular EH unfolds, the text is passed along by a multitude of communicants; while variations are a major consequence of this process as analyzed in Section 4, the essence of the text remains stable across these steps of iteration. Crucially, this means that every user who plays an active role in the communication chain (by assuming a speaker role, i.e. forwarding the text to others) appropriates the text for him- or herself: email forwarders become the vicarious utterers of the message. While this does not mean that communicants claim to be the originators of the text – quite to the contrary, many real-life examples contain ample caveats regarding the ancestry of the forwarded text – it does entail a certain responsibility for its contents: to actively propagate a text amounts to an implicit ratification of its scope and makeup. Due to this appropriation process, an EH in circulation has a number of implied speakers – it has multiple sendership. Within this multi-part communication, however, two types of speaker roles need to be differentiated which are quite distinct in terms of their pragmatic constitution. More precisely, a qualitative difference exists between sender s1, the originator of the message, and the senders s2,3,…n of later iterations. Much has already been said about the originators of EHs in Section 4. With a few exceptions



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 137

where messages become EHs by accident (for example by being put into circulation inadvertently), it can be assumed that the large majority of EHs is written and spread with full intentionality by their originators. This implies that a message is consciously designed by its sender s1 in all aspects – stylistically, structurally, and particularly in terms of content. Therefore, the deceptive nature of an EH is planned and present from the very beginning: CP violations, in particular breaches of the quality and quantity maxims, are a built-in feature. EHs are thus primarily non-cooperative utterances in the initial stage. It is debatable in how far EHs are made to deceive: as the analysis in Section 3 has revealed, a portion of EHs contains overt irony markers. In Gricean terms, EHs may differ in terms of what kind of maxim violation is made (cf. Grice 1975: 49f.). If no strong irony signals are present, the deception is a case of quiet and unostentatious violation. For texts that overtly display an ironic stance, it is certainly more apt to speak of implicatures, as their non-cooperative conception amounts to a blatant flouting of the CP demands. Since irony signaling is a matter of degree that depends crucially on the inferencing capacities of the respective hearer, it is conceivable that all EHs could be characterized as implicatures – if the term is understood in a very general way. The projected meaning of the implicature in EHs could thus be formulated more or less in the following way: “this utterance is tacitly non-sincere”. In sum, whether the initial message is analyzed as an implicature or a quiet deception, the non-cooperative dimension is inscribed at this very first stage in the life cycle of an EH. As soon as the EH leaves this initial stage of message genesis and enters the communication chain proper, the floor is open for an altogether different type of communicant. It has been highlighted in Section 4 that the iteration step from sender s1 to the next generation represents a crucial transition in the life cycle of an EH. Quite simply, the second-generation communicants who engender this change are those who do not recognize the deceptive scope of the text see it as a bona fide utterance. For the pragmatic mechanics underlying this step, the transition is quite remarkable. While the textual material of the message remains completely unchanged, its implicature is temporarily silenced, and the message is now reinterpreted as sincere. This becomes particularly obvious when the next iteration step is carried out by sender s2: at that moment, s2 makes a transition in communicative roles from hearer/receiver to speaker/sender and thus makes manifest his or her ratification of the utterance. Through this step of communicative transition, the textually unchanged message is endowed with a new implicature that can be glossed as: “this utterance is sincere”. While this transformation certainly is of great magnitude with regard to the message’s pragmatic constitution, it is not so surprising from a discourse-analytical perspective. If the importance of cooperation in communication has been stressed

138 Email Hoaxes

in Section 5.1, this is not only of theoretical significance. Quite to the contrary: as listeners/message receivers, we generally make an initial assumption about the speaker’s cooperativity – communicants are perceived as cooperative until proven guilty. Cooperation is deeply ingrained in our communicative behavior, and as communicants, we therefore generally have very high expectations about the reliability and cooperativity of utterances; the evolutionary approaches to pragmatic theory introduced above may explain the overriding nature of this principle. For the communication chain of EHs, this implies that the receivers of the message will initially be inclined, in a very general way, to see the text as a bona fide message. In fact, cooperativity assumptions may even be heightened in the case of EHs, as they are diffused exclusively through the paths of social networks: in contrast to spam and similar discourse types, EHs are only exchanged between at least superficially acquainted communicants (the criterion of reciprocal acquaintance from Section 2). In this light, it is not at all surprising that irony markers, even where they are present, are likely to be overlooked by the message receiver – the striving for cooperative exchanges easily overrides such textual clues. Through this pragmatic pathway, a cooperative dimension is introduced into the EH as an utterance. It is important to stress that ‘active’ EHs that are being circulated by users with a bona fide understanding of the text are more than just marginally cooperative. Instead, such utterances actually have a heightened cooperativity level in comparison with many other types of utterance. Users at this stage of the communication chain see EHs as sincere and important messages, and consequently go to great length to inform their peers about them. At the same time, the information is spread fully voluntarily; the communicative act is not in any way solicited by rules of communication structure (in the way that, for example, adjacency pairs solicit certain types of utterance). Döring (2003: 281f.) describes hoaxing as prosocial behavior – a notion which again points to the sociobiological motives that may inform this type of communicative conduct. To forward an EH, then, is more than just in line with pragmatic rules governing linguistic behavior: it is intended, by its participants, as a downright altruistic act. As can be seen, the transition from deceptive to sincere utterance is radical when described in pragmatic terms yet relatively easily engineered in the communication process that surrounds an EH. It is important to note that the original implicature generated by sender s1 is not eliminated but just temporarily subdued in later iteration steps. This means that it can be recuperated, and reactivated, at any given moment by any participant in the communication chain. Recognizing an EH depends crucially on the individual user’s background knowledge and digital literacy, and real-life data show many responses by users who are able to activate the original frame of reference, and see through the deceptive nature of



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 139

Figure 11.  A schema of the first iterations in an EH life cycle that highlights the qualitative difference in pragmatic conception between the first and the following iterations.

the message. As a pragmatic entity, an EH can be said to carry two opposed implicaturial charges, either of which can be activated at any moment, depending on the inferencing abilities of the recipient in question. It is precisely this implicaturial pattern that is responsible for the dual pragmatic status of EHs. In summary, the initial observation is confirmed: EHs are cooperative and non-cooperative utterances at the same time; the duality is established via the serial nature of this type of communication, and exploits its dependency on multiple sendership. The duality is put into place at the very beginning of the communication chain. The model shown earlier can therefore be completed with a qualitative addendum, as displayed in Figure 11. So far, this pragmatic analysis has focused on the initial stages of an EH’s life cycle – precisely, on the first three iteration steps. The dual cooperativity setting which is established at this early point also bears interesting implications for the way EHs are handled in actual email exchanges at a later stage in the communication chain. Upon receiving an EH, there is a number of possible interaction scenarios for the addressee in question. A primary differentiation can be made depending upon which implicature is activated in the receiver – that is, whether he or she analyzes the message as a deceptive, or as a sincere utterance. For both settings, various pathways of interaction occur in real-life scenarios. They are briefly sketched here. 1. ‘sincerity’ implicature: Believe the message and forward it. This is the ‘utterly cooperative’ scenario mentioned above. The communicant receives a message which he or she takes to be

140 Email Hoaxes

fully cooperative and therefore truthful. Accordingly, he or she in turn cooperates with the message. This implies, first and foremost, attending to the major speech act contained in every EH, namely the directive calling for message dissemination. As a consequence, the addressee appropriates the message for him- or herself and disseminates it. This is the unmarked communicative setting for EHs; it is the mechanism which allows them to survive and to spread. While no figures can be given regarding the frequency of the respective interaction patterns, this first option is obviously frequent enough for many EHs to survive considerable time spans, as the analysis of message archaeologies in Section 4 has shown. Believe the message and ignore it. A user may receive an EH and take it to be sincere but still decide not to disseminate it. This option is slightly weaker in terms of its cooperative strength, but it is nevertheless a form of cooperative behavior. While the urge for dissemination is an important part of the message, its central issue is nevertheless the deceptive statement at its core. To take the message at face value, then, is the minimum requirement for cooperating with the text. Involvement certainly is a factor in cooperative behavior, but it is a matter of degree: for example, it violates the CP not to participate in ritualized verbal exchanges such as adjacency pairs, yet it is fully within the scope of cooperativity to be a ‘quiet’ or ‘unassuming’ speaker. The same goes for EHs: their full cooperative potential is only realized through their forwarding, yet less engagement can still be ranked as cooperative. This second interactional pattern may be quite frequent as it takes a certain level of communicative willingness to actively engage with an EH by forwarding it. Particularly less experienced Internet users are often unsure about the safety of email transmission and may therefore refrain from forwarding messages even if they believe them to be sincere; other reasons for a more passive communicative role are easy to envisage. In any case, this passive type of interaction must occur relatively often, as the pyramidal transmission patterns predicted by critics of EHs quite obviously do not succeed. 2. ‘deception’ implicature: Disbelieve the message and ignore it. If an addressee in an EH life cycle has sufficient world knowledge and digital literacy, he or she will recognize the deceptive stance of the utterance; the original implicature will then be triggered. If this frame of reference is activated, the demand for dissemination is cancelled along with the message’s demand for belief. A user in this pragmatic setting has several options of responding to the utterance. The most straightforward way which has no energy costs yet does not violate the CP is, quite simply, to ignore the message. In spite of its passive character, this tactic is in full accord with the second aspect of the quality maxim, namely of not saying what one believes to be false. This behavior pattern is probably only marginally cooperative in comparison with other



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 141

more overtly prosocial options. Nevertheless, it fulfills the criteria for cooperative behavior where cooperation is conceived primarily with regard to the speaker’s stance, as it is here. Ignoring an EH that is perceived to be one is a frequent and readily available strategy for response. Disbelieve the message and engage with sender sn-1. This pattern is slightly exceptional in that it has no correspondent for cases where the ‘sincerity’ implicature is activated. It is the only scenario where the two opposing implicaturial frames of reference are actively negotiated. An addressee sn who disbelieves the utterance will often get back to sender sn-1 in order to confront him or her with the deceptive implicature of the message. Often, such metadiscursive negotiations are supplemented by sn with supporting evidence (web links, articles, etc.) in order to prove the non-sincere nature of the message. This strategy is distinctly more costintensive than others for sender sn, as he or she not only actively engages with the utterance, but has to go ‘against the grain’ of the communication event (both in terms of its purpose and its unidirectionality). More importantly, this interaction scenario carries a strong potential for face loss, both for sn-1 and for sn, as these metadiscursive negotiations of an EH are often exchanged in a relatively brisk manner. In spite of all these potentially inhibiting factors, this could be termed the most cooperative of all interaction scenarios, since it directly mirrors the prosocial attitude of EH forwarding. Addressees who engage with the sender do so for the good cause of exposing deception and advancing public awareness of the phenomenon: not only do they cooperate – they act altruistically. Disbelieve the message and forward it. This final interaction pattern radically deviates from the scenarios described so far, as it is the only type of manifestly noncooperative behavior within an EH communication chain. If a communicant recognizes the original implicature of the utterance, and nevertheless disseminates the message in the way communicants with a ‘sincerity’ frame of reference do, he or she is acting either irrationally or deceptively (and both are forms of non-cooperative behavior). However, it needs to be emphasized that in actual email exchanges this form of response occurs nearly exclusively in a highly specific form: namely as the case of message recycling which has been described at several points in the message archaeologies of Section 4.15 In other words, users only forward EHs despite recognizing the deceptive implicature if the ultimate goal is to start a new EH life cycle; additionally, this step usually implies minor or major changes to the textual material. While this case exists, it is thus best treated 15. Of course, counterexamples can be conceived of – experienced users seeking to expose the gullibility of others, pranks between acquaintances, etc. However, the actual occurrence of such cases is assumed to be so marginal that it may be disregarded here.

142 Email Hoaxes

Figure 12.  A schematic overview of EH communication scenarios. Left: EH genesis, transition from non-cooperative to cooperative behavior, and potential multiplication with every forwarding. Right: the five ways of engaging with an EH.

as a special communicative event: recycling is not so much an interaction within a communication chain but the establishing of a new sender s1. Apart from this highly specific scenario, the case that an EH is knowingly forwarded does de facto not occur in real exchanges. Such behavior would not only be pragmatically irrational, but would go against the grain of very strong psychosocial mechanisms that are more closely described in the analysis of the speech-actiness of EHs (see Section 5.3). In summary, this analysis of interaction scenarios reveals a surprising result: once the communication chain of an EH is in full swing, it is impossible to interact with it in a non-cooperative way. The only viable option for blatant non-cooperation either does practically never occur (in the sense of irrational behavior) or is exploited to establish a new life cycle and thus forms a departure from the existing communication chain (in the case of message recycling). It is striking that



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 143

an utterance as the EH which is, in its inherent conception, so strongly based on a non-cooperative implicature, leads to a chain of communication that is uniquely based on cooperative acts. To echo the well-known aphorism by Watzlawick, you cannot not cooperate with an EH. This result demonstrates that the pragmatic concept of dual cooperational status is deeply inscribed in the makeup of EHs: it is only through this mechanism that EHs can succeed in their communicative environment. Figure 12 gives a schematic summary of the interaction scenarios described here.

5.3

EHs as speech acts

The earlier analysis has identified distinct speech acts as an important part of the core message of EHs; specifically, directives that trigger message dissemination were made out to be the most tangible speech acts in EH. While this microlinguistic approach has yielded important insights about textual structure in EHs, the present pragmatic analysis embraces a much more macrolinguistic vantage point. As suggested above, the basic pragmatic unit ‘utterance’ is taken to refer to the text as a whole in this perspective. If the text – that is: the core message of an EH – is conceived as an utterance, with all the pragmatic entailments of this technical term, it makes sense to analyze EHs as discourse-analytical entities – in other words, EHs may be seen as integral speech acts. The following analysis thus proposes a model of the EH as a complex speech act. It is a long-standing dictum of pragmatic theory that any utterance is, by definition, a speech act. Nevertheless, it is intuitively clear that some kinds of discourse are more geared toward, or dependent on, interaction between speakers. The present analysis has so far put forward a broad array of evidence to suggest that EHs are a prime example of such interactionally driven discourse: Section 4 has described how existentially dependent they are on serial chains of communication (that is, speaker interaction); and the pragmatic model presented here has highlighted the role of cooperative behavior in email exchanges. In this sense, it is safe to say that EHs as a discourse type are characterized by a particularly high degree of speech-actiness. In the microlinguistic analysis, the directive speech acts which ensure message dissemination were found to be the most exposed direct speech acts in the structure of EHs. From a more discourse-analytical perspective, they appear secondary in comparison with the overall scope of the message – the topic or issue that is the ‘point’ of the text. As has been seen, the scope of EHs is invariantly tied to their deceptivity: while EHs may be untruthful or incorrect in more than one regard, the gist or narrative nucleus of the message will always be affected by their

144 Email Hoaxes

non-sincere stance. As a first approximation, an EH can therefore be described as a complex constative which entails secondary communicative demands toward the addressee (i.e., the request for propagation encoded in the directive speech act). If EHs are classifiable as a type of complex constatives, they quite obviously defy the pragmatic prerequisite of this type of speech act, namely the sincerity condition for constatives: s(peaker) believes p(roposition). More specifically, they alternate between violating and being in accord with this sincerity condition, depending on the vantage point of the respective speaker in the communication chain. From this setting derives a question that is central for the conception of EHs as speech acts: when is an EH felicitous? One felicity scenario would be if the original noncommitment to the sincerity condition remains undiscovered and the message is believed (primary speech act: constative) and forwarded (secondary speech act: directive). The other felicity scenario could be that the original non-commitment to the sincerity condition is recovered; consequently, the message is disbelieved (primary speech act) and not forwarded (secondary speech act). In sum, the question is: when is an EH as a speech act to be conceived as successful – if it succeeds to spread, despite its violation of the sincerity condition? Or if speakers are able to recover its non-sincerity but consequently prevent its dissemination? A speech act analysis of EHs thus appears to yield a dilemma that is reminiscent of the account of dual cooperation patterns given above. At a first glance, the answer to this dilemma appears to be relatively straightforward. An EH, it seems, should be described as ‘successful’ if it is particularly virulent, i.e. widespread and persistent. In pragmatic terms, this should be the case if the message is taken at face value as frequently as possible. Such an argumentation is strongly grounded in a text-based perspective, in that it posits message endurance as the primary goal of the communication exchange. It is also a view reminiscent of biological communication models described in Section 4, in that it suggests that EHs can be more or less adaptive to their communication environment. Such a text-driven approach to the felicity of EHs is undoubtedly of great relevance: the present study has repeatedly shown to what degree the serial communication mode is an inherent trait of the discourse phenomenon. In this view, then, an EH is a felicitous speech act if the covert cancellation of the sincerity condition through speaker s1 remains unnoticed. However, there are equally good – and intuitively graspable – arguments for the alternative felicity model. From a vantage point that is more focused on the benefit of the user and less on the persistence of the text, the propagation of wrong or problematic information is most certainly an undesirable communicative move. Pragmatic models that deal with the concepts of sincerity, truthfulness, and deception, are not confined to the purely abstract sphere: these terms always touch upon a moral dimension that is strongly felt by communicants in everyday



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 145

life. A speech act which has a built-in dimension of insincerity could therefore be described as ethically hazardous. In such an approach that combines pragmatics with ethics, an EH would certainly have to be called felicitous if the deceptive stance of the original message is brought to light. Interestingly, a further argument can be made in favor of the uncovering of the message’s insincere character; however, this approach is geared more toward the original (deceptive) sender s1 than toward the later (duped) users. It is closely connected to the dimension of play and performance which appears to be an intricate part of EHs: as has been seen in many examples presented in this study, EHs are often well-crafted pieces of satire and verbal performance. EHs, it could be said, seek an audience – quite simply, there is a strong communicative prestige in devising such a cunning utterance that has the potential to fool more gullible recipients. This tendency is most obvious in the small category of ‘hoaxed hoaxes’, in which EHs are designed on the brink of functionality for the sake of being recognizable as a satirical utterance. In a much more restrained way, the irony markers found in many items have a similar function. The temptation to openly put on display the dual nature of the EH appears to be quite strong for a large number of EH originators: a balance has to be found between being effectively deceptive, and displaying the insincerity of the utterance. As has been remarked regarding the motivation of EH originators, their communicative reward can only ever be in a very indirect form, as they do not receive direct feedback from communicants; this urge for displaying the insincerity behind an EH may be one of the consequences. In sum, there are solid and diverse reasons for treating EHs as successful if the cancellation of the sincerity condition is perceived in the later communication steps. This analysis suggests that the pragmatic duality found in the cooperativity analysis also extends to the speech-actiness of EHs. Both scenarios of interpreting the EH speech act are felicitous from a particular perspective: EHs can therefore be said to have a dual pattern of uptake and ratification. The description of the dual cooperation pattern in EHs has already shown that the double pragmatic strategy is by no means circumstantial or a mere side effect, but at the very core of the mechanics of this discourse phenomenon. In the case of the dual felicity of EH utterances that is claimed here, it can be argued that the twofold interpretation schema is the major driving force that makes EHs so successful. Through a high level of communicants who are unaware of the original speech act’s insincerity and by consequence fall for the deception, the transmission of the message is ensured. However, if the utterance were to remain a clandestine deception across its entire life cycle, and if all members of its prospective audience were to take it as a bona fide utterance, the performance potential that is inherent to an EH as a textual artifact would be lost. Yet this potential appears to be one of the central

146 Email Hoaxes

incentives behind designing and launching an EH. As a consequence, a smaller group of recipients will be able to recognize the non-cooperative scope. Crucially, these recipients will recognize the cancellation of sincerity; it follows that they do not contribute to the dissemination of the message. In exchange, their value as participants of the communication event is their ability to appreciate the true nature of the utterance – a powerful psychological factor. In this sense, the dual pragmatic makeup of EHs ultimately has a functional effect on a psychosocial level. EHs create an ingroup/outgroup schema within their audience.16 A majority of users, engaging in a bona fide cooperative strategy with the text, form the outgroup; consequently, there is a smaller ingroup of those who recognize the deception. Being part of the cognizant ingroup implies a considerable prestige gain for its members. In this view, EHs provide a very clear-cut test for the digital literacy of individual users: being able to recognize the non-sincere stance of an EH is a marker of digital literacy and, ultimately, of social prestige in the digital community. More precisely, this area of online experience has been termed “information literacy” in digital literacy research (cf. Eshet-Alkali and Amichai-Hamburger 2004). Ironically, this prestige gain does not infringe on the communicative needs of the outgroup members: as the cooperativity analysis has already suggested, users with a bona fide understanding of an EH tend to forward the message with fully purposive (and positive) intentions, e.g. in order to strengthen their social network; this mechanism will be further characterized in Section 6. Ultimately, it appears that this split audience pattern is thus responsible for the fact that one cannot not cooperate with an EH: both ingroup and outgroup members cater to their respective understanding of the speech act and the perceived underlying sincerity condition. It is interesting to note that the split audience pattern is not unique to EHs but is already found in pre-digital hoaxes: Walsh 2002 describes it in her studies on scientific hoaxes of the 19th century (i.e. reports in newspapers and magazines falsely claiming spectacular scientific inventions or advancements; for a historic overview, see Walsh 2006). Her study on Poe’s jeux d’esprit is based on this assumption: (…) hoaxes are machine-age rhetorical interactions with a readership. Because some readers “catch on” to a hoax early and on their own, while others take it at face value until someone exposes it for them, hoaxes invoke at least two audiences. This function of splitting audiences will be missed by any strictly textual (Walsh 2002: 105) approach to hoaxing (…) 16. The audience of EHs is a further entity of hoaxing’s communication model: it is distinct from communication chain participants in the sense that it includes non-active ‘bystanders’ of the communication event, e.g. members of a mailing list.



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 147

Walsh’s analysis is largely identical with the findings reported here for EHs. It can be said, then, that there is no intrinsic link between the pragmatic duality of EHs and their status as computer-mediated communication; audience splitting appears to occur independently of the medium. Nevertheless, it has become clear that the serial mode of communication engendered by EHs is greatly enhanced by their dual pragmatic status. In sum, it can be said that the CMC environment is not necessary, but greatly conducive for the pragmatic mechanisms of hoaxing. The similarity to pre-digital hoaxes invites further cross-typological comparisons. Of course, many utterance types exist that share the basic feature of hoaxing, namely the silent cancellation of the sincerity condition (or the “pretending to communicate”, Parret 1994). The most elementary representative of this class of speech acts is lying. Lying is in many ways pragmatically more straightforward than email hoaxing; in particular, it does not depend on an intricate interaction pattern in the way EHs do. Nevertheless, the basic pragmatic paradox that has been analyzed here is also at the core of lying: namely, that the speaker s1 does not believe p, yet wants the audience to think that he or she believes p. In other words, the intention of the speaker can only be satisfied if the hearer(s) are unaware of it; if the hearers are aware of speaker intention, the perlocutionary act will not be fulfilled. Reboul (1994: 297) defines this as the paradox of lies in speech act theory: “If a speaker produces an utterance which is a lie, it is necessary for the success of a lie that the illocutionary act of assertion should be successful. But if the perlocutionary act of lying is successful, then the illocutionary act of assertion is not successful”. As has been seen, email hoaxing exploits this paradox in a highly sophisticated manner. And yet, this conceptualization yields some problematic implications. As Reboul concludes from her analysis, lies raise an embarrasing [sic] problem for speech acts theory, because though they obviously are a kind of speech act, yet they cannot apparently be described in the framework of speech acts theory in a nonparadoxical way. (…) a theory of speech acts which would escape the kinds of problems exposed here should probably take much more account of lies and, more generally, so-called parasitic speech (Reboul 1994: 296f.) acts as fiction.

These considerations concerning pragmatic theory have been confirmed in the pragmatic analysis of EHs: repeatedly, it has been seen that pragmatic theorizing can only take account of a phenomenon as widespread as hoaxing in terms of describing it as a paradox, a highly marked duality. While cooperation is the cornerstone of pragmatics, non-cooperative utterances are a vulgar fact of everyday communication; a comprehensive pragmatic theory should be able to incorporate them more convincingly than as mere exceptions. Reboul’s conclusion, then, is that “the whole theory of speech acts theory should be re-examined and modified” (1994: 297). While the case study presented here clearly is not the right

148 Email Hoaxes

framework for such a daunting task, the overview on evolutionary approaches to pragmatics given in the introduction of this section may be taken as a suggestion for which directions a remodeling of pragmatic theory might take.

5.4

Pragmatic strategies in EH exchanges: Some textual evidence

Pragmatic modeling is, by its very nature, strongly theory-driven. The pragmatic analysis of EHs up to this point, while based on the results of this study presented in earlier sections, has been largely limited to relatively abstract considerations. In order to support the model of pragmatic duality, with its claims concerning audience splitting and overarching cooperativity, this section briefly presents some textual evidence from real-life data. The two major phases of an EH as they have been identified in Section 4 are of interest, namely the non-cooperative stance of the initial sender s1 (documented in the core message) and the cooperative strategies of later participants in the communication chain (documented in the framework message). Since both have occurred in the data shown in previous Chapters of this study, and have been described in the earlier textual analysis, the explicit analysis presented here constitutes only a brief examination.

5.4.1 Deceptivity in the original message As has been discussed at length here, the very nature of the original sender’s speech act demands that the sincerity condition be tacitly cancelled; as a result, the particular utterances which carry the non-cooperative assertion(s) tend to be integrated rather inconspicuously into the rest of the discourse and are usually not marked in any way. This implies that they can only be spotted through careful reading and, sometimes, external research. As has been mentioned above, their detection always depends on the world and discourse knowledge of the respective recipient. Usually, they can be graded on a scale between being manifestly and blatantly false on the one hand, or verifiable only through external sources (such as press reports, scientific or journalistic sources, etc.) on the other hand. Here are three core message examples representing the major EH categories; the explicitly deceptive discourse chunks are emphasized: Example 69.  The ‘Win A Holiday’ virus EH (ID: 26). Very Urgent Must Read Please - If you receive an e-mail titled “Win A Holiday” DO NOT open it. It will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and not



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 149

many people know about it. This information was announced yesterday morning from Microsoft. Thank You, Neil Ferrick Compaq Computer Corporation

Example 70.  The ‘Jasmine’ charity EH (ID: 77). Hi, I’m sorry about this fwd. My name is Jasmine . I’m 11 years old. My mommy worked on the 20th floor in the World Trade Tower. On Sept. 11 2001 my daddy drove my mom to work. She was running late so she left her purse in the car. My daddy seen it so he parked the ­ car and went to give her the purse. That day after school my daddy didnt come to pick me up. Instead a police man came and took me to foster care . Finally I found out why my daddy never came.. I really loved him.... They never found his body.. My mom is in the the Hospital since then.. She is losing lots of blood.. She needs to go through surgery.. But since my daddy is gone and no one is ­working.. We have no money .. And her surgery cost lots of money.. So the Red Cross said that.. for every time this email is fwd we Will get 10 cent for my mom’s surgery. So please have a heart and fwd this to everyone you know I really miss my daddy and now I dont want to lose my mommy too.. R.I.P. Daddy..(James Thomas) !--! NOTICE!--! WHEN YOU FWD PLEASE ALSO FWD TO THIS LETTER BACK TO ME... AT.... [email protected] ...SO THAT THE REDCROSS PEOPLE CAN COUNT THE FWDS. thank you for taking your time to fwd this email this really means alot me and my future.. love, Jasmine

Example 71.  The ‘Disney’ giveaway EH (ID: 106). Hello Disney fans, And thank you for signing up for Bill Gates’ Beta Email Tracking.

My name is Walt Disney Jr.

Here at Disney we are working with Microsoft which has just compiled an e-mail tracing program that tracks everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. It does this through an unique IP (Internet Protocol) address log book database. We are experimenting with this

and need your help.

Forward this

to everyone you know and if it reaches 13,000 people, 1,300 of the people on the list will receive $5,000, and the rest will receive a free trip for two to Disney World for one week during the summer of 1999 at our expense.

Enjoy.

Note: Duplicate entries will not be counted. You will be notified by email with further instructions once this email has reached 13,000 people. Your friends, Walt Disney Jr., Disney, Bill Gates & The Microsoft Development Team.

