CFP last date
20 May 2024
Call for Paper
June Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming June edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 May 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Enhancing Privacy Preservation: Multi-Attribute Protection with P-Sensitive K-Anonymity

Twinkle Patel Kiran Amin
Random Articles
Reseach Article

A Computerized Analysis of Gender Linguistic Patterns as Reflected in the Jordanians’ Facebook Statuses: Lexical Items, Affect, Theme, Identity and More

by Awni Shati Etaywe
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 182 - Number 31
Year of Publication: 2018
Authors: Awni Shati Etaywe
10.5120/ijca2018918242

Awni Shati Etaywe . A Computerized Analysis of Gender Linguistic Patterns as Reflected in the Jordanians’ Facebook Statuses: Lexical Items, Affect, Theme, Identity and More. International Journal of Computer Applications. 182, 31 ( Dec 2018), 15-24. DOI=10.5120/ijca2018918242

@article{ 10.5120/ijca2018918242,
author = { Awni Shati Etaywe },
title = { A Computerized Analysis of Gender Linguistic Patterns as Reflected in the Jordanians’ Facebook Statuses: Lexical Items, Affect, Theme, Identity and More },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { Dec 2018 },
volume = { 182 },
number = { 31 },
month = { Dec },
year = { 2018 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 15-24 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume182/number31/30225-2018918242/ },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2018918242 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-07T01:12:59.172508+05:30
%A Awni Shati Etaywe
%T A Computerized Analysis of Gender Linguistic Patterns as Reflected in the Jordanians’ Facebook Statuses: Lexical Items, Affect, Theme, Identity and More
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 182
%N 31
%P 15-24
%D 2018
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

Facebook has revolutionized the way people share information and use language which has the potential to mark individual and collective identity. This makes exploring patterns in language use of a paramount significance. One conventional marker of what is being expressed and how is the word used in writing. Focusing on the used words, this study aims at exploring the potential distinguishing patterns in language used by Jordanian male and female authors of self-generated Facebook-status texts. Data were collected from a purposive sample by means of the 'social network' model, and then categorized and analyzed statistically using eclectic computerized (stylometric and online automated) analysis tools, including LIWC. Results demonstrated the impact of gender on discriminating language patterns and, thus, might facilitate gender specific status-predictability. Men and women wrote their statuses in statistically different ways. Women exhibited higher frequency of use of (social) lexical items, first person and second person pronouns, and optimistic/'upbeat' tone. Men's statuses revealed more third person pronouns, positive affect and clout in their writing. Geopolitical and sport theme-related words characterized male-authored themes and male semantic orientation. This study emphasizes the value of linguistic work with focus on resources used in social media to mirror themes, affect, tone, clout and more. It also provides implications for (electronic) discourse analysis, text/corpus analysis, sociolinguistics and forensic linguistics.

