- posted on
- December 30, 2008
- by Liz Danzico
Anatomy of a Salutation
Salutations have three simple purposes in email. They are the greeting, the email handshake. They set the tone and tempo for the communication that follows. And they establish a hierarchy, depending on whether the writer attaches a title (e.g., “Professor,” “Miss”), thereby creating a formal separation, or a lack thereof.
We know this; many of us have been writing some form of email now for nearly two decades.
But what we may not realize is that when an individual offers a salutation, he or she is not going through some formal motions. He or she is engaged in an activity of relationship-building. A variety of salutations will likely be used over the course of an email correspondence, and their evolution reveals something about the developing relationship (or the perceived one) between the correspondents. Just as you wouldn’t ignore body language that indicates whether someone is intending to shake your hand or high-five you, nor should you ignore email-greeting intentions — no matter how well you know someone.
Components of a Salutation
A quick review:
The components of a salutation are simple. The salutation of “Dear” is common in both formal and informal correspondence, as in “Dear John,” both in British and American English. While this is still standard in email communication, it is more acceptable to drop the “Dear” in email even with a stranger. A comma, colon, dash, exclamation point or other favorite punctuation mark follows the name, depending on formality.
Professional titles (“Doctor,” “The Honorable ____”) tend to increase the formality of the email immediately, while social titles (“Mr.,” “Mrs.”) are formal without being stuffy. Titles, however, when used between peers, should be dropped after one subsequent thread unless the intention is to make visible a difference in age or professional hierarchy.
Dropped Salutation
With the ability to directly message through services such as Twitter, salutations can be dropped altogether (more on that in a moment). In places where salutations are still being used, I was interested to study how a greeting evolved over the course of a single communication stream between two people or two parties.
In the second cycle of an email correspondence, it’s typical for writers to switch to a less formal greeting or drop the greeting altogether, depending on the relationship between the corresponders. In the third cycle, writers may drop the greeting altogether. Writers who start out with “Dear,” are more likely to drop the initial greeting, and writers who begin with the strong “Greetings!!” are most likely to be met with a non-salutation from their responders.
In an informal survey of my recent inbox, it appears that it takes approximately 3.5 emails for a responder to drop the greeting. Depending on the initial greeting and intent of the writer, the pattern appears as follows:
| 1st EMAIL | 2nd EMAIL | 3rd EMAIL | SUBSEQUENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dear [Title] [Name], | Dear [Name], | Hi [Name], | Hi [Name], |
| Dear [Name], | Hi [Name], | Hi, | [Name], |
| Hello [Name], | Hi [Name], | [Name], | - |
| Hi [Name], | Hi [Name], | Hi [Name], | [Name], |
| Hey [Name], | Hey [Name], | [Name], | - |
| Hi All, | Hi [Name], | All, | [Name], |
| Hi, | Hi [Name], | - | - |
| Hey, | Hey [Name], | - | - |
| Greetings, | - | - | - |
| Hey, | - | - | - |
What’s consistent is really just the second email; the responder seems to match the perceived attitude of the note and respond with a greeting. The exception, however, is time. After even a bit of time has passed, the cycle must begin all over again.
Response Responsibility
If one party fails to respond in kind to the salutation he or she’s been dealt, the return email lacks empathy. Each salutation must match the attitude and subsequent cadence that’s unfolded over the course of the conversations. (This, assuming there is time to pay attention to such things. Carrying on as if there is time to do so.)
In the 1898 book, A Guide to Letter Writing for Ladies, which has some fairly stringent instructions on how to compose a salutation as a woman: “If they wish to cultivate your acquaintance, the fact will soon be evident from the tone of their letters to you. Then, but not until then, you may respond, if you wish to, with proportionate friendliness.” A party should change the salutation (and valediction for that matter) to match the growing relationship and increased informality that’s being introduced by one person over a series of threads.
Emerging Etiquette
Today, among friends and close colleagues, skipping the salutation is accepted — preferred even — and quick email communication has been all but abandoned for the 140 characters of Twitter direct messages, bypassing the email client altogether. The job of salutations is now done by the pre-qualification of Twitter Followers and, therefore, no greeting is necessary. Relationships expedite as a result, is one theory. So there is a Twitter/Email divide forming that will be interesting to watch.
