Polished Analysis

I chose to use Facebook as a means of studying adolescent girls and their interactions online, more specifically how speech acts online help shape individual identities online.  Individuals, specifically adolescent girls, are aware of their audience in an online environment, and they code-switch and use language differently depending on to who they are communicating.  I started this research by identifying the participants who I would follow.  The participants in my group are teenage girls between the ages of 16 and 18 years old.  There is one boy who participates in one conversation, but his comments will not take a large role in my research.  They all live in a small town (Palmer, Alaska—approximate population 5900 in 2010), and they attend the same high school.  All of the participants are friends, move in the same social circles, and most are members of the same extracurricular activities (student government, band, etc.).  I address each participant by their initials.  MS is the first participant and the one with whom all the other participants are associated.

My first data set is from a post that originated on MS’ wall.  See Figure 1 for the original data set.  The thread started as a meme posted on MS’ wall, in which she was tagged along with three other individuals, so a total of five participants.  The thread then elicited 25 comments.  The data set includes comments from five people, one male and four females.  This particular thread helps me with my research because it includes multiple aspects of digital literacy.  For instance, I’ve noticed the following—typographical differences between comments, the use of internet speak, the use of emoticons, different uses of vernacular, and some numerical data.  

My second set of data is slightly different from the first set in the sense that it includes far more items to research.  See Figure 2 for original data set.  One of MS’ friends made a video about the most influential teacher she had in high school.  She chose the music teacher at her high school, and then she tagged all the other students who were in the same program.  MS did not comment on this particular post, but there were many other people who did.  There are also some adult influences in this post that were not present in the first data set.  This adult influence made me realize how intrinsic audience awareness is, even to adolescent girls.  I focus specifically on the difference in the language used in the presence of adults, even if it is in an online community.  The internet speak and use of vernacular is significantly curbed in my second data set.  Not that it is particularly interesting, but I did find that the high school students changed the way they use language when they are communicating with adults.  I do think it is interesting that it still happens online and not just in person conversation.  

My major argument is that adolescent girls invent an online identity, specifically an identity on Facebook, and that identity is tied to gender and the language used on their profiles, posts, and comments.  I also assert that the identity one establishes or creates can be modified depending on the audience with which one interacts.  For instance, in my second data set there are a large number of adolescent girls interacting in a thread that is related to their school environment.  The language used in this data set is different from the first, and I posit that it is different because the audience has changed.  The first data set included five participants, while the second included 45 participants.  All five of the individuals from the first data set were included in the second data set; however, so were many others.

In terms of actual data, the majority of my analysis comes from my second data set.  While the first data set is interesting, its main focus is to situate the reader/viewer into the conversation, and most importantly, it allows the reader/viewer to understand how this particular cohort of adolescents interact with one another on a smaller scale.  Then the second data set allows the reader to see how they interact on a larger scale with different people present in the conversation.  For instance, the information presented in the first data set shows nine instances of emoticons and three instances of overt use of non-standard conversational written English.  However, the second data set has zero emoticons and only three instances of of overt use of non-standard conversational written English.  I use overt in the sense that these adolescents are making language choices that are outside the norm of standard conversational written English.  This information leads me to assert that adolescents are aware of their audience and they purposely code-switch depending on to whom they are communicating.

I researched three terms that I thought were the most important—gender, language use, and identity.  I chose these particular terms because they yielded the best results.  I found gender to be the least important to my particular research; however, it is still important.  I look at how gender is used online versus in a face to face situations and how “slut-shaming” is used as a policing function among adolescent girls.  I also focus on language use and how it functions in chatrooms, instant messages, and on Facebook.  These particular functions of language help to distinguish how adolescent girls code-switch depending on their audience.  The third concept I focus on is identity, and I found this to be the most important in terms of my particular research because it is more of a combination and composite than its own specific classification.  The articles I chose focus on identity and how individuals express their own identities online.

Overall, I find that online identity is certainly related to language use and gender when it comes to adolescent girls.  Adolescents, especially girls, focus on their audience and use that information to code-switch between the different groups of people.  

I need some additional help finishing my conclusion.  Please help!

Figure 1

Figure 2

Works Cited

Bailey, Jane et al. “Negotiating With Gender Stereotypes on Social Networking Sites: From ‘Bicycle Face’ to Facebook”. Journal of Communication Inquiry 37.2 (2013): 91-112. Web. 31 October 2013.