150 Email Hoaxes

The varying degree of markedness can be seen well in the cases of insincerity highlighted here. In some assertions, the deception is relatively manifest: for example, no person by the name of Walt Disney Jr. exists (example 71); an email cannot “erase everything on your hard disk” simply by virtue of being opened (example 69). Some assertions are more opaque: they sound plausible but can be verified relatively easily through external sources. For example, there is no “new, very malicious” virus named “Win A Holiday”, as can be ascertained through a broad number of Internet security websites (example 71). Similarly, no “James Thomas” is among the 9/11 victims (as can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/mys2; see also http://tinyurl.com/yf4286), as claimed in example 70. Finally, some assertions are virtually unfalsifiable: this is particularly true for narratives of personal experience as in example 70. Such utterances can only be proven false through supporting evidence (i.e., the manifest falsehood of surrounding assertions). In sum, the deceptive constatives that form the backbone of every EH can range on a scale from completely tacit to highly conspicuous. However, it should be emphasized that as the communicative environment of EHs, the WWW provides ample and accessible means for research and background information; within this particular discourse locus, the unreliability problem is alleviated to a certain degree even for the most opaque assertions.

5.4.2 Cooperation in the communication chain In the analysis of message structure in Section 3, it was shown that metadiscursive statements play an important role in the accumulation of the framework message. It is contended here that these mediating utterances are used, first and foremost, to express and negotiate the cooperative stances of users participating in the communication chain. Logically, the statements which accumulate within one item are added by users who believe the message and forward it (scenario no. 1 in the schema presented in Section 5.2) – in other words, by those who interpret the text’s implicature as sincere. Many such statements have already been distinguished and analyzed in Section 4. With regard to cooperativity, two major types can be identified: statements which advertise the sincerity of the message with full conviction, and others which are replies to the forwarder with a critical or explaining stance. To begin with, here are a few examples for the first category (all taken from the Mydek subcorpus used in Sections 3 and 4): Example 72.  Metadiscursive statements of cooperation management in the Mydek subcorpus. Sources: http://tinyurl.com/3xv8w6; http://tinyurl.com/yvqego; http://tinyurl.com/3xv8w6; http://tinyurl.com/yw8xv8; http://tinyurl.com/yw8xv8; http://tinyurl.com/yty8gp.



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 151

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE AND FORWARD TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS APPROVED BY MOTOROLA. THIS IS NOT JUNK MAIL!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------->Please take a little bit time to scroll down. It will save a little girl’s >life. --------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>> > > >Please read and pass it on... (this is not a chain letter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Please continue this chain letter. This is for a brave little girl. --------------------------------------------------------------------------->I assume this is real story, but it is harmless if it isn’t. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------i apologize for sending you this letter. i know we have had problems on the l with chain type letter, but i could not do anything on the _very_ slim chance that this might be true. i hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me as i found it in my heart to risk your flames to send this letter to the l.

These examples have been arranged according to the strength of their commitment to the speech act of the core message. While this is only a small collection, it shows the widely varying degrees of commitment: whereas the topmost utterance emphatically claims that the core message is “not junkmail” (with strong typography and punctuation markers), the intermediate ones are less resolute in their wording; the user in the final example goes to great lengths to mitigate the possible impact of the forwarded message (and caters to potential reactions by referring to earlier discourse events of the mailing list in question). As varied as they may be, all of these instances have in common the belief of their producers to be communicating something worthy and important – in other words, to be cooperating. Finally, a further interaction pattern to leave distinct textual traces of pragmatic negotiation is the fourth interaction scenario, where the participant sn in the communication chain recognizes the insincere speech act and engages with sender sn-1 in order to make known the true nature of the message. By definition, this type of interaction always forms the end point of the particular communication chain in question, as it openly puts on display and topicalizes the deceptive makeup of the EH. As a consequence, such metadiscursive utterances do not accumulate within the framework message as they disrupt the transmission rhythm of communication chains. Nevertheless, such exchanges can easily be observed on mailing lists: in an extraordinarily high number of cases, the transmission of an EH to a mailing list leads to a debunking response by one of the mailing list’s members. It is highly probable that this scenario occurs on mailing lists much more often than in private mailbox-to-mailbox exchanges: with the large audience that a mailing list provides – several hundreds or even

152 Email Hoaxes

thousands of participants are by no means unusual – the probability of reaching a communicant who is particularly experienced with EHs is immensely high. The following examples (all occurring in the ‘Slow Dance’ variant of the ‘Jessica Mydek’ message archaeology developed in Section 4) may therefore not be truly representative of private EH exchanges: in addition to being more frequent, EH debunkings on mailing lists are performed with the awareness of having an audience – as a result, the psychological entailments are even more complex. Nevertheless, these cases give a good overview of typical reactions to EHs in the sense of interaction scenario no. 4: Example 73.  Cases of EH debunking (interaction scenario 4). Sources: http://tinyurl.com/yxswvo; http://tinyurl.com/vwwrq; http://tinyurl.com/ yarnda; http://tinyurl.com/uvqfe; http://tinyurl.com/yb2x42; http://tinyurl.com/yhpzwn. >You are a blithering idiot for sending chain e-mail, especially to a list >seerver.

Not only is it unwanted, it is also technically illegal - akin

>to spam. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------You’d think people on the gnome-list would know spam when they see it. can we kick the sender of this off the list as punishment? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------You’re right, it’s not a chain letter, it’s a HOAX!

Please conserve

bandwidth and don’t forward this message to anyone else. Sincerely, Eric Jezek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------these things do not work.

never have, almost certainly never will.

erin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi everybody Please do not send these kind of mails. Yes I know some, but very few, are real stories. But the majority is fiction. They are generated to cause server brake downs all over the world because servers can just handle a certain amount of workload. By writing a sad story asking recipients to send the mail on they create a wave of mails. The real intention is to cause damage not concern. This is the number one reason for server brake downs. Sorry to be the messenger. Victoria Ph.D student researching computer systems for design and manufacturing and computer security ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Colleagues: Please do not under any circumstances post any material to ALGAE-L that is



Chapter 5.  The pragmatics of EHs 153

part of a chain-letter sequence.

Algae-l is a discussion group on algae

and nothing else should be posted. Unfortunately, there are many dishonest people out there and the recent chain letter posted is a hoax; one of several that uses children to gain sympathy.

Do not take part in such chain letters: they use scarce resouces

and slow up your important mail. ALGAE-L will lose credibility if people continually get such material from it.

This small array of examples gives a good impression of the considerable bandwidth in tone and style of such responses. The items have been arranged here according to the degree of friendliness and empathy they display toward sender sn-1. Even this small sample shows that attitudes in the final communicants of EHs vary considerably. Whereas the lower examples are downright sympathetic and supportive, the first two cases in particular display a strong face-threatening potential toward sn-1. This is evident through features such as expletives (“blithering idiot”) and threats concerning consequences of the forwarding (“can we kick the sender of this off the list as punishment?”). The following examples are relatively neutral in style and attitude; the final ones show empathy and give background information, thereby considerably softening the face threat. As this variety shows, EH responses can be used to display superior digital literacy, and thus prestige, on the side of the receiver but they are by no means invariably used to achieve this goal. Quite to the contrary, a broad number of such exchanges is conducted in a highly constructive manner. It is important to note, however, that even the most harsh and face-threatening utterances in this context still count as cooperative from a pragmatic point of view: whatever politeness entanglements are involved, they effectively pursue their purpose of making known the deceptive nature of the EH. In sum, this presentation of textual evidence should have shown how pragmatic duality pervades the discourse phenomenon email hoaxing at every level of its life cycle. The competing pragmatic conceptualizations described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 engender an ambivalent state between sincerity and deception that is present and relevant in various discursive aspects of EHs. Both the pervasiveness and the diversity of these pragmatic topicalizations make evident that pragmatic duality is much more than a feature in the engineering of EHs: it is the conceptual backbone that defines and propels the phenomenon as a whole.

chapter 6

Narrativity in EHs

At various points in the present analysis, it has become apparent that narrativity plays a pervasive role in the nature of EHs. Thus narrative structuring has been introduced in the formal analysis in Section 3, and narrative speaker roles have been made out in the chronological approach in Section 4. In a wider sense, it has been noted in Section 5 that the foundations of narrative theory are conceptually close to pragmatic models as they have been used here. The present section provides an in-depth exploration of these connections. It describes current theories of narrativity and closely examines narrative structures as they occur in the EH corpus. Since narrative studies have become ever more multi-faceted and diverse in recent years, the approach taken here is necessarily idiosyncratic and tailored to the needs of this case study; an extensive rationale of the methodology is given in Section 6.1.2. As in the previous analytical sections, this analysis strives to give a functional explanation for the occurrence of this phenomenon in EHs at the end of this chapter.

6.1

Narrative theory: Some approaches

6.1.1 Stories in theory, stories in everyday life Without a doubt, few concepts in the humanities have undergone such a renaissance in the past decades as the notion of narrative. For a long time, narrativity was almost exclusively treated as an issue pertaining to literary discourse and literary theory. Echoing Aristotelian poetics, there is a considerable tradition of treating literary discourse as an ensemble of three distinct instantiations: drama, poetry, and prose. Accordingly, narrative was often viewed as tantamount to the prose ‘genre’. The obvious generalization inherent to this model may explain its long-standing success, particularly in classroom settings. It was the emergence of narratology as a subdiscipline of literary theory in the second half of the 20th

156 Email Hoaxes

c­ entury that gradually paved the way for a more encompassing view. Perhaps most prominently, narratology brought forth the first solid and applicable models for narrative analysis, in particular the tripartite typological circle (“Typenkreis”) by Stanzel (1979) and the structuralist approach by Genette (1972). The most fundamental insight that unites approaches from this era is their focus on the mediated nature of narrative and, consequently, on different types and constellations of narrative personas and entities. These substantial contributions, however, were still firmly rooted in the tradition of viewing narrativity as a property of literary prose. Only relatively recently, literary theorists have begun to embrace views of narrative as a more fundamental discourse activity: a good case in point is the “natural narratology” proposed by Fludernik (1996) that disregards the traditional distinction between literary and non-literary texts and focuses on the ‘experiential’ nature of narrative discourse. Gradually, this view has become more influential in literary studies: today, narrativity is primarily seen as a fundamental quality of texts that is not in any way limited to fictional prose. However, the strongest impulse for the emergence of narrativity as a key concept in the humanities arguably came from outside the field of literary studies. Labov’s definition and analysis of narratives of personal experience (Labov 1972) has proven to be the most influential approach to narrative structures of the past few decades. In particular, the description of temporal structure in narrative utterances and the focus on evaluation as the backbone of narrations in Labov’s theory have been shown to be relevant and applicable to all kinds of narrative settings in a broad range of successor studies. The Labovian model is reiterated below in the description of the narrative framework used in the analysis of the EH corpus. That Labov’s account originated as a mere by-product of sociolinguistic methodology, namely as a strategy of eliciting variationist data, is one of the striking ironies of discourse studies. Since then, the concept of narrative has made an impressive ascent in discourse studies. Two major uses of the term need to be distinguished. For one, poststructuralism and cultural studies were quick to appropriate the term in a non-technical way. In this domain, the word ‘narrative’ (with offshoots such as ‘counter-narrative’ etc.) is used as an umbrella term with denotations ranging from ‘text’ to ‘identity’ and ‘ideology’; particularly this latter use was strongly influenced by Lyotard’s dictum of the end of a “Grand Narrative” (Lyotard 1979). This use of the term is emphatically disregarded here. More importantly, narrative analysis has become a powerful tool for discourse-analytical studies. In present-day discourse analysis, the view is prevalent that narrative is a fundamental way of “making sense of self and others” (Georgakopoulou 2004: 3) which pervades a vast number of communicative settings. Thus narrative studies have been



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 157

conducted for discourse types as diverse as scientific writing (e.g. Duszak 1997), healthcare communication (e.g. Charon and Montello 2002), and legal discourse (e.g. Papke 1981). In the domain of CMC, narrativity studies have been relatively scarce so far, although approaches such as those by Georgakopoulou (2004) and Sack (2003) give an indication of the relevance which narrativity bears for CMC interactions. The narrative analysis of EHs presented here is rooted in the discourse-analytical tradition described above. In keeping with the evolutionary approach to communication sketched in Section 5, narrativity can be described in relatively fundamental terms: there is increasing evidence that the phenomenon is much more than just a rhetorical structure or technique. As has been noted above, theories have been advanced that closely associate story-telling with language evolution in humans. In particular, Dautenhahn (1999, 2003, 2004) has put forward the Narrative Intelligence Hypothesis (NIH): on the basis of models such as Dunbar’s (1996), she has studied narrative behavior in subjects ranging from primates and robots to autistic children. Her central tenet regarding narrativity and language evolution is summarized as follows: The evolution of communication in terms of narrative language (story-telling) was an important factor in human evolution that has shaped the evolution of human cognition, societies and human culture. The use of language in a narrative format provided an efficient means of ‘social grooming’ that maintains group (Dautenhahn 2004: 128) coherence.

According to this view, narrativity is such an elementary and important quality of human discourse because it is intrinsically tied to our social origin. This hypothesis makes for an intriguing link between biological necessity and rhetorical structure. As Dautenhahn puts it, “narrative might be the ‘natural’ format for encoding and transmitting meaningful, socially relevant information (e.g., emotions and intentions of group members)” (2004: 134).17 Scholars in that field make an effort to emphasize that models such as the NIH are purely hypothetical as of yet, and that more empirical work is needed to validate such claims. Nevertheless, accounts of the evolutionary significance of narrativity are in line with existing approaches in other disciplines. Most importantly, an influential paper by Bruner on the “narrative construction of reality” (1991; reprinted as Bruner 2003) has made quite similar assertions from the perspective of narrative psychology. As Bruner points out,

17. While certainly unintentional, it is striking how this description echoes Fludernik’s dictum of a ‘natural’ narratology (1996).

158 Email Hoaxes

we organize our experience and our memory of human happenings mainly in the form of narrative – stories, excuses, myths, reasons for doing and not doing, and so on. Narrative is a conventional form, transmitted culturally and constrained by each individual’s level of mastery (…) Narratives, then, are a version of reality whose acceptability is governed by “narrative necessity” rather than by empirical (Bruner 2003: 44) verification and logical requiredness (…).

The central notion of this account is essentially similar to evolutionary perspectives: narrativity is described here as a major cognitive mechanism that is highly relevant for our nature – both for an individual’s personal construal of identity, and in communicative interaction with others. Strikingly, the focus here is again placed on functional aspects of narrative rather than its discursive implementation, as Bruner (2003: 45) emphasizes: “The central concern is not how narrative as text is constructed, but rather how it operates as an instrument of mind in the construction of reality”. Despite this conceptual program, Bruner’s paper goes on to outline ten “features of narrative”, most of which can easily be brought in accordance with textual aspects of narrativity. It is the task of discourse analysis to provide the descriptive tools for such a fundamental understanding of narrative. The basics of such a toolbox as they are relevant for the present study are given in the section below. In sum, narrativity is today viewed as an issue that affects our thinking and our interactions in a deep and encompassing way; its instantiation as literary discourse, which has long dominated narratological debate, is but one highly ritualized form of occurrence. The analysis of EHs given below is conducted in accordance with this conceptual framework. In the pragmatic analysis of EHs in Section 5, it was shown that such strong interaction patterns typically entail psychosocial mechanisms – in the case of EHs, the establishing of an ingroup/outgroup schema. This approach is pursued further here: specifically, the analysis presented in this chapter is focused on the connection between narrativity and communicative prestige. The functional implications of such a psychological interpretation are described in detail at the end of this section.

6.1.2 Narrative theories: Salient features for a discourse analysis of EHs While the recent developments in narrative theory described above are the basis for the assumptions made here, they are too general and conceptual for real discourse-analytical work. For the analysis of CMC, and specifically for the EH corpus under scrutiny here, a viable system of analysis had therefore to be developed. The methodology proposed in the following incorporates elements both from the



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 159

Labovian tradition and from the literary tradition sketched above which traditionally focuses on the presence of a mediating narrator figure. With this strategy, it is possible to identify and describe narrative structures even in the EH texts, which vary considerably in length and often have an inbuilt level of fictionality reminiscent of literary discourse. The overview presented below thus outlines three valuable features for a narrative analysis of EHs. These three features are temporal structuring, tellability, and the presence of a narrative persona. As described in the historical overview, the Labovian model of narrative (Labov and Waletzky 1967; Labov 1972) has possibly been the single most important contribution to narrative analysis. Most importantly, this model is usually regarded as a structural account that describes the temporal organization of the narrative event into a succession of “narrative clauses” (Labov 1972: 361). In its fully developed form, this structural model consists of six elements: abstract → orientation → complicating action → evaluation → resolution → coda. Abstract and coda are purely metadiscursive devices: the abstract gives a preliminary summary of the narrative (much in the way of its namesake in scientific articles), while the coda is a way of concluding the narrative and signaling its conclusion to the audience (Labov points out its additional role as a turn-taking signal that releases the narrator from his or her extended turn). The orientation is the functional element well-known as a story’s ‘setting’ in the literary tradition: it serves as an exposition that introduces factors such as time and place, the major characters, and any other background information about the situation that is felt to be essential. Of course, not all of these factors are necessarily given at the onset of the narrative; as Labov remarks, many of these items may be strategically introduced at later points of the narrative. The complicating action and the resolution are the substance of any narrative in terms of its ‘story line’ or plot: they are the implementation of Labov’s definition of narrative as a “method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events” (1972: 359f.) In this sense, complicating action and resolution form the narrative nucleus of a story. Finally, the evaluation stands out from the other elements in that it interrupts the flow of plot advancement: here, the narrator explicates the point or essence of his or her story. Labov places great emphasis on this structural entity and distinguishes several forms of evaluative utterance. Since the notion of evaluation of central importance for the present analysis, it is described more fully below. In sum, Labov suggests the following structure as the prototypical full narrative: A complete narrative begins with an orientation, proceeds to the complicating action, is suspended at the focus of evaluation before the resolution, and returns the listener to the present time with the coda. The evaluation of the narrative

160 Email Hoaxes

forms a secondary structure which is concentrated in the evaluation section but may be found in various forms throughout the narrative. (Labov 1972: 369)

However, it is emphasized in the Labovian account that narratives may be complete – and very often occur – without all of these structural slots being filled. The only necessary condition is the presence of a minimal plot structure: “only (…) the complicating action is essential if we are to recognize a narrative” (Labov 1972: 370). It is worth noting that Labov’s model reverberates even in the most recent narrative theories. Thus Bruner (2003: 45f.) makes explicit reference to it in his first feature of narrative termed ‘narrative diachronicity’. Dautenhahn’s definition of narrative (2004: 135ff.) implies a temporal structuring that is nearly identical to Labov’s; the parallels are quite pronounced. In sum, then, the structuring along a temporal framework is treated here as the first fundamental feature for the identification of narrative utterances. While the full-fledged six-element structure of Labov’s theory is recognized as prototypical, it is important to stress that more basic or nuclear narratives are equally important in real-life discourse. Mere sequentiality in the telling of events is not sufficient for identifying and describing narratives, however. The fact that Labov puts so much emphasis on the element of evaluation is intuitively understandable. To qualify as successful (indeed felicitous) discourse, narratives have to have a ‘point’: the events they describe need to deviate in some way from unmarked, everyday action patterns. This central quality is aptly summarized in Labov’s well-known catchy description: Pointless stories are met (in English) with the withering rejoinder, “So what?” Every good narrator is continually warding off this question; when his narrative is over, it should be unthinkable for a bystander to say, “So what?” Instead, the appropriate remark would be, “He did?” or similar means of registering the re(Labov 1972: 366) portable character of the events of the narrative.

While Labov refers to this quality as ‘reportability’, it has become more widely known as ‘tellability’. Pratt (1977) was one of the first to further expand on this notion. In her speech act model of literary narrative, she points out that tellability is so central in narrative events because of the extended floor time that is granted to the speaker. She notes: “For one thing, our expectations of the speaker increase, and his obligations to us likewise increase. He had better make sure, in other words, that his contribution is ‘worth it’ to us” (Pratt 1977: 206). This is as true and relevant for real-life story-tellers as it is for literary narrator personas: since a narrative is considerably longer than a normal utterance in a turn-taking situation, a certain payoff must be ensured for the listening participants whose turntaking options are momentarily subdued. This focus on norm-disrupting events



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 161

as the hub of narratives has been adopted by Bruner (2003): in his ten features of narrative, tellabillity is the basis for points five (“canonicality and breach”) and eight (“normativeness”). Interestingly, both Bruner (2003: 50f.) and Dautenhahn (2003: 137) point out the fundamental opposition between tellable events and the concept of ‘scripts’ as established in cognitive studies: whereas scripts describe a canonical sequence of events, tellability in a story implies that a breach of such established patterns is presented in the events being told. In sum, then, this is a second major characteristic for the narrative analysis of EHs: narratives must include a non-canonical, tellable event; and the narrative utterance must include at least a brief section topicalizing this event (the ‘evaluation’ in the Labovian sense). It should be noted, however, that the tellability criterion by no means implies that narratives must describe singular events or be outstanding in their rendering. Many narratives of everyday discourse are just that – descriptions of everyday situations, of the “rich and messy domain of human interaction” (Bruner 2003: 44). Similarly, there are well-established patterns of narrative disruption, both in oral story-telling (e.g. the structure of jokes) and in literary discourse (from the eternal ‘boy meets girl’ scenario to the contemporary serial killer novel). The fact that many stories resemble each other, or center on events of everyday life, makes them no less tellable. The two criteria described so far are strongly inspired by Labov’s theory of narrative. In addition, a third element is felt to be necessary for the identification of narratives, and helpful for their analysis. This third feature concerns the mediated nature of narrative utterances: narratives by definition contain the speaker role of a narrator persona. As mentioned in the historical overview, taxonomies of point of view have long been the major tool of literary narratology; by contrast, narrative perspectivization plays a marginal role in discourse-analytical studies of non-literary narrative. The reasons for this methodological divide lie in the perceived particular nature of literary narrative: due to their fictionality, literary narratives are double utterances, ascribable to a real author and a narrative persona (for a relevance-theoretical account, see Heyd 2006). With non-literary narratives, the picture may appear to be more straightforward, as the two communicative roles of originator and narrator are usually condensed into one – quite simply, the speaker. For a range of discourse types, this simplified communication model works very well. Thus Labov’s account was explicitly tailored to narratives of personal experience, where a division of communicative roles is highly unlikely to be the case. Nevertheless, it is shortsighted to categorically preclude narrative displacement and the existence of narrative personas in non-literary discourse. Many situations exist in everyday life where we appropriate foreign narratives for ourselves: we retell other people’s personal experiences, render material from

162 Email Hoaxes

the media or other sources, give imitations, etc. EHs clearly are a very central appropriation strategy of this kind. In this light, it is highly advantageous to include the factor of narrative persona into an analysis of narrative structure. As an added value, this factor is highly conducive for linguistic analysis. Essentially, narrative perspectivization functions through deictic anchoring, with the narrator constituting the deictic center of the utterance (see e.g. Prince 1982; see also the discussion of address pronouns in Section 3). Therefore, a narrative persona is usually well traceable through the deictics contained in the text. This concerns primarily overt uses of time, place, and person deixis, namely personal pronouns, prepositions and similar function words, as well as tense. In addition, narrative texts usually contain many more subtle ways of signaling perspectivization, as Prince (1982: 8ff.) has shown: his list of “signs of the I” also includes subjectivity markers such as evaluative adjectives. Prince has also shown that the deictic anchoring of the narrator is usually accompanied by complementary distal deictics, or “signs of the you” (that is, the role of the audience is often inscribed into the utterance as well). By analyzing these linguistic markers, a good approximation can be given of how the persona is conceived – different, and quite complex, degrees of displacement are possible, as Chafe (1992) has demonstrated. The inclusion of persona-based displacement as a criterion for narrative analysis may seem somewhat untimely, as even literary narratology has turned away from it in more recent times. Thus Fludernik’s natural narratology emphatically rejects the narrator as a sufficient condition for narrativity (cf. 1996: 114). Yet Fludernik essentially replaces this feature with the notion of experientiality – “the quasi-mimetic evocation of ‘real-life experience’ (…)” which “reflects a cognitive embodiedness in human existence and human concerns” (Fludernik 1996: 98). This can be taken as a functional description of what perspectivization does, both in literary and in real-life utterances. In sum, this form of displacement is treated here as the third essential feature of narrative discourse. To conclude, a tripartite model of narrative features has been presented here for the analysis of real-life narrative discourse. The three features can be summed up as (1) temporal structure, (2) tellability, and (3) narrative persona. An overview is given in Figure 13. It is a matter of interpretation how these factors should be put into relation: are all three of them necessary conditions? If so, an utterance can only be described as narrative if all three factors are clearly present. Alternatively, each individual feature could be treated as sufficient condition – in that case, the presence of just one of them would be enough to qualify a text as narrative. For the analysis conducted here, it is assumed that the three features may occur in individual texts with varying salience: different weightings of factors are possible for individual texts. However, the second factor has been made dependent on the presence of the first factor in the present analysis for reasons



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 163

Figure 13.  A Venn diagram of the narrative features used here. (1) is based on the sequencing of events within an utterance; (2) denotes the non-canonical event in the story; (3) refers to the deictic embodiment performed by the speaker.

discussed below. All in all, this conception implies the assumption that being or not being a narrative is a matter of degree: utterances may be more prototypically or more marginally narrative.

6.2

Narratives in the EH corpus

6.2.1 Methodological considerations In order to examine the narrative force of EHs, the representational data from the corpus were used. While minimal narrative sequences may be introduced in the framework messages of real-life data, the basic contents of the original core message were judged to be more indicative of the overall narrative potential of the texts. The items of the corpus were coded for the individual narrative features. In terms of identification, the first feature of temporal structuring is the most straightforward to make out within texts. In its most basic form, temporal structuring proceeds along the pattern “x happened, then y happened”; such sequences were identified and marked in the individual texts. Tellability, the second ­factor,

164 Email Hoaxes

is more difficult to identify, as it requires more content-based analysis. Labov (1972: 370–375) discusses various types of evaluation which differ considerably in their formal presentation: thus ‘external evaluation’ (where the speaker metadiscursively foregrounds the tellable nature) and the ‘embedding’ of evaluation (integrating the tellable event into the narrative sequence itself) are two of several evaluation strategies. It has been felt to be most efficient for this study to rely on coding based on qualitative analysis, where the non-canonical turning-point of the story is identified with regard to the discursive co-text, even if this makes for a somewhat fuzzy category. However, this fuzziness is somewhat as since this second factor has been made dependent on the presence of the first factor. Finally, narrative personas as the third feature can be identified quite easily through their deictic anchoring in the text. As described above, the tangibility of their presence is a matter of degree: a narrator’s stance can be everywhere from highly overt to completely undetectable in a narrative. For the present study, only narrative personas have been considered that are tangible at least to a basic degree: that is, through proximal personal pronoun signaling. This more restrictive interpretation of the third factor is due to a tendency that appears to be typical in EHs. Through their overall dual makeup (dual speaker roles, dual pragmatics, dual structuring into framework and core message) EHs show a propensity for fullfledged fictional narrators – often characterized through names, personal details and life stories. Therefore, highly covert narrator personas have been excluded for the present analysis. However, border cases for all three factors are discussed in Section 6.3.

6.2.2 Temporal structuring in EHs The majority of the EHs in the corpus contain temporally structured sequences of events. Of 147 items, 93 (nearly two thirds) satisfy this first narrative criterion. This number was determined based on relatively stringent conditions where border cases were omitted; otherwise, the amount of temporally structured EHs would be even higher. In particular, two types of ‘quasi-narrative’ sequencing were not taken into account: items which are too minimal to show even a two-step sequence, as in the following case. Its rendering of an event lacks a complimentary plot element to be considered as narrative (relevant sequences are emphasized in bold in the following examples): Example 74.  An excerpt from the ‘Wobbler’ virus EH (ID: 27). A new Virus - WOBBLER is on the loose. It will arrive on e-mail titled “HOW to GIVE A CAT A COLONIC”. IBM and AOL have announced that it is very powerful, more so than Melissa.



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 165

There is no remedy. It will eat all your information on the hard drive and also destroys Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer. (…)

The other items excluded are more complicated: many EHs contain long strings of potential event sequences – narratives in the conditional such as the following: Example 75.  The ‘AIDS’ virus EH (ID: 97). THEREE IS A VIRUS GOING AROUND CALLED THE A.I.D.S VIRUS. IT WILL ATTACH ITSELF INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER AND EAT AWAY AT YOUR MEMORY THIS MEMORY IS IRREPLACEABLE. THEN WHEN IT’S FINISHED WITH MEMORY IT INFECTS YOUR MOUSE OR POINTING DEVICE. THEN IT GOES TO YOUR KEY BOARD AND THE LETTERS YOU TYPE WILLNOT REGISTER ON SCREEN. BEFORE IT SELF TERMINATES IT EATS 5MB OF HARD DRIVE SPACE AND WILL DELETE ALL PROGRAMS ON IT AND IT CAN SHUT DOWN ANY 8 BIT TO 16 BIT SOUND CARDS RENDERING YOUR SPEAKERS USELESS. IT WILL COME IN E-MAIL CALLED “OPEN:VERY COOL! :) DELETE IT RIGHT AWAY. THIS VIRUS WILL BASICLY RENDER YOUR COMPUTER USELESS. YOU MUST PASS THIS ON QUICKLY AND TO AS MANY PEOPLE

AS POSSLE!!!!! YOU MUST!

