Conversational Analysis (CA) of the Gossiping Behavior of Different Genders in Building

Online Social Relationships

1. Introduction

No matter what your gender preference is, you can gossip in all contexts, either
negatively or positively. What we call "gossip" is talk about other people who are not part of the
group, and as it is confirmed by the assertion of Bosson et al. (2006), gossip is an interchange of
personal information about absent third parties that might be either evaluatively favorable or
detrimental. Apart from face-to-face interaction, gossiping on social media predominately occurs
in this new normal, where major changes occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which
hit the entire world and suddenly impacted a great shift in everybody's lives. Among those most
greatly impacted by it is the educational system, particularly college students. As a result, all
students are required to take a virtual or online class in order to keep the classes going as long as
possible. Correspondingly, as everyone take part in this adjustments, where the jobs, businesses,
and classes will be on online platform, gossiping can never be eliminated in the SNS platform
owing to uncontrolled usage by all users.

Whereas this study examines the gossiping behaviors of different genders, i.e., women,
men, and homosexuals (gay men), in building online social relationships, the SNS platform is
used as the basis of the data, specifically the Facebook chats, and the researchers analyzed the
existing conversations from the Junior BAELS students' online group chat. Messenger/Facebook
Group chat has almost 40+ users of diverse genders and is frequently utilized by students with or
without their professors. And, as one of the most popular platforms for student communication,
group chat might be utilized to start off such a gossip fest. Mitra and Gilbert (2013) discovered
that gossiping in an online contact occurs whether in a private message or a group message,
which is likewise seen as a social process. Some people are actively involved in the generation of
gossip messages ("gossip sources"), while others are passive consumers of gossip messages.
("gossip sources") while yet others perform both roles. This is visible in every group discussion,
as some participants feed the gossip, while others may simply read the entire dialogue while
never interacting with it. In addition, the researchers also examined how one’s gossiping
behavior in all genders reveals their various communicative styles in maintaining their
relationship with each other or with the person they were talking about. Thus, gossiping does not
merely mean a negative thing, in which case it destroys the other person’s image, for Grosser et
al. (2010) argued that gossip is "constructive," which means it may be positive or negative. As a
result, depending on the content of their gossip towards each other, the relationship they build
may be for kinship or affinities.

Additionally, in this chapter the researchers outlined the research problem, the appropriate
context of the problem in relation to the theory and the extent to which previous studies have
successfully investigated the problem, noting, in particular, where gaps exist that this study
attempts to address. Also, this chapter includes the rationale, the statement of the problem, the
theoretical and conceptual framework, the significance of the study,and lastly the key terms and
concepts used in the study.

1.1 Background of the Study

Gossip, in a broad sense, refers to information about the other people's unusual, aberrant
characteristics or activities. Just like in real life, gossip is characterized by its ability to spread
swiftly and be exceedingly persistent, particularly in settings where groups' memberships and
relationships between group members vary (Kermarrec & Steen, 2007). Moreover, as asserted by
Guerin 2003, gossip has been viewed as one of the verbal (or conversational) tactics humans
employ to influence others in some way in evolutionary psychology research, and there are likely
as many verbal methods as there are social interactions. Our seemingly insatiable desire for
gossip, according to Dunbar (1998) as cited in the study of Tufekci (2008), is neither a random,
irrelevant phenomenon nor a product of a distin-ct society. Thus, online gossip can be defined as
a verbal approach for social and personal issues that people use on the Internet, particularly on
social networking sites, to influence others (SNSs).
As defined by Boyd (2006), social network site is a type of website that includes a
profile, semi-permanent public discussion on the profile, and a publicly articulated social
network that can be accessed from the profile. In which, the purpose of these websites are mutual
acknowledgment, status confirmation, and relationship confirmation. On the other hand, one of
the most prominent reasons for utilizing SNSs has been gossip, not only because gossip is fed by
the way the news feed system works, but also because gossip is often the social glue that keeps a
community alive and fascinating (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009). Furthermore, the
study will examine and analyze the gossiping behavior among each gender such as men, women,
and gay men. The study will also delve into the unique features found in each gender and lastly
to know what is the gossip behavior in online set-up.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Recent experimental investigations appear to support the notion that gossip is beneficial
to groups, demonstrating that gossip is motivated by prosocial goals to protect group members
against non-cooperators (Cruz et al., 2019). Gossip, more than rumor, has an "inner-circle"
quality to it, in that it is typically exchanged amongst people who share a common past or shared
interests. Gluckman, 1963; Goodman & Ben-Ze'ev, 1994; Rosnow & Georgoudi, 1985; Sabini &
Silver, 1982; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998) define gossip as "small talk" or "idle talk."
Consequently, people may now connect with one other in real time from the comfort of their
own homes, thanks to technological improvements. This shift also means that the diversity of
media available to people to express their thoughts and beliefs can affect changes in human
behavior, such as computer-mediated communication. The existence of many chatting programs
has met the desires of human beings to be connected and engage with one another, and these
interactions can take the form of gossiping and disseminating information that isn't always
factual (Anggraeni, 2019). The world we live in today demands a greater need in understanding
the issues revolving around gender and computer-mediated communication. This study will be
helpful especially for students who want to do research about gender roles and the intervention
of computer-mediated communication as we are living in a world surrounded by the emerging
presence of technology.
This study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the linguistic features found in the online conversations of :

