Instant Messaging (IM) is becoming a mainstay for online one-to-one communication. Although IM is popularly described as a written version of informal speech, little empirical investigation of the linguistic nature of IM exists. Moreover, although gender issues are being addressed for one-to-many forms of computer-mediated communication, we have no comparable studies of IM. This article offers a linguistic profile of American college student IM conversations. In addition to analyzing conversational scaffolding and lexical issues, the article identifies gender divergences in IM usage. Some differences reflect commonly reported functional gender distinctions in face-to-face spoken conversation; other differences indicate gender-based attitudes toward the importance of language standards in speech and writing.
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23, 321-346.
2.
Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language, 18, 118-141.
3.
Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language and Communication, 18, 133-170.
4.
Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it’s heading. London and New York: Routledge.
5.
Baron, N. S. (2003). Language and the Internet. In A. Farghali (Ed.), The Stanford handbook for language engineers (pp. 59-127). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
6.
Baron, N.S.,& Ling, R. (2003, October). IM and SMS: A linguistic comparison.Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
7.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1997). Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In T. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (pp. 253-275). Helsinki: Modern Language Society.
11.
Boneva, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). Email, gender, and personal relations. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 372-403). Oxford: Blackwell.
12.
Boneva, B., Quinn, A., Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., & Shklovski, I. (in press). Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Information technology at home. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
Cameron, D. (1998). Gender, language, and discourse: A review essay. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23, 995-973.
14.
Chambers, J. K. (1992). Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English World-Wide, 13, 173-218.
15.
Collot, M.,& Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, men, and language (2nd ed.). London and New York:Longman.
17.
Coates, J. (Ed.) (1998). Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
18.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender and identity on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 129-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identities in high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8-34.
23.
Grinter, R. E., & Palen, L. (2002). Instant messaging in teen life. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’02), New Orleans, LA, November 16-20. New York: ACM Press.
24.
Hård af Segerstad, Y. (2002). Use and adaptation of written language to the conditions of computer-mediated communication. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
25.
Helderman, R. (2003, May 20). Click by click, teens polish writing. Washington Post, p.B1.
26.
Herring, S. (Ed.) (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27.
Herring, S. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information Society, 15, 151-167.
28.
Herring, S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and the Internet. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology 36 (pp. 109-168). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.
29.
Herring, S. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. In J. Holmes& M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202-228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
30.
Holmes, J. (1993). Women’s talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. Australian Journal of Communication, 20, 125-149.
31.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men, and politeness. New York: Longman.
32.
Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (Eds.) (2003). The handbook of language and gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
33.
Jacobs, G. (2003, April). Breaking down virtual walls: Understanding the real space/cyberspace connections of language and literacy in adolescents’ use of instant messaging. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
34.
James, D. (1996). Women, men, and prestige speech forms: A critical review. In V.L. Bergvall, J. M. Bing, & A. F. Freed (Eds.), Rethinking language and gender research (pp. 98-125). London: Longman.
35.
Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71
36.
Kendon, A. (1980). The sign language of the women of Yuendumu: A preliminary report on the structure of Warlpiri sign language. Sign Language Studies, 27, 101-112.
37.
Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Shimoni, A. R. (2002). Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17, 401-412.
38.
Labov, W. (1991). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2, 205-254.
39.
Lee, J. (2002, Sept. 19). I think, therefore IM. New York Times, Circuits Section, p. G1.
40.
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf
41.
Ling, R. (in press). The sociolinguistics of SMS: An analysis of SMS use by a random sample of Norwegians. In R. Ling & P. Pedersen (Eds.), Front-stage/back-stage: Mobile communication and the renegotiation of the social. London: Springer-Verlag.
42.
Lorenzi, R. (2002). ‘Smiley’ emoticon turns 20. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020916/emoticon.html
43.
Maynor, N. (1994). The language of electronic mail: Written speech? In G. D. Little & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Centennial usage studies (pp. 48-54). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
44.
Mulac, A.,& Lundell, T.L. (1994). Effects of gender-linked language differences in adults’ written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Language and Communication, 14, 299-309.
45.
Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’00) (pp. 79-88). New York: ACM Press.
46.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2002). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.
47.
Palander-Collin, M. (1999). Male and female styles in seventeenth century correspondence. Language Variation and Change, 11, 123-141.
48.
Randall, N. (2002). Lingo online: A report on the language of the keyboard generation. Department of English, University of Waterloo. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/nrandall/LingoOnline-finalreport.pdf
49.
Romaine, S. (2003). Variation in language and gender. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 98-118). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
50.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
51.
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289-327.
52.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.) (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
53.
Schiano, D., Chen, C., Ginsberg, J., Gretarsdottir, U., Huddleston, M., & Isaacs, E. (2002). Teen use of messaging media. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’02), Minneapolis, MN (pp. 594-595). New York: ACM Press.
54.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language?Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
56.
Walther, J.B.,& D’Addario, K.P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323-345.
57.
Yates, S. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