While this EH consists entirely of a temporal event sequence, it refers to potential events only and therefore does not qualify as a full-fledged narrative. Such cases of ‘potential narrative’ are extremely frequent in the corpus. While they have been disregarded in the analysis of temporal structuring, they are taken up in the discussion in Section 6.3. Even with these marginal cases excluded, the bandwidth of temporal structures is considerable in the corpus. Examples can be found for extremely elaborate, full-length narratives that constitute nearly the entire textual material of the EH in question; at the other end of the scale, items exist which incorporate minimalist temporal sequences, often as a mere add-on to the textual nucleus of the EH. It is hardly surprising that the subcategory of classic urban legends shows the strongest penchant for full-fledged narratives. Indeed, all items in the corpus classified as urban legends consist of an elaborated narrative, in the sense that they all include sequences of complicating action and resolution, as well as an abstract, an orientation and a coda in most cases. Here is an excerpt from an EH that incorporates three full-length stories. This is its central narrative; indicators of the narrative element in question have been inserted: Example 76.  An excerpt from the ‘Ball Pit’ urban legend (ID: 61). (…) [(1) Abstract] Be very careful when taking your kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, etc.to the McDonald’s Ball Pit play area. Ask the manager when was the last time they cleaned the play area out. Please read this even if you don’t have children and forward it to everybody you can! This is so sad and so terrible!

166 Email Hoaxes

[(2) Orientation] Hi. My name is Lauren Archer, my son Kevin and I lived in Midland,TN. On October 2nd, 1999 I took my only son to McDonald’s for his 3rd birthday. [(3) Complicating Action] After he finished lunch, I allowed him to play in the ball pit. When he started whining later on, I asked him what was wrong, he pointed to the back of his pull-up and simply said “Mommy, it hurts.” I couldn’t find anything wrong with him at that time. I bathed him when we got home, and it was at that point when I found a welt on his left buttock. Upon ­investigating, it seemed as if there was something like a splinter under the welt. I made an appointment to see the doctor the next day, but soon he started vomiting and shaking, then his eyes rolled back into his head. From there, we went to the emergency room. He died later that night. [(4)] Evaluation] It turned out that the welt on his buttock was the tip of a hypodermic needle that had broken off inside. The autopsy revealed that Kevin had died from a heroine overdose. [(5)] Resolution] The next week, the police removed the balls from the ball pit. There was rotten food, several hypodermic needles: some full, some used; knives, half-eaten candy, diapers, feces, and the stench of urine. [(6) Coda] If a child is not safe in a child’s play area then where? You can find the article on Kevin Archer in the October 10,1999 issue of the Midland Chronicle. Please forward this to all loving mothers, fathers and anyone who ­ loves and cares for children!

This is an impressive display of narrativity in an EH. The temporal sequencing of events is highly detailed and complex: orientation, complicating action and resolution are present and clearly identifiable. In addition, both abstract and coda are given as a metadiscursive framework. While it is not the topic of this subsection, the manifest fulfillment of the other two narrative criteria should be noted – the narrative persona is identified by name (“Lauren Archer”), and the tellable focal point is so non-canonical as to verge on the grotesque (“Kevin had died from a heroine overdose”). It is not surprising that EHs of the ‘urban legend’ type are so overtly narrative, as they are most directly linked to a pre-digital precursor genre: in ethnographical and folkloristic studies, urban legends have long been known as a prime example of oral storytelling. In this sense, such EHs constitute one extreme in the narrativity continuum of the corpus. A similar degree of temporally structured events only occurs in a few EHs of the charity subcategory: due to their highly emotional content, charity EHs appear to be highly prone to elaborate narrativity. Here is an example: Example 77.  The ‘Kalin Relek’ charity EH (ID: 124). Hello, my name is Katie Relek, and I live in Alabama.

Well, this is an

important for you to read, because I really need your cooperation. ­



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 167

[(1) Abstract] It is so imporant for Ok, let me

you to know about what I want to tell you.

start.

[(2) Orientation] Ok, a couple of days ago, my son, he’s 7 years old, his name is Kalin. [(3) Complicating Action] Well, he was playing on the street, infront of our house, and then from out of no where, this car came out and crashed into him! I was sooo

frightened and angered at the driver, but it ended out to be, that the

drivers brakes had been shot, and he wasn’t able to stop. Luckily, my son, was able to avoid death, but he is in very serious condition. [(4) Evaluation] Right now, as I speak, he’s in the hospital, but the thing is, he has the serious injury to himself. It’s internal bleeding, and it’s bad to say, but we don’t have any health insurance, and we don’t have enough money to pay for the operation. [(5) Resolution] So I made a deal with a company, BCC inc. And they told me, for every person that will foward this email, he’ll donate 5 cents To the operation. THIS IS NO JOKE. We attached this type of encoding, that tracked how many times this message was fowarded. [(6) Coda] SO PLEASE, FOWARD THIS LETTER TO EVERY PERSON ON YOUR LIST. IT WILL BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH

This item is slightly less elaborate than the urban legend shown above, in particular with regard to its rudimentary abstract and coda, and because of its less sensationalist evaluation. A remarkable feature of this narrative is its emulation of oral storytelling: the text abounds with orality markers (grammatical infelicities, dislocations, and similar features.) The analysis of structural and microlinguistic features on Section 3 has revealed that EHs have a capacity for simulated orality; the item in question is a prime example of this mechanism. It can be speculated that the pronounced non-standard tone of the text is intended as a parody on Southern AE speech – hence the reference to Alabama. In the examples shown so far, narrativity pervades the entire item – in other words, the narrative is the EH. In most cases, this ratio is somewhat different: narratives often constitute just one sequence within the larger co-text of the item. Often, these shorter sequences take on the form of (fictional) personal testimonials; this is particular typical of virus and giveaway EHs. Here is an instance from a virus EH that is comparatively elaborated: Example 78.  The ‘AOL4FREE’ virus EH (ID: 100). VIRUS ALERT!!! DON’T OPEN E-MAIL NOTING “AOL4FREE” Anyone who receives this must send it to as many people as you can. It is essential that this problem be reconciled as soon as possible. ­ [(3)Complicating Action] A few hours ago, I opened an E-mail that had the subject heading of “AOL4FREE.COM”. Within seconds of opening it, a window ­

168 Email Hoaxes

appeared and began to display my files that were being deleted. ­

I immediately

shut down my computer, but it was too late. [(4) Evaluation] This virus wiped me out. [(5) Resolution] It ate the Anti-Virus Software that comes with the Windows ‘95 Program along with F-Prot AVS.

Neither was able to detect it.

Please be careful and send this to as many people as possible, so maybe this new virus can be eliminated.

While this narrative structure is decidedly shorter and less complex than the above examples, the temporal structuring is still well-identifiable and central to the EH as a whole; in particular, its complicating action sequence is relatively elaborate. Yet other cases exist whose narrative sequences are truly minimal. The following example is representative for a large number of temporally structured sequences in the corpus: Example 79.  The ‘Family Pictures’ virus EH (ID: 15). Subject: New Virus DO NOT OPEN “NEW PICTURES OF FAMILY” It is a virus that will erase your whole “C” drive. It will come to you in the form of an E-Mail from a familiar person. I repeat [(3) Complicating Action] a friend sent it to me, but called & warned me before I opened it. [(4) Evaluation] He was not so lucky [(5) Resolution] and now he cant even start his computer! Forward this to everyone in your address book. I would rather receive this 25 times than not at all. Also: Intel announced that a new and very destructive virus was discovered recently. If you receive an email called “FAMILY PICTURES,” do not open it. Delete it right away! This virus removes all dynamic link libraries (.all files) from your computer. Your computer will not be able to boot up.

Here the narrative is contained in two sentences and embedded in a largely nonnarrative co-text. This particular plot structure is highly representative as it occurs with minor variations in many EHs. That is probably due to the fact that its evaluation (“he was not so lucky”) contains a classic moral that reflects on the merits of EH diffusion: the story’s tragic ending is due to the friend’s lack of information; by sending along the text in question, further tragedies of this kind can be avoided. Through this strategy, the intricate link of EHs to traditional forms of oral storytelling stands out very clearly. It may be noted that the temporal sequences presented so far all include an at least marginally tellable core; most of them display a clear-cut evaluation sequence. This is not the case for all items in the corpus. In its most simple ­instantiation,



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 169

a sequence of temporally structured events in an EH can exist without a tellable nucleus. Here is an example from a giveaway EH: Example 80.  An excerpt of the ‘Old Navy’ giveaway EH (ID: 48). (…) DEAR OLD NAVY SHOPPER I AM LAURA THIMIS, THE FOUNDER OF OLD NAVY. [(3) Complicating Action] AS YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN SOME PROMOTION THINGS GOING ON WITH ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH AND THE GAP. NOW I WANT TO BE PART OF THE INTERNET PRMOTION “GIG”. FOR EVERY 10 PEOPLE THAT YOU SEND THIS TO, YOU GET A FREE $25.00 GIFT CARD FOR ANY OLD NAVY STORE, IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, FROM THE U.S.A. TO CHINA, FROM ICELAND TO PARIS!! MAKE SURE THAT YOU SEND THIS TO LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE! AFTER YOU SEND THIS TO AT LEAST 10 PEOPLE, YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR FREE OLD NAVY GIFT CARD IN 2 -4 WEEKS!!! WATCH THE MAIL!

In this case, the narrative portion of text is limited to two sentences comprising the complicating action. It is evident, however, that the sequence following this minimal narrative is of the ‘quasi-narrative’ kind alluded to above: thus it portrays potential events that may be engendered as a consequence of the status quo described in the narrative. Still other items do not even contain such a ‘projected’ continuation. In the following example, the minimal event sequence is framed by decidedly non-narrative elements: Example 81.  The ‘Penny Brown’ charity EH (ID: 63). Subject: FW: PLEASE LOOK AT PICTURE THEN FORWARD ** High Priority ** PLEASE LOOK AT PICTURE THEN FORWARD I am asking you all, begging you to please, forward this email on to anyone and everyone you know, PLEASE. [(3) Complicating Action] My 9 year old girl, Penny Brown, is missing. She has been missing for now two weeks. It is still not too late. Please help us. If anyone anywhere knows anything, sees anything, please contact me at [email protected] I am including a picture of her. All prayers are appreciated!! It only takes 2 seconds to ­forward this on, if it was your child, you would want all the help you could get. Please. Thank you for your kindness, hopefully you can help us. (See attached file: Penny.jpg)

Cases such as these form the other extreme in the continuum of temporally structured sequences in EHs. It can thus be summarized that EHs display an impressive variation of narrative content in terms of temporally structured event ­sequences.

170 Email Hoaxes

Finally, it should be emphasized that not all narrative items in the corpus fit the textbook description of Labov’s regarding the sequential combination of elements. In examples such as the following, it is much more difficult to assign the Labovian labels to discourse elements: Example 82.  Excerpt form the ‘Life is Beautiful’ virus EH (ID: 13). (…) This is a new virus which started to circulate on Saturday afternoon. WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STOP THIS VIRUS. UOL has already confirmed its dangerousness, and the antivirus Softs are not capable of destroying it. The ­ virus has been created by a hacker who calls himself “life owner”, and who aims to destroying domestic PCs and who also fights Microsoft in court! That’s why it comes disguised with extension pps. He fights in court for the Windows-XP patent. MAKE A COPY OF THIS EMAIL TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.

While narrative structures are clearly present in this excerpt, their sequencing is less straightforward than in other examples shown earlier. Recent narrative studies have increasingly focused on such non-Labovian narrative structures; it appears that many settings for narrative action exist that are not strongly conducive for the canonical narrative structure yet do yield other types of stories; in recent narrative theory, such entities are being discussed as “small stories” (see e.g. Bamberg 2006; Georgakopoulou 2006a, 2006b). With this tendency in mind, such seemingly unstructured narratives are by no means surprising or deviant in the strict sense. This point is taken up in the discussion in Section 6.3.

6.2.3 Tellability in EHs As has been mentioned in the section of narrative theory, tellability is a two-edged concept. On the one hand, it is a very central – in many eyes, the defining – feature of narrative discourse. On the other hand, it is somewhat problematic from a methodological point of view to pinpoint the tellable essence of a story: the borders between evaluation and other narrative elements are fuzzy. Labov distinguishes different types of evaluation that represent different degrees of narrative immersion: from external evaluation, where “the narrator can stop the narrative, turn to the listener, and tell him what the point is” (Labov 1972: 371) to embedded and evaluative action, where the narrator can “quote the sentiment as something occurring to him at the moment rather than addressing it to the listener outside of the narrative” (1972: 372) or even “tell what people did rather than what they said” (1972: 373). Interestingly, this typology coincides with the continuum of ‘telling’ vs. ‘showing’ as it has long been employed in literary narratology. With this variability in mind, the coding for tellability in the corpus data has been carried out



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 171

according to content-based criteria, as mentioned earlier: thus the tellable point of a story is identified here as the textual material which explicitly focuses on the non-canonical nature of the events reported. One aspect that is common to all types of evaluation described by Labov is that they momentarily suspend the narrative action, which implies that the tellable core must be located within the temporal sequence of events, or at least in direct adjacency to it. This criterion, which also implies that items without temporal structuring have no tellability, has been employed for the present analysis. Consequently, only 69 of the 147 items in the corpus are treated here as explicitly tellable (in the sense of containing a manifest evaluative text chunk). However, it is acknowledged that such an approach yields a relatively structuralist picture of narrative. In Section 6.3, a wider notion of tellability is discussed. The analysis of temporal sequences in EHs has shown that urban legends and related items (such as elaborated charity EHs) display the strongest tendency for narrativity in the corpus. This propensity is similarly echoed with regard to the tellability of the subcategory in question: most urban legend items in the corpus contain a clearly identifiable evaluative section. Here is the evaluation of the ‘Ball Pit’ urban legend as it was identified above: Example 83.  An excerpt of the ‘Ball Pit’ urban legend (ID: 61). (…) It turned out that the welt on his buttock was the tip of a hypodermic needle that had broken off inside. The autopsy revealed that Kevin had died from a heroine overdose. (…)

Syntactically, this is a case where the evaluation is well-marked: the metadiscursive “it turned out”, as well as the past perfect construction in the second sentence, clearly indicate a suspension of the narrative action (which is resumed after that text chunk). Even more strikingly, the central claims of the two sentences leave no doubt that this is indeed a non-canonical, reportable event: a hypodermic needle, violently “broken off ”, is found in the boy’s buttock (the choice of body part no doubt increases the sensationalist hue of the story); on top of this, the cause of death is revealed to be a “heroine overdose”, supposedly emanating from the hypodermic needle. Such an array of elements that deviate from everyday experience makes for a prime case of tellability. A further example from the urban legend subcategory may confirm the relevance of this pattern for longer EHs: Example 84.  The ‘Cocaine Baby’ urban legend (ID: 69). Pray and be prepared for a shock when you read it. This story is extremely sad. Please pass it on after reading it. Everyone needs to know about this.

172 Email Hoaxes

My sister’s coworker has a sister in Texas who, with her husband, was planning a weekend trip across the Mexican border for a shopping spree. At the last minute their baby sitter canceled, so they had to bring along their two-yearold son with them. They had been across the border for about an hour when the baby got free and ran around the corner. The mother went chasing but the boy had disappeared. The mother found a police officer that told her to go to the gate ­ and wait. Not really understanding the instructions, she did as she was told. About 45 minutes later, a man approached the border carrying the boy. The mother ran to him, grateful that he had been found. When the man realized it was the boy’s mother, he dropped the boy and ran. The police were waiting and got him. The boy was dead. [Evaluation] In the (less than) 45 minutes he was missing, he was cut open, ALL of his insides removed and his body cavity stuffed with COCAINE. The man was going to carry him across the border as if he were asleep. A two-year-old boy, dead, discarded as if he were a piece of trash for somebody’s cocaine. If this story can get out and change one person’s mind about what drugs mean to them, we are helping. Please send this E-mail to as many people as you can. If you have a home PC, send it out there, too. Let’s hope and pray it changes a lot of minds. The saddest thing about the whole situation is that those persons who suffer are innocent and people we love... God Bless you in this united effort to spread the word. You just might save a life! Ivan Overton ABC News System Specialist

In this case, the evaluation is placed at the end of the event sequence; the suspension of narrative action is introduced with the sentence preceding the coded part (“the boy was dead”). While less conspicuous than in the example above, syntactic features may be identified that mark the evaluative quality of this text chunk: the passive voice in the first sentence, the “was going to” construction in the second sentence indicating hypotheticality, and in particular the elliptical third sentence. Typographically, the prosodic capitalizations “ALL” and “COCAINE” stand out. From a content perspective, the tellable elements in this item are surprisingly similar to the one above: a child is mutilated, and drugs are involved. Moreover, the child’s body is to be used as a vehicle for drug-smuggling (“discarded as if he were a piece of trash for somebody’s cocaine”). In sum, these two cases give a good approximation of typically tellable events in EHs: body matters, in particular bodily harm; drug-related events; breaches of moral or legal rules; and so on. Again, this type of story constitutes one extreme in a continuum of stronger vs. weaker tellability found in EHs. Of course, tellability is a factor not just in urban legends but in the other subcategories as well. For charity EHs, the ‘Kalin Relek’ item has already provided a good example above; here is a repetition of its evaluative section:



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 173

Example 85.  An excerpt from the ‘Kalin Relek’ charity EH (ID: 124). (…) Right now, as I speak, he’s in the hospital, but the thing is, he has the serious injury to himself. It’s internal bleeding, and it’s bad to say, but we ­ don’t have any health insurance, and we don’t have enough money to pay for the operation. (…)

Again, syntactic evidence is present that indicates a suspension of the event sequence in this text chunk: a switch to present tense (the surrounding co-text being in past tense, see above for the whole message) and the conspicuous metadiscursive markers “right now, as I speak” and “it’s bad to say”. This evaluative depiction also contains a relatively drastic image of bodily harm (“internal bleeding”). Otherwise, however, the tellable focal point here is of a more abstract nature: lack of health insurance puts at risk the surgery and, as a consequence, the boy’s life. Indeed, this is another frequent strategy in the evaluations found in the EH corpus: apart from the sensationalist features listed above, ‘risk’ factors that aggravate an already adverse situation are often focused on in the evaluative section. In particular, this appears to be the prototypical tellability strategy in virus EHs. As described above, they often contain temporal sequences of a ‘testimonial’ character – that is, where fictional personas recount their experiences with the security threat in question. In this context, such aggravating narrative factors tend to play a role. Here is an example: Example 86.  An excerpt from the ‘sulfnbkJune’ virus EH (ID: 19). (…) WHEN I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, I CHECKED MY COMPUTER (FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS BELOW) AND SURE ENOUGH, THERE IT WAS. SO PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO READ THE FOLLOWING. [Evaluation] I AM VERY CAREFUL NOT TO OPEN ATTACHMENTS WITH AN .EXE, BUT SOMEHOW THIS SNUCK THROUGH BOTH MCAFEE AND NORTON (WHICH WOULD MAKE SENSE IF IT DOESN’T ACTIVATE ITSELF UNTIL JUNE 1). (…)

Here, the aggravating (and thus tellable) factor is that a virus “snuck through” despite protection measures; a possible explanation is offered in the parenthesis. Conspicuously, the adversary nature of the information is expressed through the conjunction “but” indicating opposition – a syntactic pattern that recurs in many of the items in the corpus. A similar, but even briefer structure is present in this example:

174 Email Hoaxes

Example 87.  An excerpt from the ‘Olympic Torch’ virus EH (ID: 17). (…) This is the worst virus announced by CNN, it has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever. This virus was discovered by McAfee yesterday, and there is no repair yet for this kind of virus. (…)

By contrast, an opposing rhetorical strategy is found particularly in the testimonials contained in giveaway EHs, namely a positively surprising end to a situation perceived as negative. The following example contains two such testimonials; both clearly display this type of tellable focus: Example 88.  An excerpt from the ‘Microsoft Merger’ virus EH (ID: 29). (…) [Complicating Action 1] I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks ­after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address ­ [Evaluation 1] and withindays, I receive a check for $24,800.00. You need to respond before the beta testing is over. If anyone can affoard this, Bill gates is the man. It’s all marketing expense to him. Please forward this to as many people as possible. You are bound to get at least $10,000.00. We’re not going to help them ­ out with their e-mail beta test without getting a little something for our time. [Complicating Action 2] My brother’s girlfriend got in on this a few months ago. When i went to visit him for the Baylor/UT game. She showed me her check. [Evaluation 2] It was for the sum of $4,324.44 and was stamped “Paid in full” (…)

Both these evaluations are quite strongly immersed (or ‘embedded’ in Labov’s terminology) into the temporal sequence that precedes them: the tense change in the first case is most likely to be a spelling error, whereas the second case conserves the past tense. As a final example, here is an instance of this rhetorical pattern where the suspension of events is more clearly tangible: Example 89.  An excerpt from the ‘Honda’ giveaway EH (ID: 116). (…) First off, I just want everyone to know that this is the real thing.

I

forwarded this message to everyone I know about 6 months ago and last week a Honda employee showed up at my house with my brand new 1999 Civic EX!!! [Evaluation] It is so funny because I never believed these things worked and actually I sent this one as a joke to all my friends. forwarded the message too and now I have received a new car!!! ­ (…)

But

they



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 175

In sum, this analysis has revealed a variety of tellability structures in the form of evaluations within the EH corpus. However, it has been emphasized above that this structural approach is based on highly stringent conditions – thus 83 of the 147 items are treated as non-tellable within this framework. In particular, this concerns many of the shorter items which lack narrative structure due to their brevity; the following example is representative of many such items in the corpus: Example 90.  The ‘Buddy List’ virus EH (ID: 6). If somebody by the name [email protected] adds you...don’t accept it.. it’s a virus. Tell everybody on your bulletin because if somebody on your list adds ­ them, you get the virus too. Tell everyone on your list not to open anything from angell11, tewwtuler and sassybitch. It is a hard drive killer and a very horrible virus. Pass this letter to everyone on your buddy list.

Structurally, this item contains neither a temporally organized sequence nor an evaluative section; from both these perspectives, it is therefore non-narrative. Nevertheless, this structural explanation framework seems less than satisfying – there is no good reason why “it is a hard drive killer and a very horrible virus” should be inherently less tellable than the evaluations examined above. It can thus be summarized that while only a portion of items in the corpus contain a fullfledged evaluation, tellability may be even more central to EHs than these data suggest. This issue is taken up in the concluding discussion in Section 6.3.

6.2.4 Narrative personas in EHs Mediation of the story to be told via a narrative persona has been identified as a third criterion for narrativity in the analysis of EHs. As outlined earlier, there is a broad range of potential linguistic indicators for the presence of an uttering persona in a discourse, in particular deictic anchoring and related forms of perspectivization. However, the boundaries are fuzzy between real speaker foregrounding, as a narrative mechanism, and mere phatic text engineering, as a persuasive tool. In many respects, EHs resemble advertising discourse such as direct mail (compare e.g. Connor and Upton 203): specifically, they need to persuade their readers. As a result, their appellative function is often strongly foregrounded, which leads to a high occurrence of distal person deictics and other markers of subjectivity. As has further been shown in the analysis of address pronouns in Section 3, vocatives are a highly important feature of EHs. In this sense, the mere occurrence of ‘signs of the you’ is not deemed sufficient for the identification of a

176 Email Hoaxes

narrative persona in this study.18 As a consequence, the items in the corpus have been coded for narrative embodiment only if they contain at least one clear-cut instance of proximal person deictics (typically, an “I” or “we”). Even with this ­restriction, narrative embodiment appears to be an important factor in the data: of the 147 messages in the corpus, 101 display an at least marginally present narrator persona. The degree of overtness varies considerably throughout the corpus; the following examples may give an impression of this bandwidth. In its most pronounced form, the use of a narrative persona creates a fully developed level of fictionality in an EH: in these cases, a fictional speaker is introduced as the supposed originator s1 of the message. It may be noted that this technique works well with real-life persons whose identity is appropriated for this purpose, as in the ‘Microsoft Beta’ virus EH (ID: 105) that is attributed to Bill Gates; however, the introduction of fictional names is by far more frequent, as the discussion of names in Section 3 has shown. Here is an example of such a fully developed narrative persona: Example 91.  The ‘J. Crew’ giveaway EH (ID: 112). Hello readers! My name is Robert Crensman.

I am sure you are all well aware of the free

offerings made from Gap and the free gift certificates offered from Abercrombie and Fitch.

I am the Senior President of J.Crew, and I am

offering a great deal in compliance to these other great offers. For every ten people you forward this two, your AOL screen name will receive an online J.Crew gift

certificate worth fifty dollars. There is no limit to

how many people you can send

this to.

This is simply an online promotion to

increase the usage of our internet website. passing on this letter.

We appreciate your help in

Thank you for your support!

Feel free to visit our online store at http://www.jcrew.com Sincerely, Robert Crensman Senior President of J.Crew

In this message, the narrator’s persona is so well-developed that it dominates the discursive structure as a whole. It contains three explicit references to the narrator (an entirely fictional persona). The opening sentence introduces the name: “My name is Robert Crensman”. The third sentence gives more information about the speaker that serves to establish and legitimize his identity: “I am the Senior President of J. Crew”. Finally, the fictional signature at the end of the text is intended as 18. This is in contrast with studies of literary narrative, where it is a central insight that even narratives without an overt narrator (‘third-person narratives’) incorporate such a narrative persona by definition.



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 177

a reinforcing reliability marker. In addition to these very marked topicalizations, several occurrences of a proximal “we” can be found across the message. Through these features, the impression of a speaking persona with a fully developed identity pervades the text. The next example is quite similar in its textual construction: Example 92.  The ‘Miller’ giveaway EH (ID: 108). Hello: We here at Miller Brewing Company, Inc. would like to help bring in the new millennium for everyone.