a. Men
b. Women
c. Homosexual (gay men)
 2. How does CMC affect online gossiping?
3. How does the gossipping behavior of each gender contribute to the development of
online social relationships?

1.3 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework of the Study

This study revolved around online social relationships thus the researchers made use of
group conversations from a Social Networking Site particularly Facebook Messenger Online
Group Chat of Junior BAELS Students named The House of Junjun, considering that the
aforementioned groupchat is multi-gendered, this study included gender (women, men and
homosexual gay men) as a variable for a diversified data gathering and analysis. The above
mentioned group chat is made mainly for the purpose of addressing academic matters but
interestingly, it has also been a platform for the transmission of online gossip and moreover,
women, men and homosexual (gay men) engage on online gossip differently in this group chat.
Generally, this study utilized the Social Information Processing Theory by Walthers (1992)
which explains how people use computer-mediated communication to establish interpersonal
impressions and promote relational communication online. The term ‘Social Information
Processing’ is closely attributed to the idea that, “at every level, a CMC user divulges
information, and the receiver processes the information continuously, where judgments are
formed based on the verbal cues interpreted by the receiver “ (Walther, 1992). This theory
mostly talks about how CMC interactions in the long run, can gradually develop a strong bond
that is similarly effective as that of face-to-face relationships.

In order to understand the different gossipping behavior of these genders, this study will
utilize Conversational Analysis (CA) as a method where the linguistic features of each
conversation will be carefully evaluated. On one hand, online gossip exists because of online
social relationships and vice versa while on the other hand, a person’s gossipping behavior is
highly dependent on their online social relationship with the communicative members and vice
versa and these phenomenon is the major focus of the theory utilized in this study which is the
Social Information Processing Theory.

1.5 Significance of the study

A number of study on the gender identity of women, men and homosexual (gay men) has
been pyblished online but only a few looks into the discursive nature of these genders. Moreover,
the language use of these genders may have been studied but only a few to date, explores the
benefit of understanding of how CMC affects the gossiping behaviour of men, women, and
homosexual (gaymen) considering today’s time where there is only limited face-to-face
interaction. The world we live in today demands a greater need in understanding the issues
revolving around gender and computer-mediated communication thus, this study will also help
decipher how specific genders utilize gossip in the development of online social relationships.
This study will also be helpful especially for students who want to do research about gender roles
and intervention of computer-mediated communication as we are living in a world surrounded by
the emerging presence of technology.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

Behavior - Refers to how different genders (women, men, and homosexuals) conduct themselves
when dealing with gossip on the online platform.
Conversation - A series of dialogues from the exchanges on the online platform of every group
or individual, apart from face-to-face interaction.
CMC - A means of communication involving individuals or groups who engage or contact one
another via separate computers connected to the Internet or a network (i.e., SMS text messaging,
Internet chat, instant messaging, e-mail, and more services).
Gender - An identification preference expressed by all individuals, including women, men, and
homosexuals.
Gossip - Refers to an informal and evaluative discussion in a group about another person who is
not present.
Gay men - The second moniker for homosexuals is "gay men," which is also one of the
community's gender preferences aside from women and men, and "gay men" is also recognized
in the LGBTQ community, which includes lesbians, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning
or queer people (LGBTQ)
Social Networking Sites - They are Web-based platforms that enable members to digitally
communicate with other individuals who have common interests, as well as render their
connections and conversations visible to other individuals (i.e. Instagram, twitter, Facebook and
etc.)
2. Review of Related Literature

This chapter comprises the relevant studies on gossiping, which are divided into four (4)
categories. To begin, the definition of gossip, as well as its subtopics, comprises of linked studies
of the three (3) different genders: gossip of women, men, and homosexuals or gay men. Second,
the Gossip in SNS. Third, the idea of conversational analysis in gossip. Finally, the SIPT theory.