Carr, Caleb T. et al. “Speech Acts Within Facebook Status Messages”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31.2 (2012): 176-196. Web. 31 October 2013.

DeVoss, Danielle N. and Cynthia L. Selfe. “‘This Page Is Under Construction’: Reading Women Shaping On-Line Identities”. Pedagogy 2.1 (2002): 31-48. Web. 15 October 2013

Herring, Susan C. and John C. Paolillo. “Gender and genre variation in weblogs”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.4 (2006): 439-459. Web. 31 October 2013.

Knobel, Michele and Colin Lankshear. “Digital Literacy and Participation in Online Social Networking Spaces”. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 2008. 249-278. Web. 30 September 2013.

Merchant, Guy. “Teenagers in cyberspace: an investigation of language change in internet chatrooms”. Journal of Research in Reading 24.3 (2001): 293-306. Web. 31 October 2013.

Schwartz, H. Andrew et al. “Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach”. PLoS ONE 8.9 (2013): 1-16. Web. 31 October 2013.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Derek Denis. “LINGUISTIC RUIN? LOL! INSTANT MESSAGING AND TEEN LANGUAGE”. American Speech 83.1 (2008): 3-34. Web. 31 October 2013.

Thomas, Angela. “Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl”. E-Learning 1.3 (2004): 358-382. Web. 15 October 2013.

Williams, Bronwyn T. “‘Tomorrow will not be like today’: Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 51.8 (2006): 682-688. Web. 31 October 2013.

Literature Review

The study of digital literacies began to take shape when the internet became widely available to the public, and that direction of study continues on to present day.  Web 2.0 applications have changed the internet and the way individuals and groups view information online.  Adolescent girls in the digital age have a wide variety of social networking sites where they can spend their time.  A large majority of adolescent girls choose Facebook as an alternate form of communication.  The literature in this review will solidify the information relating to adolescent girls and how their interactions on Facebook have shaped their online identity, particularly in terms of how language choices vary depending on their audience.

The first of the three classifications in the review is gender in online environments.  Susan Herring’s article “Gender and genre variation in weblogs” discusses the linguistic variation in genre based on gender.  Likewise, the idea that computer-based text has created a concept of complete anonymity is not supported by Herring’s research, which shows that gender differences are just as present in computer-based text as it is in spoken discourse (442).  Herring’s work is a preface to the work done by Jane Bailey and her colleagues, in which they discuss gender stereotypes on Facebook.  While Herring highlights the different language used by the different sexes, Bailey posits that “slut shaming” online is an effective way for adolescent girls to mediate themselves (91).  These two ideas are distinct in their arguments; however, they are similar in their research in gender and identity.  The seven year gap between the two articles is telling of how much has changed since the beginning of our Web 2.0 society.  There is more information given and received online than at any other time in history.

The increase in information given over the internet has lead to a change in the way language is presented, particularly language among young people.  Guy Merchant’s research centers around teenagers and their use of language in chatrooms.  Merchant suggests that young people are rapidly changing the way humans communicate, even if some see the changes negatively (293).  Sali Tagliamonte also looks at the way teenagers use language, specifically via instant messaging platforms.  She discusses the linguistic variations that occur online as they juxtapose standard written English (3).  Each of these two articles are useful to distinguish the amount of code-switching teenage girls do online, especially when their audiences are different.  For instance, my own research shows that adolescent girls are susceptible to distinct changes in their own language use depending on to whom they are speaking. 

Online identity is tied to both gender and language use, but it is distinct because it is a conglomeration of those and other things.  Bronwyn Williams’ short article discusses the changes that web 2.0 applications create in adolescents.  She writes, “One of the more intriguing developments has been the way online technologies allow young people to manipulate and play with their identities” (Williams 683).  Williams also asserts that the idea that adolescents are more socially isolated now because of the amount of time spent online is a false determination.  In fact, she posits that young people are using social networking to talk to more people than they ever would have otherwise.  H. Andrew Schwartz’s research “found striking variations in language with personality, gender, and age” (1).  His particular type of research looks at what people actually say on social networking sites (Facebook and Twitter) and correlate certain attribute with one another.  While this article seems like it should be among the group based on language, it also applies more specifically to identity because of the way Schwartz includes personality (1).  Similarly, Caleb Carr’s article demonstrates how users express themselves online as opposed to through face-to-face communication.  Carr specifically studies Facebook status messages as they pertain to self-presentation online (176).  My research focuses specifically on Facebook interactions and how they pertain to identity and personality formation.

