What About Gender Based Pseudonyms in Blogs?

Yüz yüze iletişimde cinsiyet farklılıkları işitsel ve görsel ipuçları ile hemen ortaya çıkar. İnternet ortamında, bloglarda bu ipuçları söz konusu değildir; iletişim sadece yazılı olarak sağlanır. Kişisel günlük tutma ve karşılıklı haberleşmeyi amaçlayan blog kültüründe yazışmalarda takma ad kullanımı yaygındır. Kişiler takma ad kullanarak kendilerini daha rahat hissetmekte ve gerçek kimliklerini saklamaktadırlar. Ancak, seçtikleri takma adlar cinsiyetleri ile ilgili ipucu verebilmektedir. Bu çalışma, aşağıdaki hipotezleri araştırmak için yapılmıştır: Erkekler takma ad seçiminde güç, kuvvet ve korku ifade eden sözcükleri seçerken, kadınlar ev ortamı ile ilgili, kendi becerilerini ortaya koyan ve olumlu anlam taşıyan doğa ile ilgili sözcükleri tercih etmektedirler. 40 erkek ve 40 kadın blogcu değerlendirmeye alınmış ve blogcuların gerçek cinsiyetlerine kendi sayfalarındaki kimlik bilgileri aracılığıyla ulaşılmıştır. Sonuçta takma adların, taşıdıkları çağrışımsal anlamlarla cinsiyet özelliklerini ortaya çıkardığı saptanmıştır.

Bloglarda Cinsiyet Belirleyici Takma Adlar

In computer mediated communication there are no visual or auditory clues to indicate speaker’s gender. Usually pseudonyms are used by the participants to hide explicit identity. In blogs (which are personal journals or reversed chronological commentaries) pseudonymous usage is very common. However, pseudonyms may give clues on the gender of a blogger. So, this study aims at investigating the following hypothesis: Males prefer to use pseudonyms whose connotative meanings refer to power, fear and authority, whereas females prefer to use pseudonyms about domestic issues, style and names concerning nature with positive meanings. 40 male and 40 female pseudonyms chosen by the bloggers are taken into consideration. The demographic information concerning their real gender was available on their home page. The results of the study showed that the connotative meaning of pseudonyms used in blogs reveal the gender differences no matter how hard they try to hide their gender identity.

PDF

___

Coates, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language. Longman Group Ltd. UK.
Crowston, K. and Kammerer, E. (1998). Communicative style and gender differences in computer-mediated communications. (Cybertopia: Race, class and gender on the Internet pp. 185-204.Praeger) (erişim tarihi: 11.04.2006)
Herring, S. C. et al. (2004). Bridging the gap: a genre analysis of weblogs. In Proc. of the 27th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (HICSS'04), IEEE Pres.
Herring, S. (2001). Gender and Power in online communication. CSI Working Papers (http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/csi/wp/wp01-05B.html). (erişim tarihi: 11.04.2006)
Herring, S. (1994). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier (erişim tarihi: 27.04.2006)
Holmes, J. (1993). Women's talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. Australian Journal of Communication. 20/3,125-149.
Huffaker D. A. and Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of computer-mediated communication. 10(2) article 1. (erişim tarihi:26.05.2006)
Jaffe, M. J. et.al. (1995). Gender, pseudonyms and CMC: Making identities and baring souls. Paper submitted for 45ty.Annual Conference of the Int. Comm. Assoc. Albuquerque, USA (http://members.iworld.net/yesunny/genderps.html). (erişim tarihi:26.03.2006)
Kiesler, S. et al. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134
Matheson, K. aııd Zaııııa, M. P. (1992). Computer -mediated communications: The focus is on me. Social Science Computer Review,8:1,1-12
Moor, de Aldo and Efimova, L. (2004). An argumentation analysis of weblog conversations. In Proc. of the 9th Int. Working Conference on the language-action perspective on communication modeling (LAP 2004). Rutgers University, USA. June 2-3.
Rao, R. J. and Rohatgi, P. (2000). Can pseydonymity really guarantee privacy? (http://www. usenix.org/events/sec2000/full-papers/rao/rao-html). (erişim tarihi: 03.07.2006)
Rossetti, P. (1998). Gender differences in e-mail Communication. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. iv. No7.
Savicki, V. Gender language style and group composition in Internet discussion groups. (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue3/sacicki.htmr). (erişim tarihi: 11.04.2006)
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: woman and man in conversation. NY.: William Morrow.
Winer, D. (2003). What makes a a Weblog a Weblog?. In Weblogs at Harward Law,May 23.2003. (retrived Feb. 27, 2004) (http://blogs.law.harward.edu/what Makes A Weblog AWeblog).