6. Style variation and language standard

The corpus of hotel reviews and responses has been examined using different parameters that have made it possible to observe the variation in style of these interactions, and in particular the differences between reviews and responses. The results have shown that there is significant variation in all the parameters studied, and that therefore a generalised overview of the language that appears in this type of digital communication is not possible. On the contrary, it has been possible to verify that the variation in style rests on a complex set of factors that play out in the communicative situation, such as recipient design or target audience, accommodating others and prestige, as mentioned Garrido Medina (1997: 117) in his study of style in language. In addition, it is worth highlighting the notion of adaptability of Verschueren (1999) to the possibilities and limitations (so-called ‘affordances’) of the environment. Thus, the style of reviews and responses differ and is even opposed in the following ways: (i) directionality, (ii) formality and (iii) planning, which reflect, as Herring said, the presence of different social actors. Also worth noting is the variation in number of (sub) standard uses, as well as a different level of observance of standard.

The directionality of reviews and responses has been shown to differ, since the review is built around two possible schemes, similar but variable, which are topic + opinion, or ‘yo’ (I) + opinion, without addressing a specific reader, it being understood that readers are users of the platform, or other travellers. This characteristic shows that the main purpose of the review is to evaluate their stay at the hotel, and to recommend it or not to other travellers. The relationship established with these potential readers is one of equality or solidarity, which is why an informal tone is used. Hotels, on the other hand, base their responses from a ‘we’ in representation of the hotel team and marks a corporate stance. Hotels address guests in a formal and elaborate way, projecting an image of professionalism and mastery of the standard, formal uses of language. These traits are closely related to both the locus (the field) and the functional and interpersonal tenor.

Hotels’ responses appearing in the corpus are marked by greater formality. Almost all studies on technology-mediated communication, both in English and Spanish, emphasis informality as a distinctive feature. In our corpus, on the other hand, the selected hotel brands address guests formally, unlike users, who use informal language. It seems, therefore, that these companies intend to portray a professional and corporate image with this formal language.

In other words, hotels seek to use elements that readers unequivocally identify with formal language, such as the use of polite forms of deference (usted / le / Sr. /Sra.), politeness formulas and elaborate writing styles. Hotels’ responses are framed in a model that pre-dates and exists outside the digital medium, that of the commercial letter. They are presented as a form that sits apart from reviews and the medium, and that, again, seeks to project a professional and corporate image (Suau Jiménez 2019). Reviews, however, share informal traits, but do so to different degrees, suggesting a more spontaneous approach that lacks a clear model, depending on individual users (their digital writing skills and level of use). In this sense, this work provides new results, which contrast with previous studies. Thus, Cantamutto’s (2107) work on SMS messages sent between employees and managers in a work environment showed that they used a fundamentally informal and vernacular style. In addition, studies carried out on responses from companies to customers on Chinese digital platforms (Feng & Ren 2019) found that companies addressed the guest using informal and familiar language, with