1
Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
2
Ph.D. student of Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
Abstract
Graffiti, which is also called silent discourse, reflects different status of women and men in social structure. Hence, studying graffiti can provide us with salient information regarding their anonymous writers’ linguistic and social features. The present study aims at analyzing sociolinguistic features of “theme” and “style” in a corpus of female and male university students’ Persian graffiti in the university campus clarifies some basic sociolinguistic processes such as similarities and differences in communication patterns in female and male (silent) discourse. To this end, a corpus of 640 graffiti (320 written by female university students and 320 written by male ones) were collected from female and male dormitory areas as well as central library study halls at University of Sistan and Baluchestan in a one-month period. These graffiti were then analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The results revealed that both groups had used “love, solicit help from God, depression, declare presence, wish, time and date, swear, poetry, kidding, and friendship” themes. However, “study lesson subjects” were used only in female students’ graffiti while “advice” and “financial anxiety” themes were used only by the male counterparts. Furthermore, content analysis of the graffiti showed that the male students predominantly sought to “confirm power” and “ higher status” while the female ones attempted to “express emotions” and “make solidarity”. In addition, the obtained results with respect to style showed that the male students tended to use more words than their female counterparts, but the latter were more apt to use linguistic elaborated code through prepositions, impersonal pronouns, and dependent clauses and hence had a linguistic superiority over the males.
Green, J. A. (2003). “The writing on the stall: Gender and Graffiti”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 22 (3). pp. 282-296.
Haslam, N. (2012). Psychology in the Bathroom. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holmes, J. (1998). “Women’s talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals”. In Coates, J. (Ed.). Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
James, D. & J. Darkich (1993). “Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research”. In Tannen, D. (Ed.). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York:Oxford University Press.
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lachmann, R. (1988). “Graffiti as career and ideology”. The American Journal of Sociology. 94. pp. 229-250.
Lawton, D. (1968). Social Class, Language, and Education. Britain: West Printing Services.
Lomas, H. D. (1973). “Graffiti: Some observations and speculations”. Language and Society. 60. pp. 71-89.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, L.; C. J. Groom; L. D. Handleman & J. W. Pennebaker (2008). "Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14000 text samples". Discourse Processes. 45. pp. 211-236.
Raymonda (2008). The Sociolinguistic Study of Graffiti Arts Used in Surakarta. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Muhammadiyah University, Surakarta, Indonesia.
Read, A. W. (1935). Lexical Evidence from Folk Epigraphy in Zuesiern North America: A Glossarial Study of the Low Element in the English Language. Paris: Olympic Press.
Reisner, R. (1974). Encyclopedia of Graffiti. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Sechrest, L. & L.Flores & K. Olson (1971). “Graffiti in four types of institutions of higher education”. Journal of Sex Research. 7. pp. 62-71.
Sechrest, L. & L.Flores (1969). “Homosextuality in the Phillipines and the United States: The handwriting on the wall”. Journal of Social Psychology. 79. pp. 3-12.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Tracy, S. K. (2005). “The graffiti method”. Australian Midwifery Journal. 18(3). pp. 22-26.
Wales, E. & B. Brewer (1976). “Graffiti in the 1970s”. Journal of Social Psychology. 99. pp. 115-123.
Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Ahangar,A. and Shirvani,J. (2016). A Sociolinguistic Study of Graffiti in University Campus: The Case Study of Sistan and Baluchestan University. Language Related Research, 7(5), 175-198.
MLA
Ahangar,A. , and Shirvani,J. . "A Sociolinguistic Study of Graffiti in University Campus: The Case Study of Sistan and Baluchestan University", Language Related Research, 7, 5, 2016, 175-198.
HARVARD
Ahangar,A.,Shirvani,J. (2016). 'A Sociolinguistic Study of Graffiti in University Campus: The Case Study of Sistan and Baluchestan University', Language Related Research, 7(5), pp. 175-198.
CHICAGO
A. Ahangar and J. Shirvani, "A Sociolinguistic Study of Graffiti in University Campus: The Case Study of Sistan and Baluchestan University," Language Related Research, 7 5 (2016): 175-198,
VANCOUVER
Ahangar,A.,Shirvani,J. A Sociolinguistic Study of Graffiti in University Campus: The Case Study of Sistan and Baluchestan University. Language Related Research, 2016; 7(5): 175-198.