We like to think of ourselves as a progressive

company, keeping up with our customers. We have found the best way to do this ­ via the Internet and email. Combining these things, we would like to make a special offer to our valued customers: ­

If this

email makes it to 2,000,000

people by 12:00 PM on New Year’s Eve of 1999, we will send a coupon for one six-pack of any of our Miller Brand beverages. In the event that

2,000,000

people are reached, our tracker/counter, embedded in this message, will report to us with the list of names and email addresses. Thereafter, each email address will be sent an electronic coupon which you can print out

and redeem at any

Miller Brand beverage carrying store. The coupons will be sent as soon as 2,000,000 people are reached, so the sooner, the better. Enjoy, and Cheers, Gary D. Anderson, Chief Marketing Director Miller Brewing Company, Inc. http://www.millerbrewing.com

In this case, plural forms are used throughout as deictic proximality markers: in sum, there are 11 occurrences of we, our, us, and ourselves in this short text. Despite this plural form – which imitates the ‘corporate image’ jargon of large companies – a fictional character is identified in the signature to whom the utterance is attributed. In addition to this strong perspectivization, other deictic features are conspicuously present in this message and serve to enhance the narrator’s stance. Thus the mention of “New Year’s Eve of 1999” as a point in the future locates the speaker temporally; also, the phrase “we here at Miller Brewing Company, Inc.” is a powerful means of spatial foregrounding through place deixis. Interestingly, the URL given in the signature is the official website of the brand – it is tempting to hypothesize that referencing through URLs provides a new and highly specific form of place deixis (and, in a functional sense, has a reliability-adding effect). The two examples above are not chosen at random: fully-developed, fictional personas are most emblematic of giveaway EHs. Indeed, 33 of the 40 giveaway EHs in the corpus display narrative embodiment (though not always as fully developed as above). However, this factor also occurs in other subcategories. Next to the giveaway subcategory, charity EHs are most prone to displaying a narrative

178 Email Hoaxes

persona; to a lesser degree, the factor is also found in urban legends. Here is a distinct example from the charity subcategory: Example 93.  The ‘Natalie’ charity EH (ID: 82). Subject: help out aight Hello, My name is Krista Marie and I have a new born baby named Natalie. She means the world to me, and just resently, the doctors have discovered that my little Natalie has Brain Cancer. Unfortunatly my husband and I don’t have the money to pay for the bill. But my husband and I have worked out a deal with AOL and they have agreed to give us 5 cents to each person that recived this e-mail. So please, ­orward this to everyone you know, and help out my little Natalie and I. f

Here the persona is again overtly introduced in the first sentence (“my name is Krista Marie”); in the subsequent text, complimentary phrases introducing other family members (“my husband and I”; “my little Natalie and I”) occur. In sum, 11 proximal pronouns are contained in this message. As with example 98, related proximal deictics provide a subtle form of anchoring for the persona: place-deictical “this e-mail” and the temporal reference “just resently” are cases in point. More generally, two prevalent strategies of fictionalization may be made out in charity EHs: in one type, as shown above, a family member, doctor or other representative of the affected person takes on the narrator role; in the other case, the victims assume the narrative stance themselves. As a final example, here is a case of this second pattern: Example 94.  The ‘Kayla Wightman’ charity EH (ID: 86). Hi my name is Kayla Wightman. I am 15 years old, and i have a severe lung cancer from second hand smoke. I also have a large tumor in my brain, from repeated beatings. Doctors say I will die soon if this isn’t fixed, and my family can’t pay the bills. The Make A Wish Foundation, has agreed to donate 7 cents evertime this message is sent on. For those of you who send this along, I thank you so much, but for those who don’t send it, what goes around comes around. Have a heart, please. If you don’t send this to everyone on your list you have a cold heart (Kayla Wightman) please copy not forward this e-mail to avoid these >>>>>>>

For the subcategory of urban legends, good examples of narrative personas have been seen in above examples; in particular, the ‘Ball Pit’ item (ID: 61), shown earlier in example 82, gives a good impression of narrators in urban legends. The items examined so far are all characterized by their overt fictionality and the presence of a discernible narrator persona identified by a name and additional information regarding his or her identity. This fully-developed form can be regarded as the upper end in the spectrum of narrative embodiment. Many items in the corpus coded for a narrative persona are less prototypical. In particular, a



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 179

considerable number of texts are less pronounced in terms of their fictionality: while they do display an overt speaker, less information is available on his or her identity. The following example illustrates this tendency: Example 95.  The ‘Guinness Book’ giveaway hoax (ID: 135). If we keep this going until September 9th, 1999 (9-9-99), I PROMISE YOU that everyone’s name who this was sent to will be in the Guinness Book of Records. I HAVE PROOF! I E-MAILED THEM & TOLD THEM I WOULD START ONE & THEY SAID THEY’D SAVE A SPOT FOR US IN THE 2000 Special addition! So, if we keep this going...We’ll all be a part of the book! So please, have some heart and send this to a few people. It would really be nice. You get something out of it too! So, send this right now! Thanks very much!

As in the examples shown before, proximal pronouns occur freely in this message. A speaker is identified by an “I” (occurring four times) and further topicalized by additional information (“I mailed them & told them…”). Interestingly, the text also contains plural proximal forms (“If we keep”; “we’ll all”); in contrast to earlier examples, this is an inclusive we that incorporates the addressees, as opposed to the exclusive we simulating corporate jargon that is more typical of classic giveaway EHs. However, the speaker is identified neither through a name or affiliation nor through more personal information regarding his or her background. Thus the persona of the text, while deictically well-anchored, remains largely anonymous and inaccessible for the addressees. A similar degree of narrative embodiment is discernible in the following example that was examined earlier (example 84) in terms of its temporal structure: Example 96.  The ‘AOL4FREE’ virus EH (ID: 100). DON’T OPEN E-MAIL NOTING “AOL4FREE” Anyone who receives this must send it to as many people as you can. It is essential that this problem be reconciled as soon as possible. A few hours ­ ago, I opened an E-mail that had the subject heading of “AOL4FREE.COM”. Within seconds of opening it, a window appeared and began to display my files that were ­ being deleted.

I immediately shut down my computer, but it was too late.

This virus wiped me out. It ate the Anti-Virus Software that comes with the Windows ‘95 Program along with F-Prot AVS. Neither was able to detect it. ­ Please be careful and send this to as many people as possible, so maybe this new virus can be eliminated.

While this text contains five first-person proximal pronouns, and the narrative persona is overtly present in the complicating action sequence, the narrator here is a purely passive witness: apart from relating the events, he or she is not actively invested in the text. Thus while personas are distinctly present in these texts as

180 Email Hoaxes

their perspectivizing entities, they have less narrative presence than the fullyformed examples analyzed earlier. As may be noted, the above example is a case of the rhetorical strategy described as ‘testimonial’ in the analysis of temporal structuring. Indeed, it is these testimonial sequences, which are a part of so many EHs, that account for a further portion of narrative embodiment in the corpus. In these cases, the deictic anchoring is minimal, and they display an at best basic degree of fictionality. Here is an example of such marginal narrative embodiment: Example 97.  The ‘IBM’ giveaway EH (ID: 42). Subject: Info: FREE COMPUTERS FREE COMPUTERS Hewlett-Packard and Gateway have just merged to form the biggest computer supplier in the world! Bigger than Dell, bigger than IBM, bigger than them all! ­ In response to this amazing merger, IBM has set aside 250,000 free computers to reward and keep its most loyal and trusted customers! I’ve already got mine, read on to see how you can get yours!!! This email has a special encoding which will let IBM know every time you send it to one of your friends or relatives. The first 250,000 people who send this to at least 15 of their friends will receive a brand new IBM computer! After you send this to your friends, and qualify, IBM will contact you via email, and get your shipping address. Send them your address, and in a couple of days, a brand new computer, ­complete with printer, and 19” monitor is sitting on your doorstep! You must hurry, because this offer ends July 31 of this year! ­ Here’s the catch, though. Each of your friends must send this to at least 5 people or you won’t be eligible, so choose your friends wisely! Remember, a true friend will send this along for you! That’s all it takes, no strings attached! No purchase necessary!!! You don’t even have to have previously purchased a computer from IBM! They want to earn or keep your future business, and they’re willing to pay for it!!! Take Care, and let’s get some new computers!!!

This message abounds with distal deictics (whose function as phatic markers is quite obvious here), yet the narrative persona is positioned in a highly economical way. Only two expressions (“I’ve already got mine”; “let’s get some”) draw attention to the narrator’s stance in this message. While the degree of narrative embodiment in such instances is clearly lower than in earlier examples, this minimalist strategy appears to be quite effective in infusing a certain narrative dimension into otherwise non-narrative items. As a final example, here is a case where the narrative stance is made overt by one single proximal pronoun:



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 181

Example 98.  The ‘Bug’s Life’ virus EH (ID: 99). Subject:

FW: Another Virus !!!!!!

Someone is sending out a very desirable screen-saver, a Bug’s Life “BUGGLST.ZIP”. If you download it, you will lose everything!!! Your hard drive ­ will crash and someone from the Internet will get your screen name and password! DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!! IT JUST WENT INTO circulation yesterday, as far as we know. Please distribute/inform this message. This is a new, very malicious virus and not many people know about it. This information was announced yesterday morning from Microsoft. that might access the Internet. Once again,

Please share it with everyone

pass this along to EVERYONE in

your address book so that this may be stopped

In this text, the narrative anchoring is reduced to an enigmatic “we” that does not offer any further identification or information. Thus the present analysis has reached the other extreme in the scale of narrative embodiment – a stark contrast to the well-developed identities displayed in earlier examples. And yet, such minimalist narratives can be interpreted as a highly efficient way of evoking a narrative dimension in an otherwise non-narrative text.

6.3

Discussion and outlook: Functional aspects of narrativity in EHs

6.3.1 Summary: Distribution of narrative features in the corpus The analysis of narrativity in EHs carried out here has been based on three narrative features: temporal structuring, tellability, and a narrative persona. Across the 147 items of the EH corpus, the individual features have been shown to be distributed as displayed in Table 14. As can be seen, the presence of a narrative persona is the most frequent narrativity feature in the EH corpus. This is in part due to the importance of a fictional dimension which has been revealed in the qualitative analysis; in part, it may also be caused by the relatively low threshold applied in coding the data for narrative embodiment (i.e., the manifest presence of an “I” or “we” was deemed Table 14.  Distribution of narrativity features across the EH corpus.

1) temporal structuring 2) tellability 3) narrative persona

present (•)

absent (O)

  93   69 101

54 78 46

182 Email Hoaxes

Table 15.  Possible patterns for the occurrence of the three narrativity factors; •=presence, O=absence. temporal tellability narrative texts in total structure persona corpus •

•

•

56

56

• • • O O O O

O • O O • • O

O O • • • O O

10 13 14 31  0  0 23

68  0 23

full narratives: all three narrative features are present partially narrative texts: one or two of the narrative features are present

[These patterns do not occur due to the dependence of factor 2 on factor 1] Non-narrative texts: all narrative features are absent

sufficient for this criterion). By contrast, tellability is the least frequent of the three factors, and the only one which is more frequently absent than present. As has been pointed out in the analysis of this second feature, this relatively low rate of tellability in the data is due to the fact that the second factor was coded in dependence of the first factor: texts were identified as tellable if they contained an evaluation section integrated into a temporal sequence of events. This structural interpretation explains the comparably low weighting of the second factor, and it can be assumed that the overall tellability rating of EHs would be higher with less clear-cut constraints. It is interesting to see how the individual factors for narrativity group together in the items of the corpus. Overall, eight constellations are possible, of which six occur in the corpus. Their frequencies are given in Table 15. As this distribution shows, 56 of the items in the corpus are full narratives satisfying all three criteria analyzed here. With 68 items, the largest proportion of texts can be described as partially narrative, displaying one (41 items) or two (27 items) of the narrative features. Only 23 texts (15.6%) are distinctly non-narrative. Returning to the Venn diagram from Section 6.1.2, the narrative features group together in the corpus as shown in Figure 14. These numbers are certainly convincing with regard to the narrative status of EHs as a discourse phenomenon. A solid third (38.1%) of the texts in the corpus are full narratives, satisfying all three narrativity criteria; an additional 46.3% are characterized as partially narrative, with one or two features present. Thus with 84.4%, a large majority of the EHs analyzed here can therefore be said to display at least a narrative tendency. It is of course debatable in how far the texts fulfilling only one or two of the conditions constitute real narratives. Certainly, it would be



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 183

Figure 14.  A schematic overview on narrative feature distribution in the ­representational corpus.

misleading to treat them as full-fledged narrative texts, in particular those items that only fulfill one narrative criterion. On the other hand, it has been seen in the qualitative analysis that even minimalist narrative features can have a great effect on the overall utterance. In this sense, it appears fitting to describe this portion of texts as rudimentary narratives. This result confirms the intuitive understanding outlined in the introduction of this section and noted at earlier points of this study: narrativity is closely tied to email hoaxing as a discourse phenomenon, and in most of its instantiations, story-telling is a manifest feature of the texts. Finally, it is interesting to observe how the different degrees of narrativity are reflected in the content-based subcategories of the corpus. Table 16 gives an overview on the distribution. These results are in line both with tendencies observed in the qualitative analysis and results of the formal analysis in Section 3. Full narrativity is most frequent in urban legends (77%) and in charity EHs (48%); it is rarer in giveaway EHs (35%), and occurs only in a fifth of virus EHs (22%). For overt non-narrativity, the tendency is inversed: it occurs most frequently in virus EHs (26%) and, to a slightly lesser degree, in giveaway EHs (17.5%); by contrast, it is very rare in urban legends (7%) and almost non-existent in charity EHs. Taken together, charity EHs and urban legends have a stronger tendency to pole toward a narrative text form, whereas giveaway EHs and in particular virus EHs are more likely to be non-narrative (although the overall degree of narrativity is still relatively high even within these subcategories). This again confirms two opposing content-based rhetorical strategies which are found in different types of EHs: they may appeal either

184 Email Hoaxes

Table 16.  Distribution of narrativity patterns in the content-based subcategories of the representational corpus. Hoaxed hoaxes have not been included in the diagram since the sample is too small.

virus giveaway charity urban legend hoaxed hoax sum

full narrative

rudimentary n.

non-narrative

sum

10 14 20 10  2 56

24 19 21  2  2 68

12  7  1  1  2 23

  46   40   42   13    6 147

100% 80% 60%

non-narrative rudimentary narrative full narrative

40% 20% 0% Virus

Giveaway

Charity

Urban legend

through emotion or through information. Due to their subject matter, urban legends and charity EHs are more prone to emotional themes which cater to the reader’s sentiments and altruism. Arguably, this tendency fosters narrativity, as the sensationalist penchant of such emotionally oriented stories leads to an inbuilt tellability. By contrast, giveaway and virus EHs are often constructed around precarious information that is supposedly of use to the reader and thus focus on his or her self-interest. While such texts may easily incorporate narrativity, as the data show, they are not bound to story-telling as the technical information will frequently be foregrounded. In sum, narrativity is a highly important mechanism in EHs; the fact that it does not occur at equally high levels throughout the corpus can be explained by content-specific constraints for particular subcategories.

6.3.2 Narrativity in EHs – functions and consequences If the quantitative analysis has shown narrativity to be an important factor in email hoaxing, it has been clear from the outset that the criteria applied here



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 185

are relatively rigorous. In other words, many candidates in the corpus have been omitted due to stringent selection that might well be considered narratives in more general assessments. For each of the three factors, border zones and problematic cases have been made out. In particular, the following issues were identified as grey areas: Temporal structure. As has been pointed out, a vast number of EHs contain structures that could be termed ‘quasi-narratives’ or potential narratives: that is, temporal sequences of events which are rendered in future tense or as conditional sentences. While traditional narrative analysis has usually focused on the telling of real or imagined events in the past or present tenses, there is no solid reason why such potential sequences should not be interpreted as a sign of narrativity. If this first factor were applied in such a wider sense, only few cases in the corpus would fall outside this criterion. Tellability. This factor has been coded for in a particularly restrictive manner: tellability was tied to the existence of an evaluative suspension of action, and thus to the presence of the temporal structure. While this strategy enhances methodological clarity, an argument can be made for radically different conceptions of tellability. Thus it could be argued that all EHs are by definition tellable – the very fact that they succeed in being forwarded implies that their contents are viewed as non-canonical by the communicators. Needless to say, such an inclusive interpretation would yield a radically different analysis. Narrative persona. The present analysis has only included texts with clear pronominal markers of proximity. Yet more indirect forms of narrative embodiment have long been known in literary analysis; by taking into account more subtle forms of distal deictic perspectivization, many additional candidates might be identified with regard to this category (which has yielded the most positive cases even in the presence of this restriction). While parameters have been applied strictly with good cause – in particular, to prevent a too arbitrary interpretation of the data – it has become evident that EHs as a phenomenon have a strong inclination toward narrativity. This can be inferred from the quantitative results, most importantly from the large proportion of rudimentary narratives; and the possibility of a more general concept of narrativity strongly underlines this. In short, the analysis presented here has revealed that most EHs have a narrative dimension; within methodologically wider settings, it may well be posited that all EHs are narratives. It should be noted in this context that these suggestions are very much in line with recent developments in narrative theory. Narratologists are increasingly focusing on the concept of ‘small stories’ as developed by Michael Bamberg,

186 Email Hoaxes

­ lexandra Georgakopoulou, and others (see e.g. Georgakopoulou 2006a; articles A in special issue of Narrative Inquiry 16/1). This approach is firmly grounded in the realization that a large number of everyday narratives are non-standard in the sense that they do not fit the textbook Labovian model. Bamberg (forthc.) describes well the scope of the term: First off, “small stories” are usually very short (…). But more importantly, the term “small stories” is meant to refer to stories told in interaction; stories that do not necessarily thematize the speaker, definitely not a whole life, but possibly not even events that the speaker has lived through – and now, retrospectively, reflects upon and recounts (often termed “personal stories” or “narratives of personal experience”). Rather, “small stories” are more the kinds of stories we tell in everyday settings (not just research or therapeutic interviews). And these stories are most often about very mundane things and everyday occurrences, often even not particularly interesting or tellable; stories that seem to pop up, not necessarily even recognized as stories, and quickly forgotten; nothing permanent or of particular (Bamberg forthc. 5f.) importance – so it seems.

It is important to stress that a large number of the EHs analyzed here are emphatically not small stories – quite to the contrary, some of them have been shown to be almost prototypical examples of the Labovian model. And yet, this concept of ‘imperfect’ stories, where narrativity is treated rather as an emergent tendency than as a solemn principle, fits in well with the observation that EHs display an overall narrative inclination and may often be only rudimentary structures. In this light, EHs stand out indeed as a prime example of story-telling and its role in our lives. Ultimately, one central question remains to be answered regarding the narrativity of EHs. What is the motivation behind these messages’ striving for narrativity? Why is the narrative pattern so recurrent in EHs, both in the way they are designed by their originators, and interpreted by their recipients? As with the studies on message archaeology and pragmatic structure, it can be expected that such an overwhelming rhetorical tendency is intricately linked to a psychosocial mechanism – narrativity must yield a certain payoff in communicative transactions. In other words, a functional explanation for this tendency in text design is necessary. As outlined in the introduction to this section, story-telling has come to be understood as a very fundamental form of human behavior. Narratives are the tool with which we shape our world, the lens through which we make sense of self and others; importantly, it is also highly relevant as a form of “social glue” (Dautenhahn 2004: 132) that does much to keep in shape our social networks. This latter point in particular seems to be even more central with regard to ­social



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 187

networks in CMC. Social networks based on virtual communities are a very powerful phenomenon of the Internet (see Bergs 2006 for an overview); however, their existence is often more precarious than in real-life networks, particularly if they are mediated predominantly or exclusively through online interaction instead of face-to-face contact. Consequently, the stakes are raised for “social glue” in such communities. Thus Georgakopoulou (2004) describes the importance of email storytelling in a Greek-English online/offline community. Sack (2003) goes one step further: he argues that many online social networks actually have their basis and driving force in the sharing of narratives. He illustrates this point with analyses of Usenet groups about movies, television programs, and news stories. As Sack points out, “a non-trivial portion of these [online] social networks are based on discussions of widely circulated stories. Virtual, online communities are a result of these net-mediated, story-based relations” (Sack 2003: 305). In short, narratives are a much-needed good in social networks, particularly within the CMC domain. Yet through this desirability, other factors come into play. Most importantly, being a good narrator of tellable stories entails considerable social and rhetorical prestige. In his description of reportability, Labov (1972) gives a good impression of the effect that non-tellable stories have on an audience – they are “met with the withering rejoinder, ‘So what?’” (1972: 366). Because of the important role of narrativity in our lives, we pay great attention to people’s story-telling abilities, and allocate status on this basis. Being unable to contribute stories, or to tell them well, is a relatively straightforward way of losing social and rhetorical prestige within a social network.19 Interesting stories, then, are important goods in the everyday routine of our communicative exchanges. Yet the desirability of good stories also implies that they are by no means readily available: several inhibiting factors contribute to their prestigious status. For one, highly non-canonical events are, by their very nature, exceptional occurrences in our lives: by consequence, much of what we do and what happens to us is eminently non-tellable. The fact that Labov’s influential study focused on narratives of personal experience may have distorted the perception of how central and frequent such narratives really are. Most certainly, the stories of mortal danger elicited in Labov (1972) are far away from the everyday fare of story-telling; this, indeed, is one of the central tenets of the ‘small stories’ approach. As a consequence, good stories may often be recruited from outside one’s own experience. A second factor inhibiting the free flow of 19. It is not surprising, in this light, that advice on small talk and related linguistic soft skills features prominently in the genre of self-help and motivation books for career purposes that Arnold Zwicky has aptly termed “bizlore” (cf. Language Log, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/ languagelog/archives/003770.html).

188 Email Hoaxes

personal narratives is the potential of face loss attached to them. Particularly in situations where unsolicited stories are put forward – as it is very often the case in informal settings – laying open personal experience comes at the risk of attracting criticism or even derision. In online communities, where bonds between members are often less well-grounded and intimate than in real-life social networks, the threshold for face-threatening acts is even lower. Thus telling personal stories always implies a certain interactional risk. Finally, and this concerns the written environment of CMC in particular, it is energy-intensive to put a good story into words: writing down a narrative does not only demand rhetorical skills, but also pure time and effort. In email communication, many users do not want to invest time for such writing activities, a factor which is reinforced through the perceived fast pace of the socio-technical mode; in addition, creating written narratives demands a basic rhetorical experience which users may lack (or feel to lack). These aspects may illustrate the dilemma behind storytelling in CMC: it is an important and reputable activity that ensures the cohesion of social networks and has status-enhancing effects for the narrator; yet several factors inhibit the easy recuperation of tellable narratives. It is suggested here that EHs provide one solution to this dilemma for many users. As has been shown in the pragmatic analysis, forwarding an EH is an implicit way of ratifying the message and becoming one of its utterers (the concept of multiple sendership). In this sense, forwarding an EH is a highly economic way of appropriating a good story. Such appropriated narratives are not entangled with the inhibiting factors sketched above: they are, by their very nature, tellable stories about non-canonical events (at least in the wider sense of tellability). They are not about personal experience and thus carry little face-threat for the sender; yet their contents are about the everyday lives of normal people, and they often display a degree of narrative embodiment that gives them a (fictionally) personal dimension. And finally, they are readily available textual artifacts that can be disseminated with great ease and little personal investment due to the socio-technical framework of email programs. In sum, EHs can be seen as a highly efficient way of maintaining social and rhetorical status (for the individual communicator) and of maintaining social relations (for the social network as a whole). EHs ay therefore constitute ideal social glue material that works both from an individual and a community-based perspective. It is of course debatable how effective the status-gain through EHs really is on a large scale – as has been shown in the pragmatic analysis in Section 5.4, the responses from ingroup members can be quite harsh in tone. But such clashes between ingroup and outgroup members seem to be perceived as a mere side effect, if judgment is to be made according to the sheer mass of EH transactions. The value of EHs as easy tools to contribute to email exchanges, of staying in ­contact



Chapter 6.  Narrativity in EHs 189

particularly with looser social acquaintances, appears to be one of the major motivations behind their dissemination. The survey data that Kibby (2005: 786ff.) supplies regarding users’ attitudes toward forwarding emails strongly support this theory. Thus Kibby concludes: This type of contact may be an online corollary to the collective Christmas letter or the greeting card without a personal signature. Both seem to be widely distributed and yet almost universally disliked. These contacts may be phatic communication, primarily for the purpose of keeping lines of communication open, but they invariable [sic] carry social meanings and may not always be interpreted in (2005: 788) the light that the sender intended.

Interestingly, Kollock (1999) has put forward a conceptually close argumentation for online communities in general, arguing that users share information with the goal of increasing their status or “reputation” (1999: 227). Additionally, Rosnow and Fine (1976) come to similar conclusions for the pre-digital sphere; based on studies regarding the social status of rumor disseminators, they identify “effort after status” as a driving force behind many rumors: (…) on the assumption that rumor flow requires a fertile breeding ground, the rumormongers were expected to be sociable and have many friends with whom to share the rumor. Surprisingly, they were less popular; they dated less often and got together with friends less frequently than did nonrumomongers. (…) The results lead us to guess that rumormongering may sometimes be an attempt to gain esteem. Someone without many friends might worry about his or her self-esteem, and he or she might pass on a titillating rumor in hope of building a new friendship. The recipient of the rumor bestows status on the rumormonger merely by accepting it. (…) The effort after status (…) is a plausible triggering condition in both the construction and dissemination of rumor.  (Rosnow and Fine 1976: 74f.)

This interpretation strongly foregrounds the gap between having and lacking status – in other words, propagating rumors is seen as an inverse marker of ­popularity. It is not clear to what degree this suggestion is transferable to EHs; most certainly, such a claim would need empirical evidence. As a more humble conclusion, the insights from the pragmatic analysis have been extended in this section. When people forward EHs, they do so with deep motivations that are fundamentally ingrained in our behavioral patterns. EHs may not be socially relevant, worthwhile, or even sincere in terms of their contents and scope; yet due to the discursive mechanisms they offer, they fulfill deep needs of our everyday existence: gaining status; maintaining social networks; and, quite simply, telling juicy stories to our peers.

chapter 7

A genre study of EHs

The analysis presented in Sections 3 through 6 has yielded a rich panorama of EHs as a discourse phenomenon, elucidating their linguistic shape, their interactional patterns, their pragmatic mechanisms and effects. Against this backdrop, it is time to reassess the question which was raised in the introduction, and which has motivated the present examination from the outset: is the EH a self-contained genre? If so, how is it to be disambiguated from neighboring genres? If not, what kind of a discourse category does it represent, and how does it pertain to other genres? In short, a model for the genre ecology surrounding EHs is needed. This final section examines in how far the features identified in the study presented here qualify email hoaxing as an individual genre and introduces such a genre ecology. To begin with, an overview is given on major concepts and current trends in genre theory.

7.1

Genre theory: An overview

7.1.1

Renaissance of a concept

The concept of genre is similar to that of narrative in that is has made a remarkable ascent in linguistic theory in the past 20 years. For a long time, genre was an underdefined term found almost exclusively in the description of literary discourse. In its most general form, it has often been used with reference to the tripartite Aristotelian poetics; additionally, genre status was and is frequently ascribed to highly specific forms of literary discourse as heterogeneous and eclectic as detective novels, camp, or limericks. While the genre debate is not totally absent from literary theory, it usually revolves around Wittgenstein’s principle of family resemblance, itself a wide and general term (see e.g. Fishelov 1991 for a discussion). In recent years, genre theory has become geared toward a more systematic and principled account, as the concept has largely migrated

192 Email Hoaxes

from literary to linguistic theory. Nowadays, genre is a central notion not just for discourse analysts, who study genre relations for their own sake, but particularly for applied branches of linguistics. Thus clearly defined genres are a central concern to corpus linguistics, data mining and library and information sciences; in addition, much theoretical input has come from applied fields such as business communication (e.g. Orlikowski and Yates 1994) and English for special purposes (Bhatia 1993; Swales 1990). This interest from various disciplines, as well as the concept’s practical applicability, has done much to advance genre research in recent years. Even independently of this functional dimension, it is hardly surprising that the concept of genre should be of interest in linguistic theory. Essentially, speaking about genre is a way of categorizing the discourse universe – whichever criteria we assume in our definition of a genre, the notion helps to organize the overwhelming mass of discourse that surrounds us every day into similar and dissimilar entities. This fits in well with the cognitive turn that has influenced so many linguistic disciplines in the past two decades: categorization has come to be recognized as one of the very fundamental cognitive mechanisms shaping human thought and behavior. Consequently, many fields of linguistic inquiry are now geared toward the understanding of family resemblance, entity continuums, and gradience between categories (for a historiographic overview, see Aarts 2006). Perhaps most importantly, categorization has become the central concept in semantics with the advent of prototype theory and highly influential approaches such as Rosch (1973) and Lakoff (1987). With regard to syntax, the focus on categorization has in particular spawned discussion about the fuzziness and gradience of grammatical categories (e.g. Aarts et al. 2004). While current genre theories make no explicit connection to these projects in functional linguistics, the shared interest is quite obvious; in sum, genre studies could be described as the prototype theory of discourse analysis.20 Despite these conceptual parallels, genre theory has not developed in the wake of functional linguistics but pursues a research agenda of its own; given that its object of inquiry – complex discourse phenomena, such as EHs – is arguably more multi-layered and diverse, this is not so surprising. The following overview outlines the most important parameters in the discussion surrounding theoretic models of genre.

20. The comparison between genre and prototype theory has been drawn before, though primarily with regard to literary genre, e.g. by Sinding (2004) and Fishelov (1991, 1993). Yet no full-fledged prototype theory of genre exists to date.