Defining Gossip

Gossip is a common feature of human existence. Gossip may happen everywhere, and
anyone can participate in it either in the presence of a group or pair, regardless of gender or
context. Gossip, according to Bosson et al. (2006, p. 136), is "an interchange of personal
information about absent third people that might be either evaluatively favorable or bad." Thus,
gossip is already a widely stigmatized part of ordinary language that's been described as a
pointless, damaging pastime that involves talking about someone who isn't present. However,
despite the common negative definition of gossip, its data are limited and the study on the (dys)
functionality of gossip is contradictory as it is asserted by Dores Cruz et. al. 2019 and, Dores
Cruz, Beersma, Dijkstra, & Bechtoldt, 2019) that while some researchers conclude that gossip
entails negative consequences, others conclude that gossip has positive consequences.
Furthermore this study analysis the various genders, such as: women, men and homosexuals
(Gay Men and several research contend that different genders differ in their gossiping, and here
are some relevant studies that address these various distinctions.

a. Women

There is a stereotypical notion that women gossip more than men. Thus, Subramanian
(2013) reported that literature commonly portrays women as victims and/or perpetrators of
gossip, and this is often done in a negative way. This viewpoint is confirmed by McAndrew
(2014), who indicated that women are more prone than males to participate in aggressive and
competitive gossip, therefore validating the research provided by Subramanian (2013).
According to this point of view, the goal of this sort of gossip is to exclude the individual from
social groupings and to prevent the individual from forming their own social group (McAndrew,
2014). Furthermore, according to McDonald et al. (2007), whose research associated with
looking at gossiping behaviors in girls aged 9 to 10 years old, they discovered gossip to be a
dominant feature of group conversations between the girls and their closest friends. They
discovered gossip to be a prominent feature of the conversations held between the girls and their
closest friends. McDonald et al. (2007) also highlighted that the content of those talks was
neutral chatter, but the gossiping behaviors identified in the chats of the popular girls were about
the other children and were more judgmental of them. As a result, McAndrew (2014) and
Subramanian (2013) stated in their study that women's gossiping behavior doesn't necessarily
have to be harmful.

b. Men

Few scholars disprove the negative gender stereotype connected with women's chatter by
proving that guys gossip to a substantial amount as well. As Davis et al. (2018) discovered that
males gossip more about achievement-related topics than women, such as other people's incomes
and professional triumphs. Similarly, people recall rumors about a hypothetical man's rank and
fortune more frequently than a similar imaginary lady (De Backer et al. 2007). Levin and Arluke
(1985 p.281-286) as cited by Davis et. al (2018 p.75-91) discovered, however, that women were
more likely than males to chat about academics, including instructor evaluations, examinations
and papers, and other students' grades. Previous studies have found that men frequently chat
about broadcast sports (e.g., Johnson and Finlay 1997). Unsurprisingly, adolescent boys and men
chat about athletic achievement and sports figures more than adults (Levin and Arluke, 1985
p.281-286) as cited by Davis et. al., 2018 p.75-91). These findings imply that the substance of
boys' and men's gossip typically correlates to girls' and women's developed partner preferences.
As a result, boys and men are more likely than girls and women to begin to gossip or discuss
success and athletics.

c. Homosexual (Gay Men)

As this analysis paper also discussed on the Homosexuals or Gay individuals. Oficiar
(2019) asserted that Gay language has become an iconic emblem of all things "gay." This gay
language were connected by a single language that expressed not just their own self but also the
homosexual community as a whole. However, this particular language of gays contains linguistic
characteristics that distinguish it from others, and for this paper we will find out how gay
language contribute to gossips. Whereas, in the same study of Oficiar (2019), when gays chat
with one another, one of the menu items is gay sex talk, and they use gay language since it
allows them the freedom to talk about gossip since most of the people around them don't
understand what they are saying. When people talk about a sexual encounter, which is
considered a moral matter in most areas, it creates a sense them an exclusivity. Their way of
conversing with each other may be difficult to understand by other genders, and their usage of
gay language may be intentionally or not used in their interaction. Still, it doesn’t mean that in
the latter that their usage of gay language is for gossiping, for it could be or not depending on the
purpose.

