Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:59:00.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender and Text Messaging in an Iranian Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Neda Gohardehi  and
Amer Gheitury
Neda Gohardehi
Affiliation:
Razi University, Iran
Amer Gheitury*
Affiliation:
Razi University, Iran
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Focusing on four linguistic domains, purpose/manner of communication, preferring local dialects, politeness, and volume of use, this study aims to explore how gender is reflected in messages produced by Iranian female and male students. A corpus of 2,116 text messages was analyzed. Participants also filled out a questionnaire on how frequently they used text messaging. Results indicated females to be more prolific users of messaging. As far as function is concerned, while texts produced by females were for the most part relational, involving an emotional language, males frequently employed messages for informative-transactional functions which were less wordy and in more authoritative language. In addition, males were more likely than females to employ their local dialect and forms considered less polite.

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , June 2014 , pp. 535 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Iranian Studies 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Amer Gheitury is Associate Professor of theoretical linguistics, Razi University, Iran.

References

1 “ITU (International Telecommunication Union),” Free Statistics, Key 2005–2010 ICT Data, accessed April 10, 2011, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/; Naomi S. Baron and Elise M. Campbell, “Gender and Mobile Phones in Cross-National Context,” Language Sciences 34 (2012): 13.

2 Holmes, Janet, Women, Men, and Politeness (New York, 1995)Google Scholar; Labov, William, “The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change,” Language Variation and Change 2 (1991): 205–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tannen, Deborah, Gender and Discourse (New York, 1994)Google Scholar.

3 Baron and Campbell, “Gender and Mobile Phones”; Baron, Naomi S. and Segerstad, Ylva Hård af, “Cross-Cultural Patterns in Mobile-Phone Use: Public Space and Reachability in Sweden, the USA and Japan,” New Media and Society 12, no. 1 (2010): 13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lemish, Dafna and Cohen, Akiba A., “On the Gendered Nature of Mobile Phone Culture in Israel,” Sex Roles 52, no. 7/8 (2005): 511–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanom, N., and Pike, H., “Style and Content in E-Mails and Letters to Male and Female Friends,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23, no. 3 (2004): 369–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Language and Gender (New York, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Baron and Hård af Segerstad, “Cross-Cultural Patterns in Mobile-Phone Use”; Goumi, A., Volckaert-Legrier, O., Bert-Erboul, A., and Berincot, J., “SMS Length and Function: A Comparative Study of 13- to 18-year-old Females and Males,” Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliqué 61 (2011): 175–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hijazi-Omari, H. and Ribak, R., “Playing with Fire: On the Domestication of the Mobile Phone among Palestinian Teenage Females in Israel,” Information, Communication and Society 11, no. 2 (2008): 149–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lemish and Cohen, “On the Gendered Nature of Mobile Phone.”

6 Döring, N., Hellwig, K., and Klimsa, P., “Mobile Communication among Youth in Germany,” in Wien: A Sense of Place: The Global and the Local in Mobile Communication, ed. Nyiri, K. (Vienna, 2005), 209–20Google Scholar.

7 Goumi et al., “SMS Length and Function,” 182; Jane Guiller and Alan Durndell, “Students’ Linguistic Behaviour in Online Discussion Groups: Does Gender Matter?,” Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007): 2240–55.

8 Tannen, Deborah, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (London, 1991), 330Google Scholar; Coates, Jennifer, Women, Men, and Language (New York, 1993)Google Scholar.

9 Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., and Blau, S., “The Gender-Linked Effect in Primary and Secondary Students’ Impromptu Essays,” Sex Roles 23 (1990): 439–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mehl, M.R. and Pennebaker, J.W., “The Sounds of Social Life: A Psychometric Analysis of Students’ Daily Social Environments and Natural Conversations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (2003): 857–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Miyake, Keiko, “How Young Japanese Express Their Emotions Visually in Mobile Phone Messages: A Sociolinguistic Analysis,” Japanese Studies 27, no. 1 (2007): 53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, D.J., Kato, Y., and Kato, S., “Comparing Cultural and Gender Differences in the Informal Mobile Telephone Text Messages of Japanese and American College Students,” Waseda Journal of Human Sciences 22, no. 2 (2009): 71–86Google Scholar.

11 Lakoff, Robin, Language and Woman's Place (New York, 1975); Peter Trudgill, Introducing Language and Society (London, 1992)Google Scholar.

12 Talbot, Mary M., Language and Gender: An Introduction (Malden, MA, 1998)Google Scholar.

13 M. Ritchie Key, “Status and Standard/NonStandard Language” (1975), http://www.nathanielturner.com/statusandstandardlanguage.html.

14 Holmes, Janet, “Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals,” Australian Journal of Communication 20 (1993): 125–49Google Scholar; Tannen, Gender and Discourse.

15 Brown, N.S. and Levinson, S., Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colley et al., “Style and Content in E-mails and Letters”; Janet Holmes, “Paying Compliments: A Sex-Preferential Politeness Strategy,” Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1988): 445–65.

16 Brown, A., “The Language and Communication of SMS: An Exploratory Study of Young Adults’ Text-Messaging” (BA diss., Cardiff University, 2002)Google Scholar.

17 Baron and Hård af Segerstad, “Cross-Cultural Patterns in Mobile-Phone Use,” 28; Colley et al., “Style and Content”; Goumi et al., “SMS Length and Function,” 182–3.

18 Newman, M.L., Groom, C.J., Handelman, L.D., and Pennebaker, J.W., “Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14,000 Text Samples,” Discourse Processes 45 (2008): 211–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 H. Maleki, Mobile Text Messaging: Does Text Abbreviations Knowledge Affect Children's Writing? (2003), 192–230.

20 Independent two-proportion z-test is a parametric statistical test applied to compare two proportions created by two random samples or two subgroups of one random sample.

21 Independent t-test is a form of the t-test, a parametric statistical method, which is used to compare the difference between the means of two sets of scores or values when there is no association between them.

22 A chi-square test is a statistical test commonly used to calculate independence and to determine the probability of obtaining the observed results by chance. Testing independence determines whether two or more observations across two populations are dependent on each other.

23 Aries, E., Men and Women in Interaction: Reconsidering the Differences (New York: 1996)Google Scholar; Danet, B., “Text as Mask: Gender, Play, and Performance on the Internet”, in Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, ed. Jones, S. (Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998), 129–58Google Scholar.

24 Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender, 47–50.

25 Susan C. Herring, “Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier” (1994), http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Gender_issues/cmc_and_gender (accessed December 3, 1999).

26 Coates, Women, Men, and Language; Tannen, You Just Don't Understand, 330.

27 Brown, A., “The Language and Communication of SMS: An Exploratory Study of Young Adults’ Text-Messaging” (BA diss., Cardiff University, 2002)Google Scholar; Baron and Hård af Segerstad, “Cross-Cultural Patterns in Mobile-Phone Use,” 28; Goumi et al., “SMS Length and Function,” 182–3.

28 Holmes, “Paying Compliments”; Tannen, You Just Don't Understand, 335.