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 193

7.1.2 Features for categorization: Formal, functional, or both? Certainly the most fundamental parameter for any theory of genre concerns its feature design: what kinds of attributes are taken to underlie the respective similarities and dissimilarities that account for the existence of different genres? What kinds of features make a discourse phenomenon salient as a genre? Widely varying attitudes in the literature show that this question is by no means trivial. For most genre theories, categorization criteria can be described within the formalfunctional paradigm – which translates, in this context, to a contrast of linguistic vs. extra-linguistic features. In literary studies, genre has always implicitly been based on linguistic aspects of texts in the widest sense: macro-aspects, such as text structure and text length, as well as micro-aspects, such as stylistic choice, are among the most prominent criteria that have been assumed to differentiate literary genres. For further subdifferentiation, content-based features frequently help to distinguish formally similar discourse phenomena (e.g. the coming of age novel vs. the whodunit). By contrast, functional descriptions pertaining to a text’s purpose or intended audience are rare: exceptions such as airport novel or chick flick are relatively recent coinages and usually too general for good categorization purposes. In any case, all of these attributions are derived from more or less intuitive judgments concerning the discourse phenomena in question: there is little theoretical discussion in literary theory on what constitutes a salient genre marker. In discourse analysis, the first major contribution to genre theory is usually ascribed to the ‘Sidney School’ around M. A. K. Halliday (Halliday et al. 1965; for an overview, see Bhatia 1993, Chapter 1). In these accounts, the notion of categorization is termed ‘register’ rather than ‘genre’; the criteria applied are decidedly linguistic. As Bhatia (1993: 5) summarizes, “register analysis focuses mainly on the identification of statistically significant lexico-grammatical features of a linguistic variety”. This ‘formal’ approach was the basis for such influential studies as Crystal and Davy (1969). With the advent of corpus linguistics, this view was expanded upon. Most prominently, Biber (e.g. 1993) has proposed a duality of terms, distinguishing between genres/registers and text types: “I use the terms genre or register to refer to situationally defined text categories (such as fiction, sports broadcasts, psychology articles), and text type to refer to linguistically defined text categories” (Biber 1993: 244f.). This bivariate approach that includes both a decidedly ‘formal’ and a decidedly ‘functional’ dimension forms the basis for Biber’s variational studies and has been highly influential in corpus linguistics. Despite formal roots, the emergence of genre theory as a subdiscipline proper is inextricably tied to a strong orientation toward functional criteria of genre

194 Email Hoaxes

c­ ategories. In particular, the study on genre analysis by Swales (1990) identifies ‘communicative purpose’ as the driving force behind genre categorizations. Swales’ famous definition elucidates this functional perspective: A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognised by the expert members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. Communicative purpose is both a privileged criterion and one that operates to keep the scope of a genre as here conceived narrowly focused on comparable rhetorical action. In addition to purpose, exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in (Swales 1990: 58) terms of structure, style content and intended audience.

The focus here is quite clear: genres are primarily defined by their purpose, which in turn is shaped by the ‘discourse community’ employing the genre. While linguistic features – “structure, style, content” – are deemed to correlate or at least coincide with genre categories, they are seen as secondary in this highly functional approach. In parallel, similar functional models emerged in the North American school of ‘New Rhetoric’ (Freedman and Medway 1994), in particular through Miller’s concept of genre as “social action” (Miller 1984). In the wake of the genre study on email by Orlikowski and Yates (1994), a functional view of genre also became the prevalent approach in research on CMC genres. Finally, it should be noted that in many current views, a conflation of the formal/functional dichotomy is aspired: thus Kwasnik and Crowston (2005), in their overview on digital genres, define the concept of genre quite simply as “the fusion of content, purpose and form of communicative actions” (2005: 76). The merits of a purpose-based genre theory are self-evident: analyzing the functions of a discourse phenomenon yields a much richer account of what is at its core, what makes it recognizable and usable in real-life communication. In the analysis of EHs presented here, all angles considered have ultimately led to conclusions concerning the psychosocial mechanisms – indeed, communicative purposes – of this discourse form. A genre theory that takes heed of such extralinguistic features is certainly most appropriate for discourse-analytical purposes. However, genre models based exclusively on aspects of function or purpose invite overgeneralization: relying on communicative function alone reinforces the fuzziness that is inherent to all systems of categorization. It is contended here that a functional approach to genre that operates independently of a linguistic account is not viable for efficient discourse-analytical studies. The relation between formal and functional elements in genre categorization is further outlined below with regard to micro- and macro-levels of genre models.



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 195

7.1.3 Levels of categorization: Micro or macro? A second, very fundamental parameter concerns the different possible levels on which genre status can be ascribed to discourse forms. It is well-known from all kinds of categorizing efforts that description of entities can be more or less finegrained: the ‘packaging’ of the world that categorizing effectuates can yield few large and more general entities, or a broad range of smaller and more specific entities. This continuum may be described as an opposition between holistic (more general) vs. atomistic (more particular) concepts. In traditional semantics, this vertical continuum is usually conceived as a hypernym-hyponym relation. It is therefore not surprising that approaches to genre are highly varied in terms of their holistic vs. atomistic conception (cf. Giltrow and Stein ms. for an overview). Traditional literary theory, where as little as three subcategories (drama, poetry, prose) have been argued to make up the discourse continuum, is a good example for a highly holistic approach. From a linguistics perspective, similar suggestions have been advanced based on a high level of generality, in particular under the notion of text types. Thus it has been proposed to treat the speech act taxonomy as a genre equivalent (resulting in five to seven genres); Werlich (1976) suggests a set of five ‘modes’ of discourse (description, narration, exposition, argumentation and instruction); ultimately, classifications such as Chafe’s bivariate discourse system of detachment vs. involvement and integration vs. fragmentation (Chafe 1982) may be considered holistic genre models. The functional turn in more recent genre theory has, all in all, led to a more micro-categorical approach. By treating genres as a form of social action pertaining to particular discourse communities, genres have been increasingly conceived of as open sets of highly specific discourse phenomena. The fact that much of recent genre research is rooted in applied disciplines – language teaching, library sciences, and domain-specific linguistics such as therapeutic or legal linguistics – has strongly added to this tendency: where discourse phenomena are described out of practical experience, much more specific categories are to be expected. Giltrow and Stein summarize this affinity from the viewpoint of Northern American ‘New Rhetoric’ studies: In contrast to the traditional “modes” and to neo-classical rhetorical theory, New-rhetorical genre theory – with its open set and lower level of generality – would not count “narration”, for example, as a genre. Instead, it would count the workplace-incident report or the medical case-history as genres: habits of speech, techniques of narrating known to some language users at some times and places.  (Giltrow and Stein ms.: 4)

196 Email Hoaxes

In sum, this more atomistic approach tends to yield not so much overarching genre taxonomies, but fine-grained descriptions of highly specific genres. Both these tendencies have their rationale: while holistic genre descriptions at a macro-level are born out of the need to develop a discourse systematic (or ‘discourse grammar’), atomistic genre terms at a micro-level aim at giving the most precise description of individual and strongly situated discourse phenomena. Thus all levels of genre identification have their operational justification. However, it may be seen as problematic that both highly general and highly specific genre notions lead to a rather unwieldy inventory of descriptive terms. To take up the example from Giltrow and Stein above, it is highly unlikely in everyday discursive situations for speakers to describe an instantiation of discourse as either a “narration” or a “workplace-incident report” (unless the speakers in question are narratologists or human resources managers and thus embody highly specific professional roles). With recurrence to prototype theory, it can be argued that these levels of genre description are not particularly salient: theories of linguistic categorization assume a “basic level” of specificity to be “cognitively and linguistically more salient than the others” (Taylor 1995: 48). In semantics, this concerns basic terms such as chair or table (vs. more general terms, such as furniture, and more specific terms, such as rocking chair). This approach appears to be highly applicable to genre theory: it can therefore be concluded that an intermediate level of genre descriptions may be the most salient and productive. Of course, this does not preclude more general or specific terms: quite to the contrary, it has been proposed that genres organize in vertical structures of super- and subgenres (forming inclusive relations, much in the way of hypernyms and hyponyms). This view of vertical genre taxonomies with a salient intermediate level is adopted here. Returning to the formal vs. functional parameter, it can be hypothesized that supergenres tend to be functionally defined (since communicative functions or purposes are arguably few and fundamental), whereas the corresponding subgenres are primarily differentiated through formal, that is linguistic, differences. This model is elaborated more closely in the discussion of EHs and genre below.

7.1.4 Genre interrelations: Ecologies – repertoires – systems If vertical genre relations in the sense of super- and subgenres are introduced, it seems adequate to suggest a horizontal dimension of categorical interrelatedness. Indeed, several such proposals have been made in recent genre theory. Thus Devitt (1991) speaks of “genre sets”, a notion which Bazerman (1994) extends to “genre systems”; Orlikowski and Yates introduce the term “genre repertoires”; in the discussion around studies of CMC, the notion of “genre ecologies” has become



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 197

particularly popular (Erickson 2000; Kwasnik and Crowston 2005: 81f.; Herring et al. 2005). This variety of models strongly suggests that horizontal genre relations are a widely recognized aspect of current genre theory. The approaches by Devitt (1991) and Bazerman (1994) can be said to be concerned most strongly with the sequentiality of different genres: they examine how the occurrence of one genre entails another in relatively specific communicative situations (such as workplace interaction). As Bazerman outlines, genre set/system theory describes “interrelated genres that interact with each other in specific settings. Only a limited range of genres may appropriately follow upon one another in particular settings, because the success conditions of the actions of each require various states of affairs to exist” (Bazerman 1994: 97f.). While this framework is highly productive for applied studies of communication from classroom to counseling, it is less relevant for such a decentralized discourse continuum as the Internet. Orlikowski and Yates, while referring to this sequential notion (1994: 544f.), by contrast clearly focus on genre repertoires as they group together in discourse communities (such as corporations, academic departments, etc.); they strongly emphasize the possibility of genre overlap and genre change. It is the notion of ‘genre ecology’ that is quickly becoming the standard in CMC genre theory. The term was coined by Erickson (2000) who outlines a fusion of genre system and genre repertoire: It seems useful to combine these two notions. Beginning with the idea of genre repertoires, that a community or organization can possess (and expand) a set of genres for engaging in collective activity, we add in (a softer) notion of the interdependence and triggering expressed in the concept of genre systems, which we express in terms of properties of conversational genres. This gives us what seems to be a useful conceptual framework for talking about CMC systems: genre (Erickson 2000: no pagination) ecologies.

Erickson’s approach has been widely received in CMC research; the notion of genre ecology has gradually been extended to a more global theory of genre coexistence and gradience. Thus Kwasnik and Crowston propose in their programmatic paper on genres in CMC to (…) extend [Erickson’s] apt metaphor because it captures succinctly how, like any organism in an ecological community, genres have effects on each other and depend on each other for their effectiveness. (…) The notion of genre ecologies becomes all the more salient for digital environments as we observe two phenomena occurring more or less simultaneously: the migration of traditional genres to the web, and the emergence of new genres unique to the web. These genres merge or divide, transform and evolve. The study of the issues ensuing from these pro(Kwasnik and Crowston 2005: 81f.) cesses is fascinating and revelatory.

198 Email Hoaxes

Since this concept has been found to be highly pertaining to CMC and is used in many recent studies such as Herring et al. (2005) and Hendry and Carlyle (2006), it is adopted for the present study. Genre ecology is seen here as a way of describing neighboring genres; it thus refers to horizontal genre relations rather than vertical structures of super- and subgenres.

7.1.5 Genre ontology: Top-down or bottom-up? A further parameter concerns the ontological status of genres: while this touches upon the very essence of genre theory and ultimately influences all the other parameters discussed so far, it is seldom overtly topicalized in approaches to genre theory. Basically, this parameter concerns the conceptual framework based on which genre labels can or should be ascribed: top-down or bottomup. In a top-down approach, it is assumed that genre status depends upon the identification of manifest and salient features, be they formal or functional; a genre continuum of the discourse universe would then be based on principled and scientific classification. By contrast, a bottom-up approach assumes that genres are cognitive givens: in other words, the major rationale behind genre status is that discourse communities perceive a discourse phenomenon to be a genre. It is evident that a top-down approach fits in better with the agenda of providing a systematized genre classification. The genre labels that such an approach might yield can be expected to be relatively abstract and removed from everyday categories, particularly if the genre concept in question tends toward the functional. Werlich’s (1976) model described above gives an impression of such abstract (and cognitively non-salient) categories: genre labels such as ‘exposition’ or ‘instruction’ are not particularly anchored in our intuitive categorization system. By contrast, a bottom-up conception of genres fits in better with a cognitive approach: a genre is what people perceive to be one, whether the categorization is logical on an abstract level or not. It is a frequently voiced contention in genre theory that people’s ability to give a name to a discourse phenomenon is a good indicator for genre status (Swales 1990). It may further be noted that such folk taxonomies (or ‘folksonomies’) play an increasingly important role for Web 2.0 applications such as Flickr (an “online photo management and sharing application”, www. flickr.com) or del.icio.us (“a social bookmarks manager”, http://del.icio.us). Yet this bottom-up approach is highly conducive for imprecisions and overgeneralizations. Additionally, the particular nature of digital genres – their tendency for hybridity and fast-paced change – makes this intuition-centered approach particularly problematic. It should be kept in mind, for example, that many now established genres



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 199

such as the text message or the blog were strongly influenced and engineered by the software and technology industry. It is highly debatable in how far such commercial genre coinages can be accommodated for in a bottom-up genre theory, as they are likely to be highly artificial cases of genrefication. In sum, both viewpoints have their merits; there is no indication that they should be mutually exclusive. As a consequence, they can – and often do – occur simultaneously in genre theories. However, it is important in genre discussions to be clear about the ontological status of the entities in question. Many approaches in CMC research are vague in this respect: while they purport to give principled top-down classifications, they fall back on intuitive genre terms that may or may not have an empirical basis. The early study on web genre by Crowston and Williams (2000), where “definitions of accepted genres were drawn in many cases from the Oxford English Dictionary” (2000: 205) is a case in point. Even Herring’s comprehensive classification of web genres (Herring 2007) ultimately struggles with this conceptual problem. In summary, while varying approaches to the ontology are valid, they must be topicalized and pointed out in the relevant context. For the present study, a top-down perspective is given priority: it is felt that genre ascriptions should be primarily made on solid formal and functional characteristics as they have been identified in chapters three through six.

7.1.6 Genres on the Internet: New – old – hybrid? A final parameter to be discussed here has emerged in the debate around genres on the Internet, namely the issue of genre change. Although the phenomenon is by no means endemic to CMC, the fast-paced advent and evolution of language on the Internet, as well as its close interrelation with socio-technical factors, have put the issues of genre birth, genre change and genre migration in CMC in the spotlight. As Giltrow and Stein (ms.: 1) put it, “in its newness, its rather sudden and compelling appearance in the life of language, CMC is peculiarly inviting to discussions of genre”. In brief, investigations on CMC-based genre change revolve around the following questions: does the Internet engender genuinely new genres? Do existing genres migrate into the new medial environment? Or is it most fitting to speak of ‘hybrid’ genres in CMC? The genre question has pervaded CMC studies from the very beginning. A vast number of CMC case studies are implicitly or explicitly designed as genre investigations. Many of the case studies discussed in earlier sections of the present study only briefly allude to the dimension of genre (such as Schmückle and Chi 2004: 5 who refer to spam as a “Textsorte”), or take the genre status of their research objects for granted (e.g. Barron 2006 for spam; Blommaert 2005 for

200 Email Hoaxes

Nigeria email). Yet many studies are explicitly designed to determine the genre status of a given discourse phenomenon and discuss openly the question of old vs. new. The bandwidth of genre candidates in the literature is impressive. To give an overview that is by no means exhaustive, CMC genre studies have been conducted on •

• • • •

homepages: as personalized websites (Dillon and Gushrowski 2000), top-level documents of website structures (Askehave and Nielsen 2005), and domainspecific websites (Stein 2006); online newspapers (Watters and Shepherd 1997; Ihlström and Henfridsson 2005) and wikis or ‘online encyclopedias’ (Emigh and Herring 2005); BBSs (Collot and Belmore 1996); ‘conversation systems’ (Erickson 2000); and chat (Zitzen and Stein 2004); email (Orlikowski and Yates 1994; Gains 1999); bibliographies (Hendry and Carlyle 2006) and blogs (Herring et al. 2005; McNeill 2006).

As can be seen, genre candidates have been identified both in synchronic and asynchronic CMC, in HTML- and text-based documents (see Herring et al. 2005 for the distinction), in the most early and in highly recent CMC instantiations. From the beginnings of CMC research, there has been a strong – and understandable – urge to identify discourse phenomena as new genres: due to the new socio-technical setting, any kind of discourse must necessarily appear new and innovative at first sight. Indeed, suggestions for genuinely new genres have repeatedly been made. Thus an early paper by Watters and Shepherd (1997) declares the “digital broadsheet” to be an “evolving genre”. With possibly more justification, Dillon and Gushrowski (2000) treat the personal homepage as the “first uniquely digital genre”. And Gains (1999: 99f.) hypothesizes that email as a transmission medium may incorporate a variety of new genres. Yet all in all, claims about new or “emergent” (Crowston and Williams 2000) genres have been few and far between. Instead, many case studies have come to the conclusion that digital genre candidates are really hybrid or “bridging” (Herring et al. 2005) genres: in other words, they are medially migrating genre instantiations that typically have antecedents in the traditional spoken or written media. In certain cases an argument may even be made for “transmedial stability” (Zitzen and Stein 2004) or the occurrence of “reproduced” (Crowston and Williams 2000) genres on the Internet: certain discourse phenomena can be expected to migrate into the new medial environment with little or no adaptation. This scenario has



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 201

been frequently voiced for academic publishing: while the publication of scientific journal articles has now largely migrated to the WWW, their linguistic and structural makeup is essentially identical to those of paper-based articles;21 only specifically conceived e-journals deviate from these established patterns and may eventually establish hybrid genres in academic publishing (see e.g. Giltrow and Stein ms.). All in all, it is hardly surprising that the number of digital genres identified as genuinely new is low: with regard to the high popularity of Swalesian genre theory and a focus on functional understandings of genre, anything else would indeed be highly surprising. Communicative functions or purposes are understood here as something quite fundamental; it is not to be excepted that such functions change easily. Of course, it has been put forward that the technicality of the Internet as a medium provides so many new pathways of communication that it may ultimately engender new purposes or functions, and thus new genres. However, such a process might be expected to take considerable time. It is therefore not so surprising that many CMC theorists have adopted notions such as ‘bridging’, ‘hybridity’ or ‘evolution’ – current CMC research is witnessing “genre under construction” (McNeill 2005). Nevertheless, an urge remains to account for the obvious newness of many discourse phenomena on the Internet. It has been suggested in the discussion of the above parameters that hierarchies of super- and subgenres may be organized in terms of functional vs. formal features, where few functionally defined macrogenres branch out into ecologies of linguistically salient microgenres. It is important to note that a macrogenre is understood here as a purely virtual entity: it is the abstract concept that unites different formal instantiations of subgenres which share a set of communicative purposes, and consequently have a common genre antecedent. In such a model, new developments may therefore be accounted for on the micro-level: whereas communicative functions are expected to be relatively stable, their linguistic instantiations – or subgenres – may change and evolve with greater ease. In this sense, the frequently evoked hybridity of CMC genres is accounted for: transmedial stability predominates on the functional sublevel, while genre evolution occurs on the formal sublevel – this explains the copresence of old and new in many digital genres. A schematic outline of the genre model suggested here is given in Figure 15.

21. While online-specific conventions are beginning to emerge in some disciplines (e.g. the addition of supporting online data), such tendencies are marginal as of yet.

202 Email Hoaxes

Figure 15.  A genre-theoretical model that includes vertical (supergenres vs. subgenres) and horizontal categorization (subgenre ecology), formal and functional accounts (micro- vs. macrolevel), and reproduced vs. emergent genre forms.

7.2

EHs: A case of genrefication?

7.2.1 Genre parody, genre mimicry: Genre status of pre-digital hoaxes The outline given above provides a flexible framework that can accommodate for discourse phenomena of all kinds and shapes. Yet the fundamental question remains: in how far are EHs the result of a genrefication process? Are they good candidates for genre status? At a preliminary glance, it may appear uncalled for to even discuss EHs as potential genre candidates. This attitude is based in assumptions that treat the discourse type of pre-digital hoaxes as an important precursor phenomenon to EHs not just by name but also by nature. Essentially, pre-digital hoaxes have usually been described in terms of genre mimicry or “genre parody” (Secor and Walsh 2004): in this sense, pre-digital hoaxes succeed because they are successful emulations of pre-existing genres. Quite often, the rhetorical conventions of the genre they are imitating are actually the scope of the parody: this is impressively demonstrated by the Sokal hoax (Sokal 1996; Secor and Walsh 2004) which foregrounds features of poststructuralist academic writing such as long titles, lavish footnotes and obscure jargon. Consequently, ‘the hoax’ in its pre-digital form is by definition not a genre – quite to the contrary, it acts parasitic on whichever genre it is aimed at. Thus hoaxes may take on the rhetorical garb of any target genre, from the newspaper article (for canards) to scholarly publications (for scientific hoaxes such as the Sokal hoax). The list of potential target genres is indeed very long.



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 203

While this is an apt description of the genre status of pre-digital hoaxes, it is claimed here that this situation does not extend to EHs. Quite simply, a target genre that EHs would be striving to emulate does not exist. Thus there are practically no legit and officially sanctioned virus warnings or promotional giveaway emails sent out by companies; even if similar texts exist (e.g. on websites of software companies etc.), they are most certainly not designed to spread via social networks and thus have a quite different rhetorical structure than EHs. Real emotional emails about children in need do exist (e.g. the ‘prayer chain’ phenomenon); however, this is in fact a more recent phenomenon than charity hoaxing. Also, such sincere charity emails neither hinge on the rhetorical construct of an ‘email counter’ nor make any financial claims. In sum, EHs are a form of non-sincere discourse, as has been analyzed in detail in Section 5; hence their similarity to traditional, pre-digital hoaxes. However, they are by no means parodies simulating an existing target genre. EHs are thus a much more homogeneous discourse phenomenon than pre-digital hoaxes; there is no a priori impediment to their being genre candidates. Quite to the contrary: the existence of a subcategory of ‘hoaxed hoaxes’, while it has played a marginal role in this study, strongly suggests that EHs make good genre candidates: a discourse phenomenon that engenders its own parody is quite obviously cognitively salient enough to be perceived as a discrete discourse category.

7.2.2 The genre potential of EHs: Linguistic and functional evidence The above argumentation supports the view that email hoaxing may constitute a discrete genre entity. This view is intuitively graspable from a bottom-up perspective: the category label ‘email hoax’ is readily available to communicants – at least to the loosely defined discourse community of experienced Internet users. From a top-down perspective, the study presented here has gathered a wealth of descriptive features pertaining to EHs both on a linguistic/structural and on a functional/purpose-based level. The following overview summarizes some of the more central features of EHs identified here. From a linguistic and structural perspective, EHs are characterized, among other features, by • • • • •

a dual structure of framework and core message; a recurrence of specific speech act patterns (in particular directives and  commissives); a distinct dissemination pattern through social networks; a non-sincere core proposition; a narrative propensity.

204 Email Hoaxes

Other frequent elements, such as the occurrence of names, vocatives, and irony markers reinforce the linguistic unity of EHs. A further central factor in the makeup of EHs is their propensity for textual change as described in detail in Chapter 4: the textual material of EHs is highly instable and has a tendency for parallel existence and variation. From a functional perspective, the dominant mechanism of EHs was revealed to be a dual pragmatic pattern: EHs are designed to establish an ingroup/outgroup schema within the discourse community. For the ingroup minority, their major purpose was shown to be a demonstration of one’s own digital literacy and the outgroup’s lack thereof. However, it has been concluded in this study that EHs serve much more varied functions for the majority of outgroup members. Some of these include: • • • •

reinforcing digital social networks; affording interaction with texts (by allowing users to add or change its  material); providing opportunities for (subjectively) cooperative behavior; economically supplying tellable stories.

This mass of evidence strongly suggests that EHs do indeed make a good categorical entity of cognitive salience – EHs can be described as a genre since they are defined by linguistic and functional features. Whether the genre label is warranted depends on the category’s horizontal and vertical environment – its genre continuum, with related discourse phenomena, with possible super- and subgenres. This approach can also help to determine in how far EHs are an emergent, reproduced, or hybrid genre. In order to establish such a genre continuum, the various neighboring phenomena that have repeatedly been touched upon in this study are briefly re-examined and systematized here.

7.2.3 The genre continuum of EHs: An overview on neighboring phenomena The analysis presented here has repeatedly evoked discourse phenomena that are akin to EHs in one or more respects. Thus the study’s starting point was a prima facie analysis that disambiguated related forms that are frequently associated with EHs in non-technical discussions; in the course of analysis, a broad range of further discourse types, both digital and pre-digital, were put into relation with EHs. To give a more principled overview on these neighboring genres, they can be systematized along two axes. The first axis disambiguates pre-digital vs. digital



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 205

Figure 16.  EHs and their neighboring genres. The horizontal axis shows a tendency in terms of the genres’ dominant communicative purpose. The vertical differentiation indicates the pre-digital(grey) vs. digital (white) dimension.

genres: it thus makes a distinction between potential genre antecedents, and possible neighbor genres, of EHs. The second axis echoes the dominant functional duality identified here: it distinguishes between primarily non-cooperative vs. cooperative discourse phenomena. It is clear that this distinction is an approximation: as was stressed in the pragmatic description of EHs, it is precisely the dual conception which characterizes EHs most strongly. Nevertheless, both interpretation patterns can be treated independently, in particular with regard to potential genre neighbors. The focus here is placed on sincere discourse forms: while the non-sincere dimension of EHs has been shown to be more conspicuous, it is their sincere and productive side which ultimately dominates the actual usage patterns of EHs, as shown above. Thus the genre continuum surrounding EHs can be conceived of as in Figure 16. In the pre-digital stratum, a range of possible precursor genres have been discussed. Quite unsurprisingly, pre-digital hoaxes are strong candidates as a precursor genre of EHs. Both phenomena share a functional feature in that they establish a dual audience (see Walsh 2002 for pre-digital hoaxes). However, the above analysis has also revealed functional differences: thus pre-digital hoaxes are less a self-contained genre than a rhetorical strategy which acts parasitically upon target genres. In a wider sense, many kinds of non-sincere, pre-digital discourse phenomena are related to pre-digital hoaxes: pranks, fakes, and scams can be systematized here, reaching from the jocular to the downright fraudulent. From a slightly different angle, certain discourse phenomena with a commercial intention have been likened to EHs with regard to their persuasive strategies; for

206 Email Hoaxes

e­ xample, direct mail letters (cf. Connor and Upton 2003) show rhetorical structures that are reminiscent of EHs. Further pre-digital antecedents have been described with regard to the ‘sincere’ or ‘productive’ interpretation of EHs. As important precursor genres, rumor and gossip have been identified. In the description of Rosnow and Fine (1976), they particularly share with EHs the functional feature of promising a gain in status or prestige to their communicator. They are also highly similar to EHs in that a chronological factor plays an important role in their communication pattern: rumor and gossip are essentially shaped by their transmission pathways, just as EHs are. Another very general genre label that falls into this category is folklore. Many incarnations of folklore have been seen to share features with EHs. The similarity is perhaps most conspicuous in urban legends: apart from the fact that their genre label is synonymous with one subcategory in the EH corpus, it is their tendency to include sensationalist and highly tellable narratives that is responsible for the similarity here. While rumor, gossip and urban legends all resemble EHs with regard to certain features, they are oral genres – their transmission occurs, in a literal sense, by word of mouth. By contrast, EHs are a phenomenon that benefits greatly from the written dimension of its medium: as has been shown, the givens of email as a socio-technical mode (storage, multiple addressing, forwardability) make EHs highly robust and successful. It has therefore been suggested here that the closest pre-digital antecedent of EHs is to be found in written – or at least paper-based – folklore. The genre of officelore as established by Dundes and Pagter (1992) shares many functional features with EHs. Officelore is an umbrella term for drawings and jokes, poems, narratives and other paper-based items of popular culture that are passed along via a social network – in this case, the networks are usually workplace-based and exist in departments of corporations or institutions. The diffusion of this pre-digital genre usually functions through photocopying or manual reproduction. Usually, the items in question have a high tellability (in the loose sense of the word), and their distribution enhances the social ties within the network. In a more formal or structural sense, officelore is characterized by parallel existence of competing variants, as shown by Dundes and Pagter (1992) – a description which has been found to be highly applicable to EHs. In sum, many precursor genres have been identified which share a certain portion of features with EHs, ranging from outright deceptive to highly cooperative phenomena. Taking into consideration the characteristics described and analyzed here, it can be concluded that the closest antecedent of email hoaxing is not the pre-digital hoax but the paper-based officelore item. While this may appear surprising, it has deep implications for the genre ecology of EHs.