Gossip in SNS

New technologies have inundated our environment, allowing us to engage with one
another in a number of ways as we are now being urged to expand our physical reality into a
virtual space where our connection point with others is mediated by technology. When users
enter a mediated environment, they have the option to create their own behaviors, whether
consciously or unconsciously, in which the issue of gossip in our online world also occurs.
Furthermore, the findings of the study of Mitra, and Eric (2013) people are more inclined to
gossip among their peers. Which then supported by the study of Max Gluckman's (1963 p.307-
316), quoted by Tanushree Mitra and Gilbert Eric, (2013) The idea that gossip keeps a group
together and determines its boundaries, and maybe utilizing gossip as an indicator, an
organization might develop self-aware apps to identify peer groups and groups with different
interests. Their study also shows that gossiping in an online interaction occurs whether in a
private message or a group message, which is also perceived as a social process.

Some people are actively involved in generating gossip messages ("gossip sources"),
while others are silent readers of the messages ("gossip sinks"), and there are some who play
both roles (Mitra, and Eric, 2013). This plays out normally in the virtual world where people
gossip using the SNS platform. However, it is not claimed that everyone participates in the
gossip discourse. Whereas instant messaging is a completely dyadic private communication
channel in which the third party is uninformed of the engagement, and thus gossiping cannot be
eliminated in the SNS platform owing to uncontrolled usage by all users.

Conversational Analysis

Rumors, urban tales, and gossip are everywhere around us. It is believed that the major
goal of sharing rumors, gossip, and urban legends is not to transfer knowledge to the listener or
reduce listener worry about the issue, but rather to entertain or hold the listener's attention, thus
boosting interpersonal relationships (Guerin, 2006 p.22-23). Moreover, to describe the situation,
a conversational approach is created. According to Neuge (2005) Conversational Analysis
employed to investigate the structural norms of natural or real-world dialogue, has shown
regulatory behaviors in discourse, such as how to execute sequential organizing of talk, assign
turn-taking, and negotiate repair in the case of conversational breakdown, and here it is used to
examine the gossiping behavior of various gender (women, men, homosexual or gay men) in the
online chat.

Social information processing theory (SIPT)

Social information processing theory (SIPT) provides a framework for understanding

three features of online communication: how communication cues are being used or altered to
make perceptions, express emotions, and build relationships; how such perceptions, emotions,
and relationships are transcribed via textual and verbal symbols; and how this translation can
slow down message exchange when compared to face-to-face interactions (Walther 2015). SIPT,
on the other hand, investigates how individuals collaborate online in various ways to express
emotions and experience kinship, as well as how they form interpersonal impressions. In other
words, the idea recognizes that online engagement is distinct, but it does not exclude the
formation of connections. People often change or alter their nonverbal actions according to the
channel they are utilizing. As a result, many SIPT-based research projects focus on text-based
communication, namely how language may be used to encode or decode social information and
how time is used to deliver such messages (Walther 2011). Nonverbal indicators that would be
instantaneously evident in a face-to-face discussion take a little time to transform in internet
communication. Therefore, computer-mediated talks tend to take longer. This theory will be used
to support the findings of the study on gossiping found on the SNS platform, particularly on
Facebook, and analyze the gossiping behavior of various genders in online interaction.