In-class discussions and readings also connect to the analysis of adolescent girls in relation to how they construct their online identities, specifically on Facebook.  Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear research Facebook and how individuals interact in groups socially.  Likewise, Angela Thomas focuses on how adolescent girls use text and pictures online to craft their own digital presence, or identity.  Thomas’ research, similarly to Williams’, asserts that a digital space does not mean a disconnection from the physical space.  Danielle DeVoss and Cynthia Selfe note the importance of an online identity in shaping one’s self image.  Each of these articles will be helpful in determining how adolescent girls create and maintain their online identity using language.  More specifically, how much does emphasis is placed on audience in terms of the creation of their identity?

Works Cited

Bailey, Jane et al. “Negotiating With Gender Stereotypes on Social Networking Sites: From ‘Bicycle Face’ to Facebook”. Journal of Communication Inquiry 37.2 (2013): 91-112. Web. 31 October 2013.

Carr, Caleb T. et al. “Speech Acts Within Facebook Status Messages”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31.2 (2012): 176-196. Web. 31 October 2013.

DeVoss, Danielle N. and Cynthia L. Selfe. “‘This Page Is Under Construction’: Reading Women Shaping On-Line Identities”. Pedagogy 2.1 (2002): 31-48. Web. 15 October 2013

Herring, Susan C. and John C. Paolillo. “Gender and genre variation in weblogs”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.4 (2006): 439-459. Web. 31 October 2013.

Knobel, Michele and Colin Lankshear. “Digital Literacy and Participation in Online Social Networking Spaces”. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 2008. 249-278. Web. 30 September 2013.

Merchant, Guy. “Teenagers in cyberspace: an investigation of language change in internet chatrooms”. Journal of Research in Reading 24.3 (2001): 293-306. Web. 31 October 2013.

Schwartz, H. Andrew et al. “Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach”. PLoS ONE 8.9 (2013): 1-16. Web. 31 October 2013.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Derek Denis. “LINGUISTIC RUIN? LOL! INSTANT MESSAGING AND TEEN LANGUAGE”. American Speech 83.1 (2008): 3-34. Web. 31 October 2013.

Thomas, Angela. “Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl”. E-Learning 1.3 (2004): 358-382. Web. 15 October 2013.

Williams, Bronwyn T. “‘Tomorrow will not be like today’: Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 51.8 (2006): 682-688. Web. 31 October 2013.

Methodology

Site

I started my research on Facebook.  More specifically, my research is on a collection of individual pages on Facebook.  I thought about conducting research on other sites, and in all honesty, I wish I would have.  Or I should say, I wish I had chosen a different group to study.  However, that is not necessarily pertinent to this particular post.  I chose Facebook because I think it gives people, specifically adolescents/young adults, the ability to interact together and form identity groups and alliances.

Participants

The participants in my group are teenage girls between the ages of 16 and 18 years old.  There is one boy who participates in one conversation, but his comments will not take a large role in my research.  They all live in a small town (Palmer, Alaska—approximate population 5900 in 2010), and they attend the same high school.  All of the participants are friends, move in the same social circles, and most are members of the same extracurricular activities.  I chose this particular cohort because I thought it would yield a large amount of data that I could sift through to find exactly what I thought was important.  The problem thus far has been that the group of adolescents I’m studying are not active Facebook users; therefore, I had a difficult time finding adequate data.

Self

One participant is my niece (noted as MS in my data sets) and the others are her friends.  That being said, I play an interesting role.  I am an active Facebook user (less so now that we’re at the end of the semester), so I see the activities in which MS participates.  I am not friends with her friends, so I am only privy to the conversations in which she is included and among those, only the ones that are public.  At this time I have not had an issue with not being able to access information because of privacy issues.  