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 207

In the digital stratum, a broad variety of genres have been discussed here that are obviously close neighbors to EHs. Indeed, certain discourse phenomena are perceived, in popular discussions, to be so contiguous to EHs that a prima facie analysis based on distinctive features was conducted at the outset of the present study to disambiguate this continuum. To start with, non-email-based phenomena were discussed, in particular trolling and hoax websites. Hoax websites were found to be a more static discourse type that can serve a variety of purposes – from satire, to propaganda, to fraudulent intentions. While hoax websites resemble EHs in generating dual audiences, it can be argued that they are the true genre offspring of pre-digital hoaxes: hoax websites follow the pattern of emulating the style and structure of target genres (conceived here as subcategories of websites such as personal homepages, institutional sites, etc.). In a similar manner, trolling shares the feature of audience-splitting. However, trolling is a much more spontaneous discourse activity that occurs predominantly in synchronically-oriented CMC modes. Trolling profits in a much stronger degree from the oral dimension of certain CMC environments; its antecedents are therefore to be sought in oral communication. It can be argued that trolling is the digital variant of precursor genres such as practical jokes, (telephone) pranks, and the like. Other digital phenomena of a similar orientation are constantly evolving – thus ‘flogs’ (fake blogs) have recently been developing in the discourse continuum of weblogs. Such phenomena will have to be accounted for in due course; it can be expected that they fit in with the discourse continuum presented here. Nevertheless, genres such as hoax websites and trolling make apparent how intimately email hoaxing is tied to email as its socio-technical mode. This analysis has repeatedly stressed how the technical givens of email programs influence the textual material and communicative patterns of EHs. It can therefore be expected that the closest genre neighbors of email hoaxing are to be found within the spectrum of email communication. In the prima facie disambiguation of related email phenomena, four discourse types were of particular interest: virus, spam, phishing, and Nigeria mails. Other instantiations, such as unsolicited commercial mails, were only briefly touched upon; it can be speculated that these have their antecedent in direct mail letters and similar persuasive genres. What unites these four types, and links them to EHs, is their non-sincere character – ranging from the marketing efforts of spam to the highly fraudulent practice of phishing and Nigeria scams. However, all of these phenomena differ considerably from EHs in terms of the communicant structures they are based on. Only virus emails make use of social networks for proliferation – yet their diffusion is engendered by software-based, not social, engineering. The other types are neither proliferative nor even based on ­reciprocal

208 Email Hoaxes

acquaintance between sender and receiver. In sum, the closeness between EHs and these email types is essentially a perceived relation – it is based on their identical socio-technical mode (email) and their perception as ‘nocent’ (non-sincere). As one conclusion of this study is that the productive and cooperative effects of EHs outweigh their non-sincere dimension, it should be possible to find discourse types that are conceptually even closer than the genres presented so far. It is proposed here that there exists a family of discourse types which indeed bears a stronger relation to EHs than the phenomena discussed up to here. Based on the approximation presented so far, such discourse types should in particular satisfy the following criteria. They should be email-based and exploit the technicalities of the medium – that is, they should proliferate via forwarding. They should use social networks for dissemination and act network-reinforcing in the process. They should contain tellable items to propel their dissemination. Indeed, a whole discourse family exists that answers to these criteria; if it has attracted less interest than the aforementioned genres, it is probably for lack of popular discussion or handy genre labels. It is suggested here that this discourse form be called Digital Folklore (DF); alternatively, its members could be described as “forwardables”, as Kibby (2005) has proposed. DF comprises a wide variety of discourse forms that fulfill the criteria put forward above. The items are often text-based, like EHs; however, other formats are equally possible (and develop as Internet technology progresses): pictures, audio or video files, PowerPoint shows or multimodal items can be examples of DF. They are passed along by email; however, secondary utilization (e.g. on websites, or as printouts) is common, as was seen for EHs. DF is always tellable in the loose sense of the word: while certain subforms are narratives in a more strict sense, all of them include non-canonical or even sensationalist material. Finally, it should be noted that DF is not just a loose collection of individual items: instead, it is organized into a large variety of principled and linguistically identifiable subforms, of which email hoaxing is just one. In brief, it is proposed here that DF is a functionally defined supergenre organized into linguistically defined subgenres. Some initial suggestions concerning this genre ecology are given below. The suggested category of DF is deeply inspired by Dundes and Pagter’s (1992) concept of officelore: indeed, it is proposed that DF is the direct successor genre of officelore. At the dawn of the Internet boom, in 1992, Dundes and Pagter actually predicted this development. The foreword to the reprinting of their 1970s study sounds almost prophetical in retrospect: (…) the technological development of improved means of rapid communication such as telephone facsimile (“FAX”) or electronic mail (“E-mail”) has resulted in the increased dissemination of these and other materials. Such inventions have



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 209

surely stimulated the creation of “new” xerographic folklore and made it plausible to speak of “folklore by fax”. (Dundes and Pagter 1992: x)

While this description may suggest that DF is merely a development within urban folklore, it is contended here that DF constitutes a digital supergenre of its own: it has evolved into new linguistic and structural subtypes that were entirely unknown in the pre-digital era. Also, the technicality of CMC has had a greater influence on the genre than just “increased dissemination”, as this study should have shown. In sum, it seems justified to see officelore as the genre antecedent of DF. This overview has systematized the considerable spectrum of genres bearing a certain affinity to EHs. As could be seen, different genres can be put into relation with EHs depending on the features that are perceived as salient. All in all, a supergenre of DF has been proposed to capture most efficiently the category of EHs, with officelore as the closest antecedent. The genre continuum is summarized in Figure 17.

Figure 17.  The genre continuum of EHs systematized around the axes of digital vs. predigital and sincere vs. non-sincere. Arrows indicate the relations between digital genres and their pre-digital antecedents as discussed here.

7.2.4 Digital folklore – email hoaxing in its genre ecology To develop a full account of DF as a discourse category is a task that deserves its own study. As an outlook, however, an initial approximation can be given that may set the agenda for future projects.

210 Email Hoaxes

As described above, DF is posited here as a discourse category which constitutes a supergenre for a broad variety of formally individuated subgenres of which email hoaxing is but one example. As a supergenre, DF is defined through its functional features (which also includes its socio-technical specificities). Items of DF are tellable – or, to adapt this Labovian term to the new technical environment, forwardable. They use digital social networks for their dissemination and are characterized by a strong chronological factor: items of DF are prone to change in their textual material, and they typically exhibit multiple existence in variant forms. At the same time, this diffusion pattern acts in a network-reinforcing way; the easy acquisition of forwardable items constitutes a simple way for communicants to acquire story-telling prestige. The effect of pragmatic duality and audience-splitting may be particular to EHs due to their special pragmatic constitution. It should be noted, however, that even items that are not pragmatically ambivalent may provoke split reactions in a social network: thus a portion of recipients may regard the forwarding of jokes, inspirational texts, or other material as inappropriate or ‘kitschy’, whereas other members of a social network will be enthusiastic about such items. It can thus at least be hypothesized that while the pragmatic makeup of EHs leads to highly exposed cases of audience-splitting, the mechanism is not singular to this particular subtype of DF. Based on this descriptional framework, it has been concluded that DF is not a genuinely new or ‘emergent’ genre of the Internet. Quite to the contrary: in officelore, DF has a well-defined and described antecedent; the functional similarities between both genres are self-evident. At the same time, it is suggested here that DF is more than merely a ‘reproduced’ pre-digital genre. For one, the technicality of email programs affords network-based dissemination in an intensity that is unprecedented in the history of the genre. Whereas photocopying or manual reproduction was a necessary step in the practices studied by Dundes and Pagter (1992) as a pure means of reproduction, it has become an end unto itself in CMC: the forwarding is as much part of the discourse phenomenon as is its textual material. Thus a slight shift in function has occurred between predigital officelore and DF. Even more importantly, DF has developed its very own rhetorical traditions. In other words: most of the linguistically and structurally defined subgenres of DF are genuinely new and have no distinct genre antecedent. While DF largely shows transmedial stability on the functional level, it is characterized by emergent forms at the formal level. Based on this duality, DF can be called a hybrid genre. Which further subtypes of DF exist beyond EHs? Quite certainly, the supergenre denotes an open set, with new subgenres continually evolving. Many instantiations of DF are too fuzzy or too idiosyncratic yet to be described as a



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 211

self-contained entity; however, certain tendencies are clearly persisting. Just as for EHs, online databases exist where DF is archived, although they tend to serve entertainment purposes rather than educational ends; www.forwardgarden.com, “a collection of all the funny emails that get forwarded around the internet”, is a very encompassing example. Some categories of DF that make good subgenre candidates are briefly sketched here. A large amount of DF is of an overtly jocular nature. For non-text-based items, this may include visual humor such as photoshopped pictures or more traditional cartoons with punch lines. In the text-based realm, a relatively established format is the ‘joke list’ where conventional jokes are collected, often with a certain thematic orientation – the classic case probably being the list of lawyer jokes. Other themes than traditional jokes can form the scope of such jocular forwardables; cases in point are collections of famous quotes (be they from literature or from TV shows); lists of pick-up lines; ‘strange facts’; ‘yo mama’ jokes (the scatological sounding rituals already described in Labov 1972); and many others. In general, the ‘list’ format appears to be highly amenable to DF as a structural entity. Enumerations exist for virtually any conceivable subject or purpose. There appears to be something deeply alluring, indeed cognitively salient, about this discourse format. One list type that has become particularly conventionalized, and is therefore likely to be a subgenre, is the ‘You know you are [from] x if y’ list. These humoristic enumerations play on perceptions of social, ethnical or cultural groups; usually, their purpose is identity-creating rather than defamatory. The variations for x are myriad – items range from “you know you’re a New Orleans native if…” to “You know you’re using ICQ too much when…” . It can be speculated that it is the relatively rigid discourse format which makes for its attractiveness; even more importantly, it can easily accommodate for additions. Since interaction with texts has been shown to be a major allure of EHs (cf. Section 4), this may be a reason why list formats are so extraordinarily popular in DF. A further, highly specific type of list is the ‘survey’: surveys are enumerations of questions that typically elicit personal information of a more or less sensitive, emotional, or humoristic nature. The recipient fills in his or her answers and forwards the questionnaire to others who in turn complete the list. In addition to forwarding, such surveys are particularly popular for secondary utilization on personal homepages, LiveJournals, etc. Apart from humoristic contents, ‘inspirational’ texts are an important category of DF; some related items have already been discussed with regard to charity EHs. Inspirational DF can include anything from prayers, to poems, to narratives, and so on. A relatively discrete subtype is the ‘prayer chain’, where spiritual support is requested for a person in need. Prayer chains strongly resemble charity

212 Email Hoaxes

EHs in that they usually include the life story of the person in question; indeed, a few charity EHs in the corpus are corrupted or faked prayer chains. Another distinctive subtype is the ‘good luck chain’, where the communicant is invited to make a wish, or is promised good fortune if he or she forwards the email to a certain number of recipients – again, the conceptual closeness to EHs is self-evident. The power of emotional and prosocial contents in forwardables has been demonstrated at length in the discussion of charity EHs; it is no wonder, then, that this orientation provides ample material for DF. Finally, many items of DF have a political orientation or make a comment on social, economic, or ecological issues. One distinctive form of political DF is the email petition, where communicants are asked to sign their names under a petition text before forwarding the message. Email petitions are almost always ‘fictitious’ in that they are not part of a principled larger political effort or campaign, and therefore remain without consequence; while the originators of email petitions usually mean well (in contrast to EH originators), serious political organizations or initiatives do not use this tool – even if the information contained is accurate, such forwarded texts easily become out of date or get changed through textual interaction. Nevertheless, this format continues to be a highly popular form of DF – it offers communicants the opportunity for that effortless altruism that has been termed ‘armchair activism’. Finally, a less structured but popular subtype in this spectrum is the ‘political rant’, where political claims and opinions are uttered in an often populist or radical manner. Some of these rants have become highly popularized items of the Internet; a case in point is the ‘I am a bad American’ manifesto which, incidentally, is organized over large parts into a list format. Such politically oriented DF has arguably become even more important in the post-9/11 era. This brief sketch of the genre ecology of DF is anything but principled or exhaustive; case studies would be warranted for many of the discourse phenomena introduced here. In particular, the tendency for lists in all kinds of subtypes appears to reveal an interesting case of intuitive text design; more research is needed in this direction. Nevertheless, this analysis should have revealed a first glance at this fascinating genre ecology; it is summarized as a schematic overview in Figure 18.

7.3

Outlook: Prospects on email hoaxing in the 21st century

This study has given a panoramic view of email hoaxing in all its shapes and colors: setting out by a very preliminary prima facie disambiguation, it has elucidated



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 213

Figure 18.  The genre ecology of DF.

various formal and functional properties of the discourse phenomenon. In drawing conclusions from this analysis, EHs have been integrated into a genre ecology that takes into account the shape and makeup of this subgenre at all levels. Remarkably, the genre ecology introduced here is not rooted in the non-cooperative spectrum which was revealed to be a distinctive feature of EHs. Quite to the contrary, it has been shown that EHs are conceptually much closer to their cooperative, network-reinforcing genre neighbors. If a discourse-analytical study can yield something like a moral or lesson, it is certainly this: EHs are by no means the dangerous or despicable elements which they have often been made out to be. To be sure, their non-cooperative dimension makes them morally problematic; as has been pointed out in the pragmatic analysis, non-cooperative behavior is always a drastic strategy in human communication. The demonization of EHs as a (sub-)genre is further understandable in its historical dimension: during their period of emergence in the mid-Nineties, it may indeed have been a complex task to make clear-cut distinctions between EHs and truly dangerous phenomena such as viruses or, later, spamming and scamming. Besides, with digital literacy generally low in that period, the gulf between the split audiences was even more radical than it is ten years later. Nevertheless, the menacing scenario which many sources such as anti-hoax websites have projected turns out to be unsubstantiated. And this is not only the case from a discourse-analytical viewpoint: many arguments brought forward against EHs from a technological perspective are no

214 Email Hoaxes

longer valid. The often-voiced sentiment that EHs take up precious bandwidth has become obsolete in the days of omnipresent high-speed Internet connections; the argument that they impede workplace productivity could certainly be made for the myriad distractions on offer on the Internet (and, it might be added, in the pre-digitalized real world as well) and is hardly supported by empirical evidence.22 It is not within the scope of this study to judge whether EHs are in good taste, or a worthwhile or enjoyable form of email communication. Indeed, this is a matter which only the individual communicant can decide for him- or herself. Experience suggests that everyone has their own tolerance level of what is, and what is not, found to be acceptable to forward. But hardly any Internet user is totally immune to DF; sharing folklore, it can again be seen, is a deeply fulfilling activity within communities – be it by word of mouth, through the office xerox, or in digital social networks. It has been hypothesized in the introduction that email hoaxing may be a phenomenon past its prime, and this may well prove to be the case: despite sporadic new developments, the discourse form appears to become less productive by the year. With growing digital literacy, it is highly possible that email hoaxing as a genre may eventually disappear – or, even more likely, that it will become fossilized in a small number of stable texts. Should this tendency prove true, it will be all the more cause for continuing research on EHs: genre death, extinction, and fossilization are phenomena hardly studied so far, yet the rapid progression of the CMC genre continuum may provide prime sites for research in this field in the next decade.23 In any case, such genre shifts will not touch upon the more fundamental category of DF, which can easily compensate for the loss of individual subgenres. More than three decades ago, Dundes and Pagter (1992: 221) have discussed “the question of industrialization and folklore”: Do machines and advanced technology destroy folklore? We suggest they do not. Rather, technology and its effect upon human life become themselves subjects of modern folklore. Such machines as office copiers facilitate rather than inhibit folklore. Professional folklorists need to stop worrying about the impending

22. See e.g. the PIP Report on Email at Work (Fallows 2002): while 39% of the workers interviewed admitted to occasionally forwarding DF, 73% of them were found to spend an hour or less per day on their email; Fallows concludes that “contrary to the perception that wired American workers are buried in email, the large majority of those who use email at work say their experience with email is manageable” (Fallows 2002: 2). 23. Other good candidates for genre death or fossilization are MOOs and MUDs: once central forms of Internet discourse and much studied in CMC research, they have become a marginal phenomenon due to the development of more advanced interaction technology.



Chapter 7.  A genre study of EHs 215

death of folklore. (…) Folklore will be around to help humans cope with their problems just as long as there are humans and problems!  (Dundes and Pagter 1992: 221f.)

This conclusion, it is safe to say, holds true not just for folklorists; but for linguists, discourse analysts and CMC researchers who take an interest in this rich and fascinating site of human communication.

References

Aarts, B. 2006. “Conceptions of categorization in the history of linguistics.” Language Sciences 28: 361–385. Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E. and Popova, G. (eds.). 2004. Fuzzy Grammar. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allport, G.W. and Postman, L. 1965. The Psychology of Rumor. New York: Russell & Russell. Allport, G.W. and Postman, L. 1946. “An analysis of rumor.” Public Opinion Quarterly 10 (4): 501–517. Askehave, I. and Nielsen, A.E. 2005. “Digital genres: A challenge to traditional genre theory.” Information Technology & People 18 (2): 120–141 Bach, K. 1994. “Conversational implicature.” Mind & Language 9: 124–162. Bamberg, M. ms. “Narrative analysis and identity research: A case for ‘small stories’.” Available at http://www.clarku.edu/~mbamberg/publications.html. Bamberg, M. 2006. “Stories: Big or small – why do we care?” Narrative Inquiry 16 (1): 139– 147. Baron, N.S. 2002. “Who sets e-mail style? Prescriptivism, coping strategies, and democratizing communication access.” The Information Society 18 (5): 403–413. Barrett, D.J. 1996. Bandits on the Information Superhighway. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. Barron, A. 2006. “Understanding spam: A macrotextual analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (6): 880–904. Bazerman, C. 1994. “Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions.” In Genre and the New Rhetoric, A. Freedman and P. Medway (eds.), 79–99. London: Taylor & Francis. Bergs, A. 2006. “Analyzing online communication from a social network point of view: Questions, problems, perspectives.” language@internet SV1-3/2006: 1–17. Available at http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/LangInternetSpecialVolume1/371 Biber, D. 1993. “Representativeness in corpus design.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4): 243–257. Bhatia, V.K. 1993. Analysing Genre. London: Longman. Blommaert, J. 2005. “Making millions. English, indexicality and fraud.” Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 29: 1–24. Blutner, R. 2000. “Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation.” Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216. Boase, J. and Wellman, B. 2001. “A plague of viruses: Biological, computer and marketing.” Current Sociology 49 (6): 39–55. Boese, A. 2002. The Museum of Hoaxes. A History of Outrageous Pranks and Deceptions. New York: Plume. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

218 Email Hoaxes

Bruner, J.S. 2003. “The narrative construction of reality.” In Narrative intelligence, M. Mateas and P. Sengers (eds.), 41–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brunvand, J.H. 1981. The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends and their Meanings. New York: W.W. Norton. Chafe, W.L. 1992. “Immediacy and displacement in consciousness and language.” In Cooperating with Written Texts: The Pragmatics and Comprehension of Written Texts, D. Stein (ed.), 231–255. Berlin: de Gruyter. Chafe, W.L. 1982. “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature.” In Spoken and written language, D. Tannen (ed.), 35–53. New Jersey: Ablex. Charon, R.and Montello, M. 2002. Stories Matter: The Role of Narrative in Medical Ethics. London: Routledge. Chattoe, E. 1998. “Virtual urban legends: Investigating the ecology of the World Wide Web.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Research and Information for Social Scientists (IRISS), 25–27 March 1998, Bristol, UK. Available at http://www.intute.ac.uk/ socialsciences/archive/iriss/papers/paper37.htm Collot, M. and Belmore, N. “Electric language: A new variety of English.” In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, S.C. Herring (ed.), 13–28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2003. “Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters.” In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, P. Leistyna and C.F. Meyer (eds.), 71–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Crowston, K. and Williams, M. 2000. “Reproduced and emergent genres of communication on the World Wide Web.” The Information Society 16: 201–215. Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. and D. Davy. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman. Dalli, A., Xia, Y., and Wills, Y. 2004. “FASIL email summarization system.” Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 23–27 August 2004, Geneva, Switzerland. 994–1000. Available at http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/coling2004/MAIN/pdf/143849.pdf Dautenhahn, K. 2004. “The origins of narrative: In search of the transactional format of narratives in humans and other social animals.” In Cognition and Technology: Co-existence, Convergence and Co-evolution, B. Gorayska and J.L. Mey (eds.), 127–152. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dautenhahn, K. 2003. “Stories of lemurs and robots – the social origin of story-telling.” In Narrative Intelligence, M. Mateas, and P. Sengers (eds.), 63–90. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dautenhahn, K. 1999. “The lemur’s tale – story-telling in primates and other socially intelligent agents.” In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence, November 5–7, 1999, North Falmouth, Massachusetts. (Technical Report FS-99-01), M. Mateas and P. Sengers (eds.), 59–66. AAAI Press. Available at http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~mateas/ nidocs/Dautenhahn.pdf Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dégh, L. 1994. American Folklore and the Mass Media. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Dessalles, J.-L. 2000. “Language and hominid politics.” In The Evolutionary Emergence of Language, C. Knight, , M. Studdert-Kennedy and J.R. Hurford (eds.), 62–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



References 219

Devitt, A.J. 1991. “Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional.” In Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, C. Bazerman and J.G. Paradis (eds.), 336–357. Madison/W): University of Wisconsin Press. Dillon, A. and Gushrowski, B.H. 2000. “Genres and the Web: Is the personal home page the first uniquely digital genre?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51 (2): 202–205. Döring, N. 2003. Sozialpsychologie des Internet. Die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Dodds, P.S., Muhamad, R. and Watts, D.J. 2003. “An experimental study of search in global social networks.” Science 301: 827–829. Donath, J.1999. “Identity and deception in the virtual community.” In Communities in Cyberspace, M. Smith and P. Kollock (eds.), 29–59. London: Routledge. Dunbar, R. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber & Faber. Dundes, A. 1965. The Study of Folklore. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Dundes, A. and Pagter C.R. 1992. Work Hard and You Shall Be Rewarded: Urban Folklore from the Paperwork Empire. 2nd ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Duszak, A. (ed.) 1997. Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Emigh, W. and Herring, S.C. 2005. “Collaborative authoring on the web: A genre analysis of online encyclopedias.” Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38), January 3–6, 2005, Big Island, Hawaii. Available at http://ella.slis. indiana.edu/~herring/wiki.pdf Erickson, T. 2000. “Making sense of computer-mediated communication (CMC): Conversations as genres, CMC systems as genre ecologies.” Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-33), January 4–7, 2000. Big Island, Hawaii. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=926694. Eshet-Alkali, Y. and Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2004. “Experiments in digital literacy.” Cyber-Psychology & Behavior 7 (4): 421–429. Fallows, D. 2002. “Email at work: Few feel overwhelmed and most are pleased with the way email helps them do their jobs.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Work_Email_Report.pdf Fedler, F. 1989. Media Hoaxes. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Ferbrache, D. 1992. A Pathology of Computer Viruses. London: Springer. Fernback, J. 2003. “Legends on the net: An examination of computer-mediated communication as a locus of oral culture.” New Media and Society 5 (1): 29–45. Fishelov, D. 1993. Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. University Park: Penn State University Press. Fishelov, D. 1991. “Genre theory and family resemblance – revisited.” Poetics 20: 123–138. Fludernik, M. 1996. “Towards a ‘natural’ narratology.” Journal of Literary Semantics 25 (2): 97–142. Frankfurt, H.G. 2005. On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Freedman, A. and Medway, P. (eds.) 1994. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & ­Francis. Gains, J. 1999. “Electronic mail – a new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of e-mail.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 81–101. Genette, G. 1972. Figures III. Paris: Seuil.

220 Email Hoaxes

Georgakopoulou, A, 2006a. “The other side of the story: Towards a narrative analysis of narratives-in-interaction.” Discourse Studies 8 (2): 235–257. Georgakopoulou, A. 2006b. “Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis.” Narrative Inquiry 16 (1): 122–130. Georgakopoulou, A. 2004. “To tell or not to tell? E-mail stories between on- and off-line interactions.” language@internet 01/2004: 1–38. Available at http://www.languageatinternet. de/articles/36/ Giltrow, Janet, Dieter Stein. ms. “Genres in the Internet. Innovation, evolution, and genre theory.” Goldstein, J. and Sabin, R.E. 2006. “Using speech acts to categorize email and identify email genres.” Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06), January 4–6 2006, Big Island, Hawaii.  Available at http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.528 Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. 1965. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans, Green and C. Harrison, T. P. 1930. “Some folk words.” American Speech 5 (3): 219–223. Harvey, K. and D.L. Borden (eds.). 1998. The Electronic Grapevine: Rumor, Reputation, and Reporting in the New On-line Environment. Mahwah/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hendry, D.G. and Carlyle, A. 2006. “Hotlist or bibliography? A case of genre on the web.” Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 39), January 4–7, 2006, Big Island, Hawaii. Available at http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/ proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/03/250730051b.pdf Herring, S.C. 2007. “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.” language@internet 01/2007: 1–37. Available at http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/761 Herring, S.C. 2002. “Computer-mediated communication on the Internet.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36: 109–168. Herring, S.C., Scheidt, L.A., Bonus, S. and Wright, E. 2005. “Weblogs as a bridging genre.” Information Technology and People 18 (2): 142–171. Herring, S.C., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R. and Barab, S. 2002. “Searching for safety: Managing ‘trolling’ in a feminist discussion forum.” The Information Society 18 (5): 371–384. Heyd, T. 2006. “Understanding and handling unreliable narratives: A pragmatic model and method.” Semiotica 162: 217–243. Hoad, T.F. 1986. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Clarendon. Horn, L.R. 2003. “Implicature.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L. Horn and G.L. Ward (eds.), 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell. Ihlström, C. and Henfridsson, O. 2005. “Online newspapers in Scandinavia: A longitudinal study of genre change and interdependency.” Information Technology and People 18 (2): 172–192. Jamet, D. 2002. “Les métaphores d’Internet. Comment surfer sur les autoroutes de l’information sans se prendre les pieds dans la corbeille.” L’ALEPH 9: 24–39. Kibby, M. 2005. “Email forwardables: Folklore in the age of the internet.” New Media & Society 7 (6): 770–790. Knight, C. 2000. “Introduction: The evolution of cooperative communication.” In The Evolutionary Emergence of Language, C. Knight, M. Studdert-Kennedy and J.R. Hurford (eds.), 19–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



References 221

Knight, C, Studdert-Kennedy, M. and J.R. Hurford (eds.). 2000. The Evolutionary Emergence of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43. Kollock, P. 1999. “The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace.” In Communities in Cyberspace, M.A. Smith and P. Kollock (eds.), 200–269. London: Routledge. Kwasnik, B.H. and Crowston, K. 2005. “Introduction to the special issue: Genres of digital documents.” Information Technology and People 18 (2): 76–88. Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. 1967. “Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience.” In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, J. Helm (ed.), 12–45. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge/MA: The MIT Press. Lyotard, J.-F. 1979. La condition postmoderne. Paris: Minuit. MacDougall, C. 1958. Hoaxes. New York: Dover. Marvin, L.-E. 1995. “Spoof, spam, lurk and lag: The aesthetics of text-based virtual realities.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1 (2). Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol1/issue2/marvin.html Maynor, N. 2000. “Battle of the pronouns: Y’all versus you-guys.” American Speech 75 (4): 416– 418. McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. 1996. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McNeill, L. 2005. “Genre under construction: The diary on the Internet.” language@internet 01/2005: 1–11. Available at http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/120/Genre10_ 06DOULOS.rtf.pdf Mey, J. L. 1993. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Miller, C.R. 1984. “Genre as social action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167. Mintz, A. (ed.) 2002. Web of Deception. Misinformation on the Internet. Medford: CyberAge Books. Noble, J. 2000. “Cooperation, competition and the evolution of prelinguistic communication.” In The Evolutionary Emergence of Language, C. Knight, M. Studdert-Kennedy and J.R. Hurford (eds.), 40–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Orasan, C. and Krishnamurthy, R. 2002. “A corpus-based investigation of junk emails.” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002), May 29–31, 2002. Las Palmas, Spain. Available at http://clg.wlv.ac.uk/ papers/orasan-02b.pdf Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. 1994. “Genre repertoire: Examining the structuring of communicative practices in organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 541–574. Papke, D.R. (ed.) 1981. Narrative and the Legal Discourse: A Reader in Storytelling and the Law. Liverpool: Deborah Charles. Parret, H. (ed.) 1994. Pretending to Communicate. Berlin: De Gruyter.