References
  1. Tausczik, Y. and Pennebaker, J. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29 (1): 24–54.
  2. Olsson, J. 2008. Forensic Linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  3. Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., and Shimoni, A. 2003. Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23(3).
  4. Wiebe, J., Bruce, R. and O’Hara, T. 1999. Development and use of a gold-standard data set for subjectivity classifications. In ACL-99: 246–253.
  5. Newman, M., Groom, C., Handelman, L. and Pennebaker, J. 2008. Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45:211–236. DOI: 10.1080/01638530802073712
  6. Gibbons, J. 2009. Language and law. In Wei, L, and V. Cook, (Eds.), Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language for the Real World, vol 2. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  7. Wright, D. 2014. Stylistics versus statistics: A corpus linguistic approach to combining techniques in forensic authorship analysis using Enron emails. PhD thesis. University of Leeds.
  8. Pennebaker, J., Chung, C., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A. and Booth, R. 2007. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC 2007, in LIWC Manual 2007. LIWC. net.
  9. Wang, Y., Burke, M. and Kraut, R. 2013. Gender, topic, and audience response: An analysis of user-generated content on Facebook. In Mackay, W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems held 27 April-2 May at Paris, France. New York, NY: ACM, 31-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470659
  10. Zappavigna, M. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Bloomsbury.
  11. Thetela, P. 2001. Critique discourses and ideology in newspaper reports: a discourse analysis of the South African press reports on the 1998 SADC’s military intervention in Lesotho. Discourse and Society, 12 (3): 347-370.
  12. Van Dijk, T. 1995. Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society, 6 (2): 243-298. London: Sage.
  13. Samuel, M. 2012. The Egyptian revolution, Al-Jazeera, Twitter and Facebook- The interaction effect of new media on the Egyptian revolution. MA Thesis. Leiden University.
  14. Preston, J., Kirkpatrick, D., Fahim, K. and Shadid, A. 2011. Movement began with outrage and a Facebook page that gave it an outlet. New York Times, 6: 10.
  15. Bere, A. 2012. A comparative study of student experiences of unquitious learning via mobile devices and learner management systems at a South African university. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications. Cape Peninsula University of Technology, http://www.zaw3.co.za/index.php/ZA-WWW/2012/paper/viewFile/537/160.
  16. Yeboah, J. and Ewur, G. 2014. The impact of WhatsApp messenger usage on students performance in tertiary institutions in Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(6): 157-164.
  17. Al-Khatib, M. and Enaq, H. 2008. Language choice in mobile text messages among Jordanian university students. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 21:37-65.‬‏‬‬‬‬
  18. Baron, N. 2008. Always On: Language in An Online And Mobile World. Oxford University Press.
  19. Pennebaker, J. and Graybeal, A. 2001. Patterns of natural language use: Disclosure, personality, and social integration. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10, 90–93.
  20. Pennebaker, J., Mehl, M. and Niederhoffer, K. 2003. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54: 547–577.
  21. Calder, B., Malthouse, E. and Schaedel, U. 2009. An experimental study of Relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23: 321-331
  22. Carr, C., Schrock, D. and Dauterman, P. 2012. Speech acts within Facebook status messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(2): 176-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12438535.
  23. Ilyas, S., and Khushi, Q. 2012. Facebook status updates: A speech act analysis. Academic Research International, 3(2): 500-507.
  24. Lin, H. and Qiu, L. 2013. Two sites, two voices: Linguistic differences between Facebook status updates and tweets. In Rau, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th International Conference, CCD 2013 Cross-Cultural Design: Cultural Differences in Everyday Life, held 21-26 July at Las Vegas, NV, USA.
  25. Parkins, R. 2012. Gender and emotional expressiveness: An analysis of prosodic features in emotional expression. Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 46-54.
  26. Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J. 2018. Speech and Language Processing (3rd edn). Stanford University.
  27. Denti, L., Barbopuolos, I., Nilsson, I., Holmberg, L., Thulin, M., Wendeblad, M., Andén, L. and Davidsson. E. 2012. Sweden’s Largest Facebook Study. Göteborg: Gothenburg Research Institute.
  28. Winter, D. and McClelland, D. 1978. Thematic analysis: An empirically derived measure of the effects of liberal arts education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 8-16.
  29. Miller, G. 1995. The Science of Words. New York: Scientific American Library.
  30. Kacewicz, E., Pennebaker, J., Davis, M., Jeon, M. and Graesser, A. 2013. Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 33, 125143.
  31. Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  32. Eggins, S. 2005. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd Ed). New York and London: Continuum.
  33. Seals, C. 2012. When a ‘non-issue’ becomes an issue in discourse surrounding LGBT communities. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 1 (2): 230-255.
  34. Omoniyi, T. and White, G. 2006. Sociolinguistics of Identity. London and New York: Continuum.
  35. Omoniyi, T. 2006. Hierarchy of identities. In Omoniyi, T. and G. White (Eds), Sociolinguistics of Identity. London and New York: Continuum.
  36. Tabouret-keller. A. 1997. Language and identity. In F. Coulmas (Eds). The handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 315-26.
  37. Block, D. 2006. Identity in applied linguistics. In Omoniyi, T. and G. White, (Eds), Sociolinguistics of Identity. London and New York: Continuum.
  38. Wardhaugh, R. 2002. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  39. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. 1978. Belfast: Change and variation in an urban vernacular. In P. Trudgill (Eds). Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, London: Arnold.
  40. Scherer, K. 2000. Psychological models of emotion. In Borod, J. (Eds.), The Neuropsychology of Emotion, 137–162. Oxford.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Linguistic pattern gender lexical item theme affect tone

Powered by PhDFocusTM