Data

My problem has been a lack of data.  Currently I have collected two main data sets.  The first was a meme that was posted on MS’ wall by a male friend.  Then a conversation ensued about the meme and the upcoming school year; this conversation included 5 participants.  The second data set was a video that was posted on MS’ wall and included far more participants, of which MS was not an active one.  The second data set gave more relevant information and that helped me to narrow my research.

Analysis

I analyzed my data in a broad sense in my first data set.  I looked at the number of specific occurrences of typographical anomalies, different and specific uses of a particular vernacular—mainly internet speak or text, the use of emoticons, and some additional numerical data.  My second data set included some more specific information, not only because the actual data set was larger (25 versus 43 comments).  I decided to pay attention to audience, specifically how the language of the participants changes depending on their audience.  The changes were more localized in the second data set because there were adults and other people from outside the original social group present.  I want to focus on how that change in language creates, or helps to create, an online identity for the participants.

Traditions

I plan on looking mostly at the Transforming Economic Conditions and Social Relationships tradition.  More specifically, Knobel and Lankshear’s article “Digital Literacy and Participation in Online Social Networking Spaces,” and Black and Steinkueler’s article “Literacy in Virtual Worlds” and their idea of affinity spaces.  I’ve also looked at the Transforming Identities tradition, particularly McLean’s article “A Space Called Home.”  This article is related to an immigrant adolescent girl and her use of instant messaging; however, I think the concept of identity can be applied to my research as well.  Thomas’ article “Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl” is another important article that I will look at because it looks at how women behave in online spaces and how those spaces can effect their identities.  As of now, the last tradition I will focus on is Transforming Reading and Writing, particularly Haas’ article “Young People’s Everyday Literacies” as well as Lam’s “Multiliteracies on Instant Messaging in Negotiating Local, Translocal, and Transnational Affiliations.”  For the literature review, I’ve located some specific journals—Journal of Sociolinguistics and American Speech—that I plan to use for my additional sources.

Revised Data Analysis #2

I collected my second set of data from a Facebook thread.  This data set was collected from my niece’s timeline.  Similarly to the last data set, she was tagged in the post.  However, this particular post was a personal video rather than a meme.  Like the previous post, this one was school related as well.  One of my niece’s friends made a video about the most influential teacher she had in high school.  She chose the music teacher at her high school, and then she tagged all the other students who were in the same program.  My niece did not comment on this particular post, but there were many other people who did.

My second set of data is slightly different from the first set in the sense that it includes far more items to research.  For that reason I have not included the actual thread in this post, it would just take up too much room.  I will, however, forward a copy of the thread to each of the people in my group so they are aware of what I researched.  There are also some adult influences in this post that were not there in the first data set.  Also, there was much more data to sift through.  I focused specifically on the difference in the language used in the presence of adults, even if it is in an online community.  My first data set focused on the changes in typographical differences in comments, the use of internet speak or lingo, the use of emoticons, and different uses of vernacular.  

I looked at the some of the same things in my second data set.  For instance, I found that there were just as many uses of emoticons in the second data set; however, the internet speak and use of vernacular was significantly curbed.  Not that it is particularly interesting, but I did find that the high school students changed the way they use language when they are around adults.  I do think it is interesting that it still happens online.  I will continue to look at the specific differences in vernacular used by the group of participants.  The more I look at both sets of data, I do think that will be the most useful piece of data that I have encountered thus far.

I found the second data set to be more important to my research in some ways and more difficult in others.  At this time, I have decided to look specifically at how the use of language was different in the second data set, presumably because there were adults present from the beginning of the post.  The original poster included some teachers and adults in her post, which changed the entire tone of the conversation from the first data set I analyzed.  For instance, there are eleven instances of reminiscences about humorous quotes that the teacher had said in class, usually to gain the attention of someone who was 

I found the readings for this week to be particularly relevant to my research.  Although the reading by McLean focuses on a hybrid cultural identity of an adolescent girl; I still think it important because it does speak to identity on social networking sites.  I also found the article by Jacobs to be enlightening.  It focuses specifically on IMs, and although it’s somewhat outdated, it still pertains to my research.  The article focuses on AIM, but that gave way to Yahoo chat, and then MSN messenger, and finally now Facebook chat is the biggest thing in IMing.  I believe some of the readings we will discuss on the 24th will be relevant as well.

I would also like to apologize. I didn't realize that I hadn't actually published this post.