222 Email Hoaxes

Piper, P. 2002. “Web hoaxes, counterfeit sites, and other spurious information on the net.” In Web of Deception. Misinformation on the Internet, A. Mintz (ed.), 1–22. Medford: CyberAge Books. Pratt, M.L. 1977. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Prince, G. 1982. Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. New York: Mouton. Ram, J.D. 2002. Save the World with a Click: Motivations for Using Click-To-Donate Websites. Masters Thesis, Georgetown University. Available at http://www3.georgetown.edu/grad/cct/academics/theses/JocelynRam.pdf Reboul, A. 1994. “The description of lies in speech acts theory.” In Pretending to Communicate, H. Parret (ed.), 292–298. Berlin: De Gruyter. Rettie, R. 2002. “Email marketing: Success factors.” Proceedings of the 8th Australian World Wide Web conference (AUSWEB 2002), July 6–10, 2002. Queensland, Australia. Available at http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/rettie/paper.html Rosch, E. 1973. “Natural categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50. Rosnow, R. and Fine, G.A. 1976. Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology of Hearsay. New York: Elsevier. Sack, W. 2003. “Stories and social networks.” In Narrative Intelligence, M. Mateas and P. Sengers (eds.), 305–322. Amsterdam: Benjamins. van Schaik, C.P. and Kappeler, P.M. (eds.). 2005. Cooperation in Primates and Humans. Berlin: Springer. Schmückle, B. and Chi, T. 2004. “Spam. Linguistische Analyse einer neuen Werbeform.” Networx 39: 4–58. Available at http://www.mediensprache.net/de/websprache/networx/docs/ index.asp?id=39 Searle, J.S. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Secor, M. and Walsh, L. 2004. “A rhetorical perspective on the Sokal hoax: Genre, style, and context.” Written Communication 21 (1): 69–91. Shaw, E.D. 2006. “System and method for computer analysis of computer generated communications to produce indications and warning of dangerous behavior.” US Patent 7058566 issued on June 6, 2006. Available at http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7058566description.html Shibutani, T. 1966. Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Sinding, M. 2004. “Beyond essence (or, getting over ‘there’): Cognitive and dialectical theories of genre.” Semiotica 149: 377–395. Sokal, A. 1996. “Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.” Social Text 46/47: 217–252. Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense. New York: Picador. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1981. “Irony and the use–mention distinction.” In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 295–318. ew York: Academic Press. Stanzel, F.. 1979. Theorie des Erzählens. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stein, D 2006. “The website as a domain-specific genre.” language@internet SV1-6/2006: 1–9. Available at http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/LangInternetSpecialVolume1/374. Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.



References 223

Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, P.A. 1999. Hackers: Crime in the Digital Sublime. London: Routledge. Tillery, J., Wikle, T. and Bailey, G. 2000. “The nationalization of a southernism.” Journal of English Linguistics 28 (3): 280–294. Tokar, A. 2006. “Metaphor and Language Contact.” In Scott, Alan (ed.) Papers in Linguistics from the University of Manchester/Proceedings of the 15th Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics, March 3, 2006, A. Scott (ed.), 99–109. Manchester: Department of Linguistics and English Language. Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Travers, J. and Milgram, S. 1969. “An experimental study of the small world problem.” Sociometry 32: 425–443. Turgeman-Goldschmidt, O. 2005. “Hackers’ accounts. Hacking as a social entertainment.” Social Science Computer Review 23 (1): 8–23. Voiskounsky, A.E. and Smyslova, O.A. 2003. “Flow-based model of computer hackers’ motivation.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 6 (2): 171–180. Wales, K. 2004. “Second person pronouns in contemporary English: The end of a story or just the beginning?” Franco-British Studies 33 (4): 172–185. Wales, K. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walsh, L. 2006. ‘Sins Against Science’: The Scientific Hoaxes of Poe, Twain, and Others. Albany: SUNY Press. Walsh, L. 2002. “What is a hoax? Redefining Poe’s Jeux d’Esprit and his relation to his readership.” Text, Practice, Performance 4: 103–120. Watters, C.R. and Shepherd, M.A. 1997. “The digital broadsheet: An evolving genre.” Proceedings of the 30th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS 30), January 8–10, 1997. Big Island, Hawaii. Available at http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/ proceedings/hicss/1997/7734/06/7734060022.pdf Werlich, E. 1976. A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Zitzen, M. and Stein, D. 2004. “Chat and conversation: A case of transmedial stability?” Linguistics 42 (5): 983–1021.

Appendix

1.

List of corpus items

The following table has been extracted from the EH corpus. It lists the 147 items and gives their IDs as they are used in this study, as well as their names and content-based category. ID Name

category

ID Name

category

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Hoaxed hoax Virus Virus

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Virus Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Urban Legend Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway

Internet Flower Worst Ever Virus Budweiser Frogs Avril Lavigne Bugbear Greeting Cards Tech TV Buddy List Yahoo Messenger Account Deletion Guts to say Jesus jdbgmgr.exe Life is beautiful Naked Wife Family Pictures Pretty Park Olympic Torch SandMan sulfnbkJune sulfnbk.exe Unavailable ACE-? CAMANCHO Virus With No Cure A Very Bad Virus Win A Holiday Wobbler

WTC Survivor Microsoft Merger IntelAOL Merger Applebees Barbie British Airways Delta BuddyList2003 Cracker Barrel Dell Ericsson Samsung GAP GAPTracking IBM Lucky Iwon.com McDonalds Nokia Neiman Marcus Old Navy Outback Steakhouse Shell Mr. Smiley Veuve Cliquot Victoria’s Secret Video Clip

226 Email Hoaxes

ID Name

category

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Charity Charity Charity Charity Charity Charity Urban Legend Urban Legend Charity Charity

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

burnt baby Sabrina Fair Alllen Amanda Rachel Arlington RachelArlingtonBild Just For This Ball Pit Brian’S Birdies Penny Brown Penny Brown Monzine Amy Bruce Cleto Sam’s Club Jada Cohen Cocaine Baby Faith Hoemspine Kevin Fisherman Braedon Hembree Cindy Hogman sick wife Odette LaNisha Jackson Jasmine Ali Kelsey Brooke Jones Tamara Martin Christopher John Mineo Natalie Debbie Shwartz Slow Dance Sandy Kayla Wightman DHMO Irina Good Times Good Times FCC Goodtimes Spoof Bedtimes Deeyenda Penpal Greetings Make Money Fast Join The Crew

ID Name

97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Charity 108 Charity 109 Urban Legend 110 Charity 111 Urban Legend 112 Charity 113 Charity 114 Charity 115 Charity 116 Charity 117 Charity 118 Charity 119 Charity 120 Charity 121 Charity 122 Charity 123 Charity 124 Charity 125 Charity 126 Charity 127 Charity Charity Hoaxed hoax 128 129 Virus 130 Virus 131 Virus Hoaxed hoax 132 Hoaxed hoax 133 134 Virus 135 Virus 136 Virus 137 Virus

AIDS Bud Frogs Bug’s Life AOL4FREE 2400 Baud Modem AOL Upgrade Lump of Coal intifadah.cjb.net Microsoft Beta Walt Disney National Banks Miller Netscape AOL merger Coca-Cola Beta Test Payment J. Crew Bath & Bodyworks Columbia House M&Ms Honda Newell Faith Hoemisteine Jessica Mydek Dave Matthews Anthony Parkin Boy with just a head Timothy Flyte Kalin Relek Krystava Patients Schmidt Craig Shelford Aaron Russell Steinmetz The Puppet Dalai Lama Flashing IM IM shutdown Hotmail Overload Sony PSP Swiffer Guinness Book Amanda Bundy Jermaine Beerman

category Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Virus Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Hoaxed hoax Charity Charity Charity Charity Hoaxed hoax Charity Charity Charity Charity Charity Urban Legend Urban Legend Virus Virus Virus Giveaway Giveaway Giveaway Charity Charity



Appendix 227

ID Name

category

ID Name

category

138 139 140 141

Charity Virus Charity Charity

143 144 145 146 147

Urban Legend Urban Legend Urban Legend Urban Legend Urban Legend

Chad Briody Justin Mallory Solidaridad con Brian Ashley Flores

142 SLS

2.

Urban Legend

Waterproof Sunscreen London Underground Anthrax Coca-Cola Long Island Malls 11 June 2004

Online material

A large number of websites have been quoted or used as textual evidence in this study. For better readability, many of the longer URLs in the text have been replaced with contracted aliases generated with TinyURL (http://tinyurl.com). Both the long forms and their corresponding contractions are listed below. All sites have been checked for accessibility as of January 25, 2007. www.worth1000.com www.bonsaikitten.com http://www.cityscope.net/hoax1.html www.snopes.com www.breakthechain.org http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/hoaxes http://www.patriciapiccinini.net/news.php?id=46 (http://tinyurl.com/2tf25r) www.theonion.com www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoaxsites.html www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/C49 www.martinlutherking.org www.whitehouse.org www.whitehouse.com http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blbonsai.htm http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBHoaxInfo.html#identify (http://tinyurl.com/222bov) http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/cokewarn.html (http://tinyurl.com/3892k6) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-users/200501.mbox/ %3COFEFA38F42.769C1D2F-ON86256F96.0068C260-86256F96.00699A99@unmc.edu%3E (http://tinyurl.com/y98jtz) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2780259.stm http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html http://www.thehungersite.com http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/cokewarn.html www.textworld.com/scp http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m11.f/msg00020.htm (http://tinyurl. com/2fuzsj)

228 Email Hoaxes

http://lists.majordomo2.com/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=foundation1. org?user=&passw=&list=list&extra=2004/303%201.2&func=archive-get-part-clean (http:// tinyurl.com/yh4pzn) http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/medical/arlington.asp (http://tinyurl.com/4a8mj) http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=222831&messageID=764971 (http://tinyurl. com/ybtgk7) http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m11.f/msg00020.htm http://www.iea-software.com/lists/9707/ntisp/00000919.htm (http://tinyurl.com/2flevt) http://amtgard.com:8080/archive/07.97/0350.htm (http://tinyurl.com/yty8gp) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Swelund (http://tinyurl.com/2wx275) http://www.breakthechain.org/fas.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=johnson (http://tinyurl.com/h47qk) http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/medical/cancer.asp (http://tinyurl.com/dhuz6) http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBMalCode.shtml#goodspoof http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/09/23/nvir23.html (http://tinyurl.com/y98mwg) http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBHoaxInfo.html (http://tinyurl.com/2f5s9d) www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/616318360 (http://tinyurl.com/2mkqes) http://yesmamm.tripod.com/id19.htm (http://tinyurl.com/2orole) http://www.redhat.com/archives/redhat-install-list/1997-May/msg00179.html (http://tinyurl. com/y7drvl) http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9702&L=spednet&D=1&T=0&H=1&O=A &P=134 (http://tinyurl.com/y4stmx) http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/oklahomaattorneys-l/msg00246.html (http://tinyurl. com/y9dgef) http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/drei/mailing-archive/96/0624.html (http://tinyurl.com/yd3eg5) http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/199802/msg00086.html (http://tinyurl.com/ yhvuar) http://listserv.singlevolunteers.org/SCRIPTS/WA-SINGLEVOL.EXE?A2=ind9706&L=svdc& T=0&P=1706 (http://tinyurl.com/ymk3eo) http://mailer.uwf.edu/listserv/wa.exe?A2=ind9706&L=chemed-l&D=1&P=2994 (http:// tinyurl.com/y8ypxh) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickle_Me_Elmo (http://tinyurl.com/tnnmv) http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9708&L=lstsrv-l&P=17641 (http://tinyurl. com/yemlkm) http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199711/msg00314.html (http://tinyurl. com/ydhbrv) http://demon.twinflame.org/archives/2003/04/slow_dance.php (http://tinyurl.com/y4gsgn) http://glurge.com/story414nnpukxfsmntikprkychj.html (http://tinyurl.com/yzk4dc) http://www.davidlweatherford.com http://listserv.tamu.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind0103&L=aggie-doctors&T=0&P=1878 (http://tinyurl. com/ygy3xv) http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-ansteorra.org/1998-December/020561.html (http://tinyurl.com/yxvr63)



Appendix 229

http://www.mkcblacknet.org/SKListArchives/Canon/spam_01.txt (http://tinyurl.com/ ydy9gs) http://www.meds.com/archive/mol-cancer/2000/04/msg01453.html (http://tinyurl.com/ y4yv8n) http://listserv.cnr.it/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind98&L=dilatua-forum&T=0&O=A&P=16744 (http:// tinyurl.com/y8sjue) http://tlali.iztacala.unam.mx/pipermail/perl/1997-September/000124.html (http://tinyurl. com/y6wjqg) http://lazarus.elte.hu/lists/tajfutas-0009/msg00121.html (http://tinyurl.com/uybdd) http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/dec99/0385.html (http://tinyurl.com/yk2bdl) http://listserv.tau.ac.il/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0008&L=rambam-l&T=0&P=1875 (http://tinyurl. com/yloyqr) http://customercare.sify.com/discover-E/dissue3.htm (http://tinyurl.com/yy4kh9) http://web.bsu.edu/security/hoax_alerts.htm (http://tinyurl.com/2g3amr) http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=servlet-interest&D=0&P=48068 (http://tinyurl.com/yk52mz) http://lists.isber.ucsb.edu/pipermail/reformanet/2001-February/006476.html (http://tinyurl. com/yxy95k) http://list.k12.ar.us/pipermail/aga/2000-May/000471.html (http://tinyurl.com/yyypw8) http://list.k12.ar.us/pipermail/sms/2001-February/001553.html (http://tinyurl.com/ypc78r) http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=oslist&P=46398 (http://tinyurl. com/yc5b52) http://www.soros.org/idebate/debate-l/0466.html (http://tinyurl.com/ykzhgs) http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/wtcsurvivor.html (http://tinyurl.com/2dog4) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/computerviruswarning23oct01.shtml (http://tinyurl. com/yjtlbj) http://www.thaicert.nectec.or.th/paper/hoax/WTC.php (http://tinyurl.com/yl3pa8) http://webalias.kimminau.org/pipermail/kimminaus/2002-March/000124.html (http:// tinyurl.com/ybrd2e) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/bwgen/messages/4701?viscount=100 (http://tinyurl. com/ylb2yx) http://forums.techguy.org/security/441167-new-virus-alert.html (http://tinyurl.com/y6lt83) http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1511692 (http:// tinyurl.com/wofn6) http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/billgate.asp (http://tinyurl.com/96al) http://www.glires.com/spam.html https://mailman.rice.edu/pipermail/nsbelist/1997-December.txt (http://tinyurl.com/ykep8g) http://www.getty.edu/education/teacherartexchange/archive/Jan98/0567.html (http://tinyurl. com/w5gql) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/hoax.html (http://tinyurl.com/296vv) http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9809d&L=aera-c&T=0&P=322 (http://tinyurl.com/ yytc27) http://www.xmission.com/pub/lists/cdc/archive/cdc.199905 (http://tinyurl.com/yg3ew2) https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9808&L=sistersc&P=942 (http://tinyurl.com/ yadkea)

230 Email Hoaxes

http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9905&L=korean&O=D&P=331 (http://tinyurl. com/y4hm62) http://www.myelitis.org/tmic/archive/26/0490.html (http://tinyurl.com/yb6ldx) http://listserv.dartmouth.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0001&L=mspi&P=55 (http://tinyurl. com/yd3h6s) http://archives.hwg.org/hwg-basics/Pine.GSO.4.05.10002091659360.17090-100000@beast (http://tinyurl.com/y8m2f4) http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0007c&L=kotesol-l&P=637 (http://tinyurl. com/wz5p4) http://edi.stylusstudio.com/msg03281.htm. (http://tinyurl.com/3d9r9j) http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9906&L=wilsons-list&D=0&T=0&P=29945 (http://tinyurl.com/y5pbxa) http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00670.html (http:// tinyurl.com/y526xm) http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm (http://tinyurl. com/mys2) http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/adults/jasmine.htm (http://tinyurl.com/yf4286) http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9708/msg00305.html (http://tinyurl.com/3xv8w6) http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind9901&L=taxacom&D=1&P=16142 (http:// tinyurl.com/yxswvo) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/1999-April/msg02032.html (http://tinyurl.com/ vwwrq) http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.9706/msg00264.html (http://tinyurl.com/ yarnda) http://listserv.tamu.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind0103&L=aggie-doctors&D=0&T=0&P=2103 (http:// tinyurl.com/uvqfe) http://dr.physics.kth.se/maillist/msg00069.html (http://tinyurl.com/yb2x42) https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9807&L=algae-l&D=0&T=0&P=900 (http:// tinyurl.com/yhpzwn) http://www.cquest.utoronto.ca/env/aera/aera-lists/aera-erl-l/98-04/0001.html (http://tinyurl. com/yvqego) http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NDSDMN/1997-04/0862282852 (http://tinyurl.com/ yw8xv8) www.flickr.com http://del.icio.us

3. AE ASCII CMC CP DF EH

List of abbreviations American English American standard code for information interchange computer-mediated communication cooperative principle digital folklore email hoax



HTML MOO MUD NIH NP p s ToM UBE UCE URL

Appendix 231

hypertext mark-up language MUD object-oriented multi-user dungeon/domain/dimension narrative intelligence hypothesis noun phrase proposition speaker/sender theory of mind unsolicited bulk email unsolicited commercial email uniform resource locator

Index

1-to-1  19, 20, 45 1-to-n  15, 24, 45, 48, 49 419 email, see Nigeria email 9/11  4, 36, 74, 101, 102, 104, 105, 150, 212 A Aarts, B.  192 acquaintance  18, 77, 138, 141, 189 reciprocal  17, 18, 24, 28, 138, 208 address book  18, 32 addressee  18, 19, 20, 21, 35, 44, 45, 57, 59, 89, 139, 140, 141, 144, 179 see also receiver Allport, G. W. and Postman, L.  10, 74 altruism  138, 141, 184, 212 Amber Alert  34 American Cancer Society  84, 88 anagram  38, 52 AOL  17, 30, 75, 114, 115 applied linguistics  192, 195, 197 Arabic  5, 125 armchair activism  34, 212 ASCII  39, 40, 41, 68, 88, 123, 124 art  40, 62, 88, 123, 124 Asian  125 atomistic  195, 196 attachment  5, 62, 67, 68, 111 audience splitting  7, 146, 147, 148, 207, 210, 213 Austin, J.  130

B Bach, K.  131 back-translation  95, 96, 106, 125 see also translation Baron, N.  41 Barrett, D.  8 Barron, A.  8, 13, 25, 65, 199 Bazerman, C.  196, 197 Bergs, A.  187 Bhatia, V.  11, 192, 193 Biber, D.  193 biological  72, 157 metaphor   71, 72, 127, 144 biology  21, 72, 132 evolutionary  132, 134 see also evolution blog  1, 14, 15, 27, 79, 126, 199, 200, 207 Blommaert, J.  9, 13, 19, 20, 25, 65, 199 Blutner, R.  131 Boese, A.  4, 9, 16 bottom-up  198, 199, 203 Brown, P. and Levinson, S.  10, 131 Bruner, J.  157, 158, 160, 161 Brunvand, J.  10, 127 bulletin board system (BBS)  200 bullshit  1 C canard  2, 9, 74, 202 canonicality  161, 170 see also non-canonical

capitalization  41, 42, 101, 103, 104, 124, 172 Chafe, W.  162, 195 chain email  5, 13, 66 letter  6, 7, 28, 48, 62, 66, 79, 89, 113, 151, 152, 153 of communication  33, 52, 58, 71, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 126, 129, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 148, 150 prayer  7, 35, 203, 211, 212 charity email hoax  4, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 64, 65, 68, 78, 79, 83, 84, 96, 97, 107, 122, 124, 166, 171, 172, 177, 178, 183, 184, 203, 211, 212 Charon, R. and Montello, M.  157 chat  1, 15, 79, 200 Chattoe, E.  7, 21, 72 chronology  30, 71, 72, 81, 83, 122, 136, 206, 210 classroom  155, 197 computer-mediated communciation (CMC)  1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 21, 42, 43, 44, 48, 71, 126, 147, 157, 187, 197, 199, 200, 201, 209, 214 asynchronous  15, 24, 42, 43 synchronous  200, 207 CNN  99 cognitive studies  161 communicative purpose  6, 9, 11, 65, 194, 201, 205

234 Email Hoaxes

complicating action  67, 159, 160, 165, 166, 168, 169, 179 conversation  44, 45, 136, 197 maxims of  129, 130 cooperation  10, 11, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 153, 204, 205, 206, 208, 213 see also sincerity cooperative principle (CP) 15, 129, 130, 131, 135, 137, 140 copy and paste  29, 30, 76 corpus  25, 28, 31, 39, 65 email hoax (EH)  1, 6, 7, 14, 24, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44, 51, 54, 55, 64, 65, 67, 68, 113, 155, 156, 158, 164, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 185, 206, 212 linguistics  8, 192, 193 real-life  26, 27, 28, 30, 45, 47, 54, 56, 59, 61, 119, 126, 129, 138, 148, 163 real-time  25 representational  26, 27, 28, 30, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 65, 77, 96, 100, 163, 183, 184 counterfeit  8, 16 Crystal, D.  44 Crytal, D. and Davy, D.  193 cyber-squatting  16 D Dalli, A., Xia, Y. and Wills, Y.  41 Dautenhahn, K.  11, 133, 157, 160, 161, 186 Dawkins, R.  7, 72 debunking  4, 151, 152 deception  1, 2, 9, 15, 20, 23, 24, 28, 33, 35, 37, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 153, 206 Dégh, L.  127 deixis  19, 34, 48, 50, 52, 53, 60, 68, 100, 112, 163 distal  44, 45, 162, 175, 180, 185

person  44, 45, 48, 50, 162, 175, 176 place  177, 178 proximal  44, 164, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 social  44 del.icio.us  198 Dessalles, J.-L.  133 Devitt, A.  196, 197 diffusion  76, 81, 92, 93, 109, 126, 138, 168, 206, 207, 210 digitality/digital medium  16, 36, 43, 45, 78, 205, 207, 214 see also digital folklore/genre/ literacy/social networks disclaimer  21, 79 discourse  7, 16, 26, 31, 37, 39, 50, 59, 65, 67, 69, 82, 85, 86, 92, 123, 124, 126, 129, 136, 148, 151, 153, 175, 182, 183, 196, 201, 205, 209, 210, 211, 215 analysis  2, 6, 10, 66, 134, 137, 143, 156, 157, 158, 161, 192, 193, 194, 213 community  5, 194, 195, 197, 198, 203, 204 online see computermediated communication (CMC) type  2, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 38, 61, 71, 135, 138, 143, 157, 161, 202, 204, 207, 208 see also spoken/written discourse, literary discourse, narrative discourse discussion group  1, 8, 153 displacement  161, 162 distinctive feature  6, 14, 23, 24, 207, 213 Dodds, P., Muhamad, R., and Watts, D.  77 Donath, J.  9, 15 Döring, N.  8, 14, 34, 138 Dunbar, R.  11, 132, 133, 157 Dundes, A. and Pagter, C.  10, 127, 206, 208, 209, 210, 214, 215 Duszak, A.  157

E e-journal  201 Elmo  88, 91, 123, 124 email tracker  33, 78, 107, 177 emoticon  42 English  9, 46, 49, 96, 125, 160, 187, 192 American (AE)  43, 46, 167 International  43 Internet  43 standard  125 varieties of  43 enumeration  211 Erickson, T.  197, 200 Eshet-Alkali, Y. and AmichaiHamburger, Y.  146 ethics  145 see also moral ethnographical  81, 83, 166 evaluation  67, 156, 159, 160, 161, 164, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 182 evolution cultural  132, 134 genre  199, 201 of language  132, 133, 134, 157 and narrativity  133, 157, 158 and pragmatics  132, 133, 138, 148, 157 see also biology F face  131, 141, 187 saving  61, 131 threat  131, 153, 188 see also politeness face-to-face  18, 36, 187 False Attribution Syndrome (FAS)  52, 86, 90 family resemblance  13, 14, 191, 192 fax  127, 208, 209 Fedler, F.  9, 74 Ferbrache, D.  2, 38 Fernback, J.  7, 8, 127 fictionality  31, 33, 44, 53, 65, 67, 78, 114, 159, 161, 164, 176, 178, 179, 180 flaming  15 Flickr  198 flogs  1, 207



floor  137, 160 Fludernik, M.  156, 157, 162 folklore  9, 10, 28, 30, 78, 81, 127, 206, 209, 214, 215 digital (DF)  7, 127, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 urban  7, 10, 209 see also officelore folksonomy  198 foregrounding  175, 177, 184 forwarding  1, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 33, 34, 42, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 69, 76, 82, 85, 90, 114, 123, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 152, 153, 185, 188, 189, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214 forwardables  7, 208, 210, 211, 212 Frankfurt  1 fraud  9, 16, 22, 205, 207 fuzziness  81, 164, 192, 194 G Gadney, G.  75 Gains, J.  44, 59, 200 Gates, B.  32, 44, 50, 108, 109, 111, 176 genetics  21, 72 Genette, G.  156 genre  8, 9, 10, 13, 35, 74, 79, 127, 155, 166, 187, 192, 193, 195, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214 digital  5, 11, 194, 198, 200, 201, 209 ecology  7, 72, 80, 191, 197, 198, 202, 212, 213 emergent  200, 202, 204, 210 hybrid  7, 199, 200, 201, 204, 210 migration  5, 6, 191, 197, 199, 200, 201 repertoire  196, 197 reproduced  26, 31, 32, 103, 132, 200, 202, 204, 210 system  196, 197 Georgakopoulou, A.  156, 157, 170, 186, 187 German  95, 96, 125 Giltrow, J. and Stein, D.  195, 196, 199, 201

Index 235

giveaway email hoax  4, 32, 33, 35, 38, 51, 53, 54, 56, 64, 65, 68, 74, 75, 78, 83, 107, 108, 117, 120, 121, 122, 167, 169, 174, 177, 179, 183, 184 Goldstein, J. and Sapin, R.  41 Google  27, 28, 54, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 114, 118 gossip  2, 6, 10, 20, 81, 133, 206 gradience  192, 197 greeting  20, 45, 46, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 189 Grice, H. P.  10, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137 H hacker  2, 31, 73, 74, 170 Halliday, M. A. K.  193 hardware  32 Harrison, T.  1 Harvey, K. and Borden, L.  10 header  17, 18, 19, 53, 54, 56, 57, 111, 112 Hendry, D. and Carlyle, A.  198, 200 Herring, S.  9, 14, 15, 43, 197, 198, 199, 200 Heyd, T.  161 Hoad, T.  1 hocus pocus  1 holistic  68, 195, 196 homepage  16, 75, 79, 108, 200 homophone  52 Horn, L.  131 HTML  39, 40, 68, 200 humor  16, 51, 52, 211 Hungarian  94, 95 hypernym  195 I iconicity  16 identity  9, 15, 17, 19, 24, 51, 73, 83, 156, 158, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 211 ideology  16, 156 illocutionary act  147 see also speech act implicature  129, 131, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 150 impliciture  131

individuation  17, 18, 19, 23, 28, 210 Information Technology and People  11 ingroup  7, 146, 158, 188, 204 innuendo  51 Intel  116, 117, 118 intentionality  22, 75, 126, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 137, 146, 147, 207 Internet  4, 5, 8, 10, 21, 25, 28, 32, 51, 63, 66, 73, 75, 76, 78, 83, 84, 91, 98, 100, 102, 105, 111, 115, 135, 140, 150, 187, 197, 199, 200, 201, 203, 208, 210, 212, 214 irony  38, 43, 52, 106, 119, 137, 204 signal/marker  16, 37, 51, 52, 74, 106, 109, 117, 137, 138, 145, 204 Italian  94 iteration  136, 137, 138, 139 J Jamet, D.  13 jargon  84, 98, 99, 111, 177, 179, 202 legalese  117 joke  81, 109, 161, 206, 207, 210, 211 see also pun, humor junk mail  8, 151 K Kibby, M.  7, 8, 25, 189, 208 Knight, C.  133 Kollock, P.  189 Kwasnik, B. and Crowston, K.  11, 194, 197 L Labov, W.  11, 66, 156, 159, 160, 161, 164, 170, 171, 174, 187 Lakoff, G.  192 lexico-grammatical  7, 39, 123, 193 life cycle  7, 10, 71, 72, 77, 78, 80, 82, 85, 94, 108, 113, 121, 126, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 153

