2004
Volume 23, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This paper discusses the expression of emotional involvement in informal computer-mediated communication (CMC). While related research is quite fragmentary through its exclusive focus on a limited number of expressive markers or the inclusion of just one independent variable, the present study includes a wide range of expressive markers and three independent vari­ables. The data reveal strikingly consistent age and gender correlates across all expressive markers and a strong correlation between the preferences of younger adolescents and girls. Furthermore, the study highlights a major impact of medium type. It calls for a refinement of the operationalization of the variable medium, as apart from its inherent characteristics (private/public, synchronous/asynchronous), the nature and goal of the interaction (which is also partly related to the type of social media that people use) trigger specific linguistic practices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2018.3.003.HILT
2019-01-01
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/23/3/03_NEDTAA2018.3.HILT.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2018.3.003.HILT&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, Jannis(2005). Research on youth language. In: UlrichAmmon, NorbertDittmar, Klaus J.Mattheier & PeterTrudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1496–1505.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Androutsopoulos, Jannis(2011). Language change and digital media: A review of conceptions and evidence. In: ToreKristiansen & NikolasCoupland (eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press, 145–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Fine & Anat Rachel Shimoni(2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text23, 321–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, James W. Pennebaker & Jonathan Schler(2007). Mining the blogosphere: Age, gender and the varieties of self-expression. First monday12, n.p.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, James W. Pennebaker & Jonathan Schler(2009). Automatically profiling the author of an anonymous text. Communications of the ACM. Inspiring women in computing52, 119–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baron, Naomi S.(1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible language18, 118–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baron, Naomi S.(2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of language and social psychology23, 397–423.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baron, Naomi S.(2008). Are instant messages speech? The world of IM. In: Naomi S.Baron (ed.), Always on: Language in an online mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 45–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bing, Janet M. & Victoria L. Bergvall(1996). The question of questions: Beyond binary thinking. In: JenniferCoates (ed.) Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 495–510.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coates, Jennifer(1993). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crystal, David(2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Daelemans, Walter(2013). Explanation in computational stylometry. In: International conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics. Berlin: Springer, 451–462.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Decker, Benny & Reinhild Vandekerckhove(2017). Global features of online communication in local Flemish: Social and medium-related determinants. Folia linguistica51, 253–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Decker, Benny(2014). De chattaal van Vlaamse tieners: Een taalgeografische analyse van Vlaamse (sub)standaardiseringsprocessen tegen de achtergrond van de internationale chatcultuur. University of Antwerp, unpublished doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eckert, Penelope(1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In: FlorianCoulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eckert, Penelope(1998). Gender and sociolinguistic variation. In: JenniferCoates (ed.), Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 64–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eckert, Penelope(2003). Language and adolescent peer groups. Journal of language and social psychology22, 112–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Efron, Bradley & Robert J. Tibshirani(1998). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton/London/New York/Washington D.C.: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eisikovits, Edina(2006). Girl-talk/boy-talk: Sex differences in adolescent speech. In: JenniferCoates (ed.), Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 42–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Field, Andy(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Herring, Susan C.(1996). Two variants of an electronic message system. In: Susan C.Herring (ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Herring, Susan C.(2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In: DeborahSchiffrin, DeborahTannen & Heidi E.Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, 612–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Herring, Susan C. & Anna Martinson(2004). Assessing gender authenticity in computer-­mediated language use: Evidence from an identity game. Journal of language and social ­psychology23, 424–446.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Herring, Susan C.(2012). Grammar and electronic communication. In: Carol A.Chapelle (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. S.l.: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmes, J.(1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Huffaker, David A. & Sandra L. Calvert(2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of computer-mediated communication10, n.p.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ito, Rika & Sali A. Tagliamonte(2003). Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in society32, 257–279.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jespersen, Otto(1922). Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher(2001). Gesprochene Sprache und geschriebene Sprache / Langage parlé et langage écrit. In: GünterHoltus, MichaelMetzeltin & ChristianSchmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (vol. 1:2). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 584–627.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher(2011). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kucukyilmaz, Tayfun, B. Barla Cambazogly, Cevdet Aykanat & Fazli Can(2006). Chat mining for gender prediction. In: International conference on advances in information systems. Berlin: Springer, 274–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lorenz, Gunter R.(1999). Adjective intensification. Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lorenz, Gunter R.(2002). Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalisation and grammaticalisation of intensifiers in Modern English. In: DiewaldWischer (ed.), Typological studies in language (vol. 49): New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 143–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Méndez-Naya, Belén(2003). On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swithe. English studies84, 372–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Newman, Matthew L., Carla J. Groom, Lori D. Handelman & James W. Pennebaker(2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse processes45, 211–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Paradis, Carita(2000). It’s well weird. Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In: John M.Kirk (eds.), Corpora galore. Analyses and techniques in describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 147–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Parkins, Róisín(2012). Gender and emotional expressiveness: An analysis of prosodic features in emotional expression. Griffith working papers in pragmatics and intercultural communication5, 46‐54.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Partington, Alan(1993). Corpus evidence of language change: The case of intensifiers. In: MonaBaker, GillFrancis & ElenaTognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 177–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Peersman, Claudia, Walter Daelemans & Leona Van Vaerenbergh(2011). Predicting age and gender in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on search and mining user-generated contents, 37–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Peersman, Claudia, Walter Daelemans, Reinhild Vandekerckhove, Bram Vandekerckhove & Leona Van Vaerenbergh(2016). The effects of age, gender and region on non-standard linguistic variation in online social networks. <arxiv.org/abs/1601.02431>
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pennebaker, James W.(2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Peters, Hans(1994). Degree adverbs in early modern English. In: DieterKastovsky (ed.), Studies in early modern English. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 269–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pyles, Thomas & John Algeo(1993). The origins and development of the English language. Boston: Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik & David Crystal(1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schlobinski, Peter(2005). Mündlichkeit/Schriftlichkeit in den Neuen Medien. In: LudwigEichninger & WernerKallmeyer (eds.), Standardvariation: Wieviel Variation verträgt die Deutsche Sprache?Berlin: De Gruyter, 126–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Schwartz, H. Andrew, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Margaret L. Kern, Lukasz Dziurzynski, Stephanie M. Ramones, Megha Agrawal, Achal Shah, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, Martin E.P. Seligman & Lyle H. Ungar(2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE8, n.p.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stenström, Anna-Brita, Gisle Andersen & Ingrid Kristine Hasund(2002). Non-standard grammar and the trendy use of intensifiers. In: Anna-BritaStenström, GisleAndersen & IngridKristine Hasund (eds.), Trends in teenage talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Stoffel, Cornelis(1901). Intensives and down-toners. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Chris Roberts(2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American speech80, 280–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tagliamonte, Sali A.(2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English language and linguistics12, 361- 394.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Derek Denis(2008). Linguistic ruin? Lol! Instant messaging and teen language. American speech83, 3–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Thurlow, Crispin & Michele Poff(2013). Text messaging. In: SusanHerring, DieterStein & TuijaVirtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Varnhagen, Connie K., G. Peggy McFall, Nicole Pugh, Lisa Routledge, Heather Sumida-MacDonald & Trudy E. Kwong(2010). Lol: New language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and writing23, 719–733.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Vercammen, Jens (2014-2015). “Echt massiv sketchy”. Versterkers in de chattaal van Vlaamse jongeren: Een corpusonderzoek naar gender-, leeftijds- en regionale verschillen. Unpublished master thesis, University of Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Verheijen, Lieke(2015). Out-of-the-ordinary orthography: The use of textisms in Dutch youngsters’ written computer-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the second postgraduate and academic researchers in linguistics at York (PARLAY 2014), 127–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Verheijen, Lieke(2016). De macht van nieuwe media: Hoe Nederlandse jongeren communiceren in sms’jes, chats en tweets. In: DorienVan De Mieroop, LievenBuysse, RoelCoesemans & PaulGillaerts (eds.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Leuven/Den Haag: Acco, 275–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wolf, Alecia(2000). Emotional expression online: Gender differences in emoticon use. Cyberpsychology & behavior3, 827–833.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2018.3.003.HILT
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2018.3.003.HILT
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error