Relationships, not Rigmarole
Clearly the 1898-style advice is far outdated, but what is still imperative, even today, is that one not ignore the signs of a salutation. A salutation is the beginning of an emerging relationship, and the signs have to be reciprocated as such. Whether it be guidelines from Henry Dreyfuss in Designing for People (1955) on mapping the human body to forge ergonomic interfaces, or Erving Goffman in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) on interpreting facial gestures, or Donald Norman in The Design of Everyday Things (1990) on observing people to create natural affordances, we’ve been urged to pay attention to human responses so we can better design for people. It would be interesting to pay that same attention to our own communication with one another as relationships continue to evolve in new ways.

Hi Liz,
Interesting study. You might be interested in reading Send, by Shipley and Schwalbe. It’s a light read on the topic of email communication. I read it last year, but I can’t remember if it includes any thoughts on Twitter.
Great article. It might also be interesting to look at how people end messages; with ‘Regards’, ‘Kind regards’, ‘Best’, ‘Cheers’, etc. in the same manner.
[...] Bobulate parses contemporary uses of the salutation (via): [...]
.
So interesting! Thank you for this.
.
Is it ever acceptable to parse a salutation with a comma? I have a coworker who constantly will write “Hey, guys,” or “Hey, Joe,” as a salutation and it drives me nuts. I have consulted a number of style guides but have not had much luck finding anything on the topic. Thanks!
[...] But back to my first question. Liz Danzico did an informal survey of her inbox and calculated that it takes 3.5 e-mails for a responder to drop the salutation. Check out her fascinating post here. [...]
I just wanted to respond to Frank’s question about including a comma after “Hi” or “Hey.” I think Frank and his coworker are both wrong. It should be “Hey, Joe.”
The reason is that “hey” or “hi” is not simply a casual substitute for “dear.” “Dear” is an adjective, but “hi” is an interjection. “Hey, Joe” is a complete sentence that begins with an interjection, so “hey” needs to be followed by a comma. There is no comma at the end because is is a full sentence, which should send with a period (or exclamation point, if you’re really excited to be emailing Joe). While “Hey Joe,” is commonly used, it is not technically correct.
This is a real pet peeve of mine, so thanks for indulging me.
P.S. Hi Liz! Hope you’re doing well.
@Frank: I am intrigued by this as well. The interjecting comma is a pet peeve of mine as well, and I am on the Frank-side of the fence as it were with this argument.
@Stephanie: When walking down the street in the United States, there is a common greeting of “How are you?” There is no need to answer. One is not expected to answer. “How are you” is not intended to be a question, rather a salutation of sorts. I would argue that “Hi Joe,” when used as a salutation is being used as a adjectival phrase, where “Hi” is the adjective.
“Hi, Frank,” has always looked awkward to me because while it’s not fulfilling the same semantic role as the “Dear Frank,” it’s being used in the same syntactical structure in an email. “Hi” is certainly an interjection, but when used as an adjective, does it need to be?
Two commas, therefore, is overkill. There is no salutatory precedent for it.
Is there some sort of authoritative guideline on this, I can’t be sure. But if Twitter @s and #s are any indication, we’ll come to consensus soon enough.
Thank you very much, Liz!
.
Interesting comments.
How correct or incorrect is: Hi, Joe!
[...] pedig szeretnék mindenki szíves figyelmébe ajánlani egy nagyon érdekes tanulmányt, a köszönések anatómiájáról. Nagyon találó, tényleg erősen redukálódnak a köszönések minden emailváltás alkalmával, [...]
I think message ending is also important. It conveys sender’s emotions in a subtle way and the way the message is intended to be interpreted. Consider the following endings:
(1) - evgeni [dash + lower case name]: very informal, sent to a coworker
(2) - Evgeni [dash + name] : a bit less informal, sent to a boss
(3) Thank You, Evgeni : very formal, sent to an unknown person
(4) Thanks, Evgeni : less formal
(5) Regards, Evgeni : want to be polite
(6) Regards [without a name] : conveys an anger or coercion to do something
(7+) combination of the above
@Evgeni: I could agree with you more about the message ending. Thus my post last year on valedictions. I’m still adding to the topic informally, and plan to revisit it again.