236 Email Hoaxes

linguistic theory  129, 130, 132, 134, 191, 192 Linney, A.  85, 86, 123 literacy digital  5, 138, 140, 146, 153, 204, 213, 214 English  9 literality  5, 43, 44 see also orality, spoken/ written literary discourse/text  44, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 176, 191, 193 hoax/prank  9, 10 studies/theory  82, 155, 156, 162, 170, 176, 191, 192, 193, 195 Lyotard, J.-F.  156 M Ma, Y.-C.  91, 92, 95 MacDougall, C.  9, 10, 74 macrolinguistic feature  39, 143 mailbox  4, 5, 14, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 61, 66, 78, 151 mailing list  8, 14, 15, 18, 26, 27, 28, 56, 61, 62, 82, 83, 95, 146, 151, 152 Marvin, L.-E.  9, 13 Maynor, N.  45, 46, 49 McAfee  99 McNeill, L.  200, 201 memetics  7, 22, 72 message archaeology  6, 27, 30, 39, 71, 82, 83, 96, 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111, 113, 114, 118, 120, 124, 125, 186 closing  17, 19, 61, 64, 109, 111, 115 core  2, 47, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 83, 85, 87, 92, 103, 107, 117, 123, 143, 148, 151, 163, 164, 203 dissemination  21, 24, 33, 40, 56, 57, 69, 75, 76, 82, 107, 111, 143, 146, 189, 203, 208, 209

framework  47, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 83, 85, 87, 101, 103, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 150, 151, 163, 164, 203 opening  17, 19, 20, 45, 57, 59, 60, 64, 89, 104, 106, 112, 127, 167, 176, 179 recycling  78, 81, 93, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111, 117, 125, 126, 141, 142 storage  21, 29, 30, 40, 78, 206 metadiscourse  8, 27, 42, 54, 58, 79, 87, 101, 113, 129, 141, 150, 159, 166, 171, 173 microlinguistic feature  6, 7, 8, 39, 96, 115, 143, 167 Microsoft  4, 29, 32, 99, 107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 117, 120, 176 Microsoft Network (MSN)  17, 75 millennium  4, 74, 96, 105, 107 Mintz, A.  1, 8 moral  15, 34, 75, 144, 172, 213 see also ethics move structure  65, 66, 67, 144 multiple addressing  14, 19, 48, 82, 206 existence  127, 210 sendership  136, 139, 188 see also open multiplicity Muslim  5, 35 myth  4, 10, 43, 158 N narrative  6, 11, 34, 35, 39, 41, 44, 45, 50, 60, 66, 67, 68, 77, 100, 101, 112, 113, 115, 119, 125, 143, 150, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 173, 182, 183, 184, 191, 195, 196, 203, 206, 208, 211 core  56, 59, 61 embodiment  163, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 185, 188 framework  30, 107, 111, 114, 156

persona  3, 31, 65, 156, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 185 structure  7, 120, 155, 159, 162, 168, 170, 175 theory/studies  156, 158, 160, 170, 185 Narrative Inquiry  186 Narrative Intelligence Hypothesis (NIH)  133, 157 narratology  132, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 170 netiquette  15, 42 netlore  35, 127 Netscape  32, 42, 55, 113, 114, 115, 119, 165 Netspeak  44 newbie  4, 15, 38, 52, 76, 83, 101 newsletter  14, 23, 17, 18, 98, 99 newspaper  75, 146, 200 n-gram  27, 28, 83 nickname  1, 17, 76 Nigeria email  6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 65, 200, 207 Noble, J.  133 non-canonicality  161, 163, 164, 166, 171, 185, 187, 188, 208 non-cooperation  9, 11, 130, 131, 134, 135, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 205, 213 see also non-sincerity non-sincerity  137, 141, 144, 145, 146, 151, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209 see also non-cooperation novel  161, 191, 193 O observer’s paradox  25 officelore  127, 206, 208, 209, 210 off-line  18, 187 Olympic Games  74, 106 online  1, 9, 10, 17, 20, 22, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 63, 76, 78, 79, 89, 101, 146, 176, 187, 188, 189, 198, 200, 201, 211 open multiplicity  17, 19, 20, 24, 28, 45, 47, 48 see also multiple



Optimality Theory  10, 131 orality  8, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 66, 75, 78, 89, 127, 167, 206, 207 see also literality, spoken/ wriiten Orasan, C. and Krishnamurthy, R.  8, 25, 27 orientation  67, 159, 165, 166, 167 Orlikowski, W. and Yates, J.  11, 192, 194, 196, 197, 200 Oxford English Dictionary  199 P Papke, D.  157 paraphrase  87, 92, 106, 123, 125 parody  6, 10, 37, 38, 167, 202, 203 Parret, H.  11, 147 password  17, 27, 181 perlocution  147 perspectivization  161, 162, 175, 177, 185 persuasion  2, 59, 69, 84, 87, 175, 205, 207 petition  7, 16, 212 philology  82 phishing  16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 207 photoshopping  1, 211 Piccini, P.  5 picture  1, 16, 22, 24, 29, 31, 40, 67, 68, 88, 106, 124, 208, 211 Piper, P.  8, 16 plagiarism  6 plaintext  32, 40 poetics  155, 191 politeness  60, 65, 131, 153 see also face postmodification  47, 49 poststructuralism  10, 22, 72, 156, 202 PowerPoint  22, 68, 208 pragmatic  5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 37, 39, 77, 79, 80, 87, 114, 126, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144, 146, 151, 155, 158, 186, 188, 189, 191, 204, 205, 213 duality  129, 135, 145, 147, 148, 153, 210

Index 237

theory  129, 131, 134, 135, 138, 143, 147, 148 pragmatics  10, 17, 68, 129, 130, 131, 134, 145, 147, 148, 164 prank  1, 9, 141, 205, 207 Pratt, M.  11, 160 pre-digital genre  7, 166, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 214 hoax  9, 74, 146, 147, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207 premodification  47, 49 prestige  7, 44, 77, 145, 146, 153, 158, 187, 206, 210 Prideaux, E.  51, 75 Prince, G.  45, 162 proliferation  2, 4, 6, 14, 20, 21, 24, 28, 40, 68, 74, 79, 207 pronoun  19, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 64, 87, 125, 162, 164, 175, 178, 179, 180, 185 proposition  23, 28, 35, 203 prosocial  8, 34, 138, 141, 212 prosody  44, 172 prototype theory  192, 196 prototypicality  26, 27, 31, 96 pseudonymity  1 psychosocial  6, 7, 36, 142, 146, 158, 186, 194 Pubmed  84 pun  3, 52 onomastic  84 punctuation  42, 59, 103, 151 pyramid scheme  76, 81, 140 Q quasi-narrative  164, 169, 185 quasi-pronoun  47, 48 quote tag  42, 56, 76, 85, 109 R Ram, J.  34 Ratliff, R.  26, 34 Reboul, A.  147 receiver  17, 18, 20, 24, 61, 80, 81, 137, 138, 139, 153, 208 see also addressee register  3, 44, 89, 193 reliability  1, 10, 18, 19, 44, 52, 69, 99, 111, 138, 177 reputation  40, 189

resolution  67, 159, 165, 166 Rettie, R.  41 rhetoric  4, 10, 15, 73, 102, 146, 157, 174, 180, 183, 187, 188, 202, 203, 205, 206, 210 New Rhetoric  194, 195 Rosch, E.  192 rumor  2, 6, 10, 20, 72, 74, 77, 81, 189, 206 S Sack, W.  157, 187 satire  1, 9, 10, 16, 44, 145, 207 scam  19, 22, 115, 117, 174 Schmückle, B. and Chi, T.  8, 19, 25, 199 scientific hoax  9, 10, 146, 202 writing  79, 148, 157, 159, 201 script  161 Searle, J.  130, 131 Secor, M. and Walsh, L.  10, 202 self-reproductive system  21 semiotics  16, 22, 27, 124 sender  9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 73, 74, 76, 80, 81, 136, 137, 141, 142, 145, 148, 153, 188, 208 serial communication  20, 56, 126, 136, 144 service provider  75, 76, 98, 119 Shaw, E.  41 Shibutani, T.  10, 74 Shields, D.  53, 89, 90, 92, 123 Sidney School  193 signature  52, 53, 61, 62, 63, 64, 86, 89, 90, 92, 123, 126, 176, 177, 189 sincerity  1, 15, 130, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 150, 153, 189, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209 condition  144, 145, 146, 147, 148 see also cooperation slang  51, 52 small story  170, 185, 186, 187 small world  76, 77 social network digital  18, 75, 76, 138, 146, 187, 189, 203, 204, 207, 208, 210, 214

238 Email Hoaxes

real-life  18, 24, 25, 186, 187, 188, 206 theory  72, 77 social sciences  7, 8 socio-technical mode  5, 14, 15, 16, 21, 26, 32, 41, 43, 79, 206, 207, 208 software  3, 4, 22, 28, 29, 32, 33, 74, 98, 113, 119, 199, 203, 207 Sokal, A.  10, 72, 202 Sokal hoax  202 spam  5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 61, 65, 108, 117, 138, 152, 199, 207 Spanish  43, 94 speech act  7, 10, 66, 85, 129, 131, 146, 147, 148, 151, 195 commissive  203 constative  144, 150 directive  20, 24, 60, 61, 62, 67, 87, 140, 143, 144, 203 felicitous  144, 145, 160 Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.  11, 131, 133 spoken discourse  5, 6, 9, 13, 43, 200 Stanzel, F.  156 Stein, D.   200 style  4, 17, 18, 40, 44, 84, 102, 109, 153, 193, 194, 207 stylization  26, 28, 121 subgenre  7, 196, 198, 201, 202, 204, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214 subject line  20, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 67, 78, 126 subjectivity  162, 175 supergenre  7, 196, 202, 208, 209, 210 Swales, J.  5, 11, 65, 192, 194, 198 Swelund, A.  51 syntax  36, 44, 64, 84, 171, 172, 173, 192 T taxonomy  161, 195, 196, 198 Taylor, P.  73 Taylor, R.  196

technicality  21, 81, 201, 208, 209, 210 tellability  7, 66, 11, 31, 77, 105, 159, 160, 161, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 204, 206, 208, 210 tense  162, 173, 174, 185 terminology  13, 72, 101, 114, 134, 174 testimonial  117, 167, 173, 174, 180 text messaging  5, 14, 199 text type  193, 195 Textsorte  199 textuality  20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 73 theft identity  17 kidney  36, 78 Theory of Mind (ToM)  133 threat  22, 32, 65, 66, 67, 102, 153, 173 Tillery, J., Wikle, T. and Bailey, G.  49 Tokar, A.  13 token  27, 44 top-down  198, 199, 203 translation  43, 94, 96, 125, 126 see also back-translation transmedial stability  7, 200, 201, 210 Travers, J., and Milgram, S.  76, 77 trolling  9, 14, 15, 207 Turgeman-Goldschmidt, O.  73 Turkish  5 turn-taking  61, 136, 159, 160 Typenkreis  156 typography  1, 41, 42, 68, 84, 85, 98, 104, 113, 124, 126, 151 U unsolicited bulk email (UBE)  8, 13 see also spam upper case  41, 42, 44, 85 urban legend  2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 35, 36, 37, 38, 53, 65, 68, 74, 78,

79, 81, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 178, 183, 184, 206 URL  1, 5, 16, 30, 31, 68, 177 USA Today  22 user  1, 2, 5, 8, 16, 17, 20, 22, 33, 40, 41, 43, 47, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 78, 79, 82, 85, 95, 100, 105, 124, 125, 127, 129, 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 144, 151, 145, 146, 150, 188, 189, 203, 204, 214 see also newbie V van Schaik, C. and Kappeler, P.  11 variation paradigmatic  27 sociolinguistic  43, 46, 49, 156, 193 syntagmatic  27 textual  7, 54, 56, 71, 81, 82, 85, 92, 94, 104, 107, 111, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 136, 204 typographic  41 Veuve Cliquot  33 viral marketing  21, 62, 72 virus email hoax  2, 3, 4, 28, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 51, 54, 56, 57, 64, 65, 74, 75, 83, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 148, 167, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 181, 183, 184 vocative  43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 60, 71, 175, 204 Voiskounsky, A.  73 W Walsh, L.  9, 10, 146, 147, 205 Watters, C., and Shepherd, M.  200 Wayid, M.  22 Weatherford, D.  91 Web 2.0  198 website  1, 5, 14, 15, 16, 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 43, 52, 79, 80, 107, 150, 176, 200, 203, 207, 208



anti-hoax   4, 21, 27, 28, 68, 73, 79, 81, 98, 135, 213 Werlich, E.  195, 198 wiki  126, 200 Wired  109, 118

Index 239

written discourse  5, 6, 9, 13, 38, 43, 44, 45, 49, 60, 66, 73, 77, 78, 81, 127, 188, 200, 206 see also orality, literality

WWW  4, 30, 31, 150, 201 Y Y2K  4 see also millennium

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 178 Schneider, Klaus P. and Anne Barron (eds.): Variational Pragmatics. A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. 2008. vii, 371 pp. 177 Rue, Yong-Ju and Grace Qiao Zhang: Request Strategies. A comparative study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. xix, 324 pp. + index. Expected June 2008 176 Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.): Speech Acts in the History of English. 2008. viii, 318 pp. 175 Gómez González, María de los Ángeles, J. Lachlan Mackenzie and Elsa M. GonzálezÁlvarez (eds.): Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison. xxii, 354 pp. + index. Expected May 2008 174 Heyd, Theresa: Email Hoaxes. Form, function, genre ecology. 2008. vii, 239 pp. 173 Zanotto, Mara Sophia, Lynne Cameron and Marilda C. Cavalcanti (eds.): Confronting Metaphor in Use. An applied linguistic approach. 2008. vii, 315 pp. 172 Benz, Anton and Peter Kühnlein (eds.): Constraints in Discourse. 2008. vii, 292 pp. 171 Félix-Brasdefer, J. César: Politeness in Mexico and the United States. A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. 2008. xiv, 195 pp. 170 Oakley, Todd and Anders Hougaard (eds.): Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. 2008. vi, 262 pp. 169 Connor, Ulla, Ed Nagelhout and William Rozycki (eds.): Contrastive Rhetoric. Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. 2008. viii, 324 pp. 168 Proost, Kristel: Conceptual Structure in Lexical Items. The lexicalisation of communication concepts in English, German and Dutch. 2007. xii, 304 pp. 167 Bousfield, Derek: Impoliteness in Interaction. 2008. xiii, 281 pp. 166 Nakane, Ikuko: Silence in Intercultural Communication. Perceptions and performance. 2007. xii, 240 pp. 165 Bublitz, Wolfram and Axel Hübler (eds.): Metapragmatics in Use. 2007. viii, 301 pp. 164 Englebretson, Robert (ed.): Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. 2007. viii, 323 pp. 163 Lytra, Vally: Play Frames and Social Identities. Contact encounters in a Greek primary school. 2007. xii, 300 pp. 162 Fetzer, Anita (ed.): Context and Appropriateness. Micro meets macro. 2007. vi, 265 pp. 161 Celle, Agnès and Ruth Huart (eds.): Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. 2007. viii, 212 pp. 160 Fetzer, Anita and Gerda Eva Lauerbach (eds.): Political Discourse in the Media. Cross-cultural perspectives. 2007. viii, 379 pp. 159 Maynard, Senko K.: Linguistic Creativity in Japanese Discourse. Exploring the multiplicity of self, perspective, and voice. 2007. xvi, 356 pp. 158 Walker, Terry: Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues. Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy. 2007. xx, 339 pp. 157 Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda: The Language of Business Studies Lectures. A corpus-assisted analysis. 2007. xvi, 236 pp. 156 Vega Moreno, Rosa E.: Creativity and Convention. The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. 2007. xii, 249 pp. 155 Hedberg, Nancy and Ron Zacharski (eds.): The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface. Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. 2007. viii, 345 pp. 154 Hübler, Axel: The Nonverbal Shift in Early Modern English Conversation. 2007. x, 281 pp. 153 Arnovick, Leslie K.: Written Reliquaries. The resonance of orality in medieval English texts. 2006. xii, 292 pp. 152 Warren, Martin: Features of Naturalness in Conversation. 2006. x, 272 pp. 151 Suzuki, Satoko (ed.): Emotive Communication in Japanese. 2006. x, 234 pp. 150 Busse, Beatrix: Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. 2006. xviii, 525 pp. 149 Locher, Miriam A.: Advice Online. Advice-giving in an American Internet health column. 2006. xvi, 277 pp.

148 Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl and Torodd Kinn: Academic Voices. Across languages and disciplines. 2006. x, 309 pp. 147 Hinrichs, Lars: Codeswitching on the Web. English and Jamaican Creole in e-mail communication. 2006. x, 302 pp. 146 Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa: Collaborating towards Coherence. Lexical cohesion in English discourse. 2006. ix, 192 pp. 145 Kurhila, Salla: Second Language Interaction. 2006. vii, 257 pp. 144 Bührig, Kristin and Jan D. ten Thije (eds.): Beyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication. 2006. vi, 339 pp. 143 Baker, Carolyn, Michael Emmison and Alan Firth (eds.): Calling for Help. Language and social interaction in telephone helplines. 2005. xviii, 352 pp. 142 Sidnell, Jack: Talk and Practical Epistemology. The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. 2005. xvi, 255 pp. 141 Zhu, Yunxia: Written Communication across Cultures. A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. 2005. xviii, 216 pp. 140 Butler, Christopher S., María de los Ángeles Gómez González and Susana M. Doval-Suárez (eds.): The Dynamics of Language Use. Functional and contrastive perspectives. 2005. xvi, 413 pp. 139 Lakoff, Robin T. and Sachiko Ide (eds.): Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. 2005. xii, 342 pp. 138 Müller, Simone: Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. 2005. xviii, 290 pp. 137 Morita, Emi: Negotiation of Contingent Talk. The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. 2005. xvi, 240 pp. 136 Sassen, Claudia: Linguistic Dimensions of Crisis Talk. Formalising structures in a controlled language. 2005. ix, 230 pp. 135 Archer, Dawn: Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). A sociopragmatic analysis. 2005. xiv, 374 pp. 134 Skaffari, Janne, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen and Brita Wårvik (eds.): Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. 2005. x, 418 pp. 133 Marnette, Sophie: Speech and Thought Presentation in French. Concepts and strategies. 2005. xiv, 379 pp. 132 Onodera, Noriko O.: Japanese Discourse Markers. Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. 2004. xiv, 253 pp. 131 Janoschka, Anja: Web Advertising. New forms of communication on the Internet. 2004. xiv, 230 pp. 130 Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen (eds.): Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach. 2005. x, 257 pp. 129 Taboada, María Teresa: Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. 2004. xvii, 264 pp. 128 Cordella, Marisa: The Dynamic Consultation. A discourse analytical study of doctor–patient communication. 2004. xvi, 254 pp. 127 Brisard, Frank, Michael Meeuwis and Bart Vandenabeele (eds.): Seduction, Community, Speech. A Festschrift for Herman Parret. 2004. vi, 202 pp. 126 Wu, Yi’an: Spatial Demonstratives in English and Chinese. Text and Cognition. 2004. xviii, 236 pp. 125 Lerner, Gene H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation. 2004. x, 302 pp. 124 Vine, Bernadette: Getting Things Done at Work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. 2004. x, 278 pp. 123 Márquez Reiter, Rosina and María Elena Placencia (eds.): Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. 2004. xvi, 383 pp. 122 González, Montserrat: Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. The case of English and Catalan. 2004. xvi, 410 pp. 121 Fetzer, Anita: Recontextualizing Context. Grammaticality meets appropriateness. 2004. x, 272 pp. 120 Aijmer, Karin and Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.): Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. 2004. viii, 279 pp. 119 Hiltunen, Risto and Janne Skaffari (eds.): Discourse Perspectives on English. Medieval to modern. 2003. viii, 243 pp. 118 Cheng, Winnie: Intercultural Conversation. 2003. xii, 279 pp.

117 Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina: Stance in Talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. 2004. xvi, 260 pp. 116 Grant, Colin B. (ed.): Rethinking Communicative Interaction. New interdisciplinary horizons. 2003. viii, 330 pp. 115 Kärkkäinen, Elise: Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. 2003. xii, 213 pp. 114 Kühnlein, Peter, Hannes Rieser and Henk Zeevat (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 2003. xii, 400 pp. 113 Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 2003. xii, 285 pp. 112 Lenz, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. xiv, 279 pp. 111 Ensink, Titus and Christoph Sauer (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. viii, 227 pp. 110 Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. viii, 343 pp. 109 Mayes, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. xiv, 228 pp. 108 Barron, Anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. xviii, 403 pp. 107 Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. viii, 446 pp. 106 Busse, Ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. xiv, 344 pp. 105 Blackwell, Sarah: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. xvi, 303 pp. 104 Beeching, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. x, 251 pp. 103 Fetzer, Anita and Christiane Meierkord (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. vi, 300 pp. 102 Leafgren, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. xii, 252 pp. 101 Luke, K. K. and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. x, 295 pp. 100 Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. and Ken Turner (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. viii, 496 pp. 99 Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. and Ken Turner (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. xii, 388 pp. 98 Duszak, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. viii, 522 pp. 97 Maynard, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. xiv, 481 pp. 96 Haverkate, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002. vi, 241 pp. 95 Fitzmaurice, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. viii, 263 pp. 94 McIlvenny, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. x, 332 pp. 93 Baron, Bettina and Helga Kotthoff (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002. xxiv, 357 pp. 92 Gardner, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. xxii, 281 pp. 91 Gross, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. xxviii, 341 pp. 90 Kenesei, István and Robert M. Harnish (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. xxii, 352 pp. 89 Itakura, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. xviii, 231 pp. 88 Bayraktaroğlu, Arın and Maria Sifianou (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. xiv, 439 pp. 87 Mushin, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. 2001. xviii, 244 pp. 86 Ifantidou, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. xii, 225 pp.

85 Collins, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. xx, 384 pp. 84 Andersen, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. ix, 352 pp. 83 Márquez Reiter, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. xviii, 225 pp. 82 Khalil, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. x, 274 pp. 81 Di Luzio, Aldo, Susanne Günthner and Franca Orletti (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. xvi, 341 pp. 80 Ungerer, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. xiv, 286 pp. 79 Andersen, Gisle and Thorstein Fretheim (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. viii, 273 pp. 78 Sell, Roger D.: Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. xiv, 348 pp. 77 Vanderveken, Daniel and Susumu Kubo (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002. vi, 328 pp. 76 Matsui, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. xii, 251 pp. 75 Pilkington, Adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. xiv, 214 pp. 74 Trosborg, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. xvi, 256 pp. 73 Hester, Stephen K. and David Francis (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. viii, 326 pp. 72 Marmaridou, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. xii, 322 pp. 71 Gómez González, María de los Ángeles: The Theme–Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. xxiv, 438 pp. 70 Sorjonen, Marja-Leena: Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. 2001. x, 330 pp. 69 Noh, Eun-Ju: Metarepresentation. A relevance-theory approach. 2000. xii, 242 pp. 68 Arnovick, Leslie K.: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 2000. xii, 196 pp. 67 Taavitsainen, Irma, Gunnel Melchers and Päivi Pahta (eds.): Writing in Nonstandard English. 2000. viii, 404 pp. 66 Jucker, Andreas H., Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. viii, 478 pp. 65 Cooren, François: The Organizing Property of Communication. 2000. xvi, 272 pp. 64 Svennevig, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 2000. x, 384 pp. 63 Bublitz, Wolfram, Uta Lenk and Eija Ventola (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it. Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. xiv, 300 pp. 62 Tzanne, Angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. xiv, 263 pp. 61 Mills, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. xviii, 251 pp. 60 Jacobs, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. xviii, 428 pp. 59 Kamio, Akio and Ken-ichi Takami (eds.): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. x, 398 pp. 58 Rouchota, Villy and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. 1998. xii, 368 pp. 57 Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv (eds.): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. 1998. x, 363 pp. 56 Tanaka, Hiroko: Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. 2000. xiv, 242 pp. 55 Allwood, Jens and Peter Gärdenfors (eds.): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. 1999. x, 201 pp. 54 Hyland, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. 1998. x, 308 pp. 53 Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. 1998. xii, 418 pp. 52 Gillis, Steven and Annick De Houwer (eds.): The Acquisition of Dutch. With a Preface by Catherine E. Snow. 1998. xvi, 444 pp.

51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33

32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

22 21

Boulima, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. 1999. xiv, 338 pp. Grenoble, Lenore A.: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. 1998. xviii, 338 pp. Kurzon, Dennis: Discourse of Silence. 1998. vi, 162 pp. Kamio, Akio: Territory of Information. 1997. xiv, 227 pp. Chesterman, Andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. 1998. viii, 230 pp. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. 1997. xvii, 282 pp. Paltridge, Brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. 1997. x, 192 pp. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Sandra J. Harris: Managing Language. The discourse of corporate meetings. 1997. ix, 295 pp. Janssen, Theo and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. 1996. x, 312 pp. Kotthoff, Helga and Ruth Wodak (eds.): Communicating Gender in Context. 1997. xxvi, 424 pp. Ventola, Eija and Anna Mauranen (eds.): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. 1996. xiv, 258 pp. Diamond, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a close-knit social network. 1996. viii, 184 pp. Herring, Susan C. (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. 1996. viii, 326 pp. Fretheim, Thorstein and Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.): Reference and Referent Accessibility. 1996. xii, 312 pp. Carston, Robyn and Seiji Uchida (eds.): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. 1998. x, 300 pp. Chilton, Paul, Mikhail V. Ilyin and Jacob L. Mey (eds.): Political Discourse in Transition in Europe 1989–1991. 1998. xi, 272 pp. Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. 1995. xvi, 624 pp. Barbe, Katharina: Irony in Context. 1995. x, 208 pp. Goossens, Louis, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie SimonVandenbergen and Johan Vanparys: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. 1995. xii, 254 pp. Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. In honor of Charles J. Fillmore. 1996. x, 322 pp. Wildgen, Wolfgang: Process, Image, and Meaning. A realistic model of the meaning of sentences and narrative texts. 1994. xii, 281 pp. Wortham, Stanton E.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. 1994. xiv, 178 pp. Barsky, Robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other. Discourse theory and the Convention refugee hearing. 1994. x, 272 pp. Van de Walle, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. A pilot study in linguistic politeness. 1993. xii, 454 pp. Suter, Hans-Jürg: The Wedding Report. A prototypical approach to the study of traditional text types. 1993. xii, 314 pp. Stygall, Gail: Trial Language. Differential discourse processing and discursive formation. 1994. xii, 226 pp. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. 1993. x, 346 pp. Maynard, Senko K.: Discourse Modality. Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. 1993. x, 315 pp. Fortescue, Michael, Peter Harder and Lars Kristoffersen (eds.): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. 1992. xiii, 444 pp. Auer, Peter and Aldo Di Luzio (eds.): The Contextualization of Language. 1992. xvi, 402 pp. Searle, John R., Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. 1992. vi, 154 pp.

20 Nuyts, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. 1991. xii, 399 pp. 19 Baker, Carolyn and Allan Luke (eds.): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. 1991. xxi, 287 pp. 18 Johnstone, Barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. 1991. viii, 130 pp. 17 Piéraut-Le Bonniec, Gilberte and Marlene Dolitsky (eds.): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Some aspects of contemporary French-language psycholinguistics research. 1991. vi, 342 pp. 16 Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Discourse Description. Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. 1992. xiii, 409 pp. 15 Komter, Martha L.: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. A study of talks, tasks and ideas. 1991. viii, 252 pp. 14 Schwartz, Ursula V.: Young Children's Dyadic Pretend Play. A communication analysis of plot structure and plot generative strategies. 1991. vi, 151 pp. 13 Nuyts, Jan, A. Machtelt Bolkestein and Co Vet (eds.): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. A functional view. 1990. xii, 348 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. 1991. viii, 338 pp. 11 Luong, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. 1990. x, 213 pp. 10 Murray, Denise E.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. 1991. xii, 176 pp. 9 Luke, K. K.: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. 1990. xvi, 329 pp. 8 Young, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code. A study of academic English. 1991. ix, 304 pp. 7 Lindenfeld, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Marketplaces. 1990. viii, 173 pp. 6:3 Blommaert, Jan and Jef Verschueren (eds.): The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987. Volume 3: The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. 1991. viii, 249 pp. 6:2 Verschueren, Jef (ed.): Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Selected papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987. Volume 2: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. 1991. viii, 339 pp. 6:1 Verschueren, Jef (ed.): Pragmatics at Issue. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987. Volume 1: Pragmatics at Issue. 1991. viii, 314 pp. 5 Thelin, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. 1990. xvi, 490 pp. 4 Raffler-Engel, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor–Patient Interaction. 1989. xxxviii, 294 pp. 3 Oleksy, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. 1988. xiv, 282 pp. 2 Barton, Ellen: Nonsentential Constituents. A theory of grammatical structure and pragmatic interpretation. 1990. xviii, 247 pp. 1 Walter, Bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre. An ethnographic study of what it means to those who use it. 1988. xvii, 264 pp.