This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (20) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Baron, N. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

See you Online

Gender Issues in College Student Use of Instant Messaging

American University

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.

Key Words: instant messaging • IM • gender • computer-mediated communication

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 4, 397-423 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X04269585


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. M. Ledbetter Chronemic Cues and Sex Differences in Relational E-Mail: Perceiving Immediacy and Supportive Message Quality Social Science Computer Review, November 1, 2008; 26(4): 466 - 482. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Parrott and I. Madoc-Jones Reclaiming Information and Communication Technologies for Empowering Social Work Practice Journal of Social Work, April 1, 2008; 8(2): 181 - 197. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. A. Tagliamonte and D. Denis LINGUISTIC RUIN? LOL! INSTANT MESSAGING AND TEEN LANGUAGE American Speech, March 1, 2008; 83(1): 3 - 34. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. B. Fox, D. Bukatko, M. Hallahan, and M. Crawford The Medium Makes a Difference: Gender Similarities and Differences in Instant Messaging Journal of Language and Social Psychology, December 1, 2007; 26(4): 389 - 397. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Ling and N. S. Baron Text Messaging and IM: Linguistic Comparison of American College Data Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 1, 2007; 26(3): 291 - 298. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Robertson and T. Murachver Intimate Partner Violence: Linguistic Features and Accommodation Behavior of Perpetrators and Victims Journal of Language and Social Psychology, December 1, 2006; 25(4): 406 - 422. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. CHILDS and C. MALLINSON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEXICAL ITEMS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETHNOLINGUISTIC IDENTITY: A CASE STUDY OF ADOLESCENT SPOKEN AND ONLINE LANGUAGE American Speech, March 1, 2006; 81(1): 3 - 30. [Abstract] [PDF]