Gender Differences In The Language Use Of Malaysian Teen Bloggers

Zaini Amir, Hazirah Abidin, Saadiyah Darus, Kemboja Ismail

Abstract


Past researches have shown that there is a difference in language use between males and females attributed by their roles and society’s stereotyping or perceptions. Fast changing technology has provided another means for young people to express themselves using language as a tool.  This study investigates the differences in language use by female and male Malaysian teenage bloggers who use blogs as a diary to express their daily issues about life.  The language used is informal and similar to spoken language. Using a qualitative approach, this study aims to examine gender differences observed in the language features used by male and female teenagers in their blogs. The findings  show that there are differences between male and female bloggers in the frequencies of five language features which are ‘intensifiers’, ‘hedging’, ‘tag questions’, ‘empty adjectives’ and ‘adverbs’. The results of the study show that differences in language use among teenage bloggers may largely be attributed to gender.


Keywords


English language use, gender, blogs, teenagers, language features.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akhmaliah Abd. Rahim (2009). An analysis of language features in blogs of female undergraduates. Unpublished B.A. project paper. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Azni Mohd Zain (2008). Blogging as a social literacy event: The identities and literacy practices of bilingual participants. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Ohlstein, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns, Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Bresnahan, M., Inoue, Y., Liu, W.Y., & Nishida, T. (2001). Changing gender roles in prime-time commercials in Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Sex Roles, 45(1), 117-131.

Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Dubois, B. L. (1987). Something in the order of around forty-four: Imprecise numerical

expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16(4), 527-541.

Gyllgard, L. (2006). Gender differences in Swedish students’ written English and students’ identification of female and male language features. Unpublished Bachelor Thesis. Karlstad University. (Online) Retrieved 21 October 2011, from http://kau.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:6329

Hearn, J. & Kimmel, M. S. (2006). Changing studies on men and masculinities. In K. Davis, E. Evans & J. Lorber (Eds.), Handbook of gender and women’s studies (pp. 53-71). London: Sage Publication.

Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Bonus, S., & Wright, E. (2005). Weblogs as a bridging genre. Information, Technology & People Journal, 18(2), 142-171

Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 (2), (Online) Retrieved 21 October 2011, from http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/2/00328.HTML

Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. 2nd Edition. Harlow: Longman.

Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185-205.

House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.

Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 1. (Online) Retrieved 21 October 2011, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-455.

Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Jones, S. & Myhill, D. (2007). Discourses of difference? Examining gender differences in

linguistic characteristics of writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(2), 456-482.

Lakoff, T. R. (1975). Languages and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal. Focus issue: Technology in the service of language learning, 93, 769-782.

Low, G. (1996). Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility

hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 1-37.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mindell, P. (2001). How to say it for women. Paramus, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Nowson, S. (2006). The language of Weblogs: A study of genre and individual differences. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh. (Online) Retrieved 21 October 2011, from http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1113/1/thesis.pdf

Olsson, L. (2000). A study of gender-related differences in introductory letters. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Lulea Tekniska Universitet. (Online) Retrieved 21 October 2011, from http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1773/2000/62/LTU-CUPP-0062-SE.pdf

Rosseti, P. (1998). Gender differences in e-mail communcaition. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(7). (Online) Retrieved 21 October 2011, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Rossetti-GenderDif.html

Rubin, D. & Greene, K. (1995). The surpressed voice hypothesis in women’s writing: Effects of revision on gender-typical style. In D. Robin (Ed.), Composing social identity in written language (pp. 133-150). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaurn.

Shahsavar, Z. & Tan, B. H. (2011). Does cognitive style affect bloggers’ attitude in an online learning environment? GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 159-171.

Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43. Spillner, Bernd.

Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and gender: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge.

Zaini Amir, Kemboja Ismail, & Supyan Hussin. (2011). Blogs in language learning: Maximizing students’ collaborative writing. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 18, 537-543.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021