Online Relationship

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads throughout the world, everyone is forced to

quarantine themselves, lock their doors, cover their entire face with a mask and face shield, and
distance themselves a meter from their parents, and hugs, kisses, shaking hands, and clinging to
their peers become unfamiliar and dangerous. This is only a sampling of the events that mankind
is attempting to deal with. Their relationships with their colleagues are altered, and having fun
with their significant other may become a risk to everyone's life. This virus makes everyone
afraid of what it can do and will put strain on everyone's life, and it causes a relationship gap for
everyone because it will limit face-to-face communication and reduce the building of
relationships with others. Whereas, with the advancement of technology and the use of the SNS
platform, according to Boyd and Ellison (2008), members can communicate electronically with
one another with common interests and strengthen their bonds and exchanges that are visible to
other members. Furthermore, using SNS platforms, particularly Facebook, was defined by
Joison (2008) into seven variables that characterize the reasons people use Facebook. These are:
Social connection, shared identities (e.g., joining groups), sharing images, user content (e.g.,
games and apps), social exploration, social network browsing, and status updates were among
these characteristics. Despite the sudden shift into online setups, with the limited cues at hand,
people are still able to decode messages at its full potential and unlock the meanings and
message behind the screens, which led online social relationships to continually thrive. And the
most frequently mentioned motivations for using Facebook were social connections and
monitoring. Through Facebook, it builds an online relationship with every user, and that
relationship could be a booming friendship, an intimate online relationship, or a rooting family-
like relationship. As stated by Papacharissi and Rubin (2000), online users who are socially
nervous and shun face-to-face interaction choose the internet as a functioning alternative channel
that offers both an advantage to introverted and extrovert kinds of people. As a result, one of the
contexts of this study that will answer the gossiping behavior of each gender that contributes to
the development of online social relationships is found in the SNS platform, particularly in
Facebook chats.
3. Methodology

This chapter covers the research approach, research design, corpus of the study or the
unit of analysis, data planning and collection procedure, ethical consideration as well as the core
theory and method used in the data analysis.

3.1 Research Approach and Design

This study made use of the general inductive approach for analysis of qualitative
evaluation wherein the data is being described. The purposes for using an inductive approach are
to (a) condense raw textual data into a brief, summary format; (b) establish clear links between
the evaluation or research objectives and the summary findings derived from the raw data; and
(c) develop a framework of the underlying structure of experiences or processes that are evident
in the raw data (Thomas,2006). The general inductive approach provides an easily used and
systematic set of procedures for analyzing qualitative data that can produce reliable and valid
findings and this helped the researchers in evaluating the online conversations. Moreover, this
study made use of Descriptive-Qualitative Design in the data interpretation as it concerns
providing a picture of a situation as it naturally happens through the use of descriptions which
the researchers identify as the most accurate design to use in analyzing online conversations.

For the data analysis, the researchers made use of Conversation Analysis (CA) Theory as
a method as it offers an observation-based descriptive theory of communication which plays a
major role in understanding interpersonal communication (Mandelbaum, 2008). It provides a
vivid layout of the basic sense-making practices, interprets both regularities and irregularities in
everyday communication, and works both in informal and formal settings in both face-to-face
and online setups. This aided the researchers in coming up with a thorough understanding of the
study and its scope and the data analyzed. CA has also led the researchers to look into more than
just the linguistic patterns but as well as the implications of each communicative style to come
up with an insightful analysis.

Moreover, this study utilized the Social Information Processing Theory (SIPT) by Joseph
Walther (1992) for data interpretation as SIPT looks at how computer mediated communication
(CMC) bridges the development of interpersonal relationships and the formation of affinity
over time between CMC users and between those individuals that are involved in CMC
interactions. The term ‘Social Information Processing’ is closely attributed to the idea that, “at
every level, a CMC user divulges information, and the receiver processes the information
continuously, where judgments are formed based on the verbal cues interpreted by the receiver “
(Walther, 1992). This theory mostly talks about how CMC interactions in the long run, can
gradually develop a strong bond that is similarly effective as that of face-to-face relationships.
The researchers posit that through the discourse of gossip, the participants create a common
space in which they exchange communicative ideas and intentionally or unintentionally create an
online bond with their conversational members. Additionally, since gossip is a topic that piques
the interest of most members in an online community, it does not only serve as a trigger for an
interesting conversation but as well as assures each member shares the same sentiment, it could
the the reverse effect wherein, the participants can openly express themselves better knowing
they have a good online relationship with the other members, making them more active and
participative in gossip discourse.

Since the researchers gather data through the conversations retrieved alone, the recorded
documents, past research studies and other secondhand resources to come up with sufficient
information, has helped the researchers extract support for intuitive knowledge and verify
expectations as well as it allowed the illicit material to be understood, and to find proof for
existing theories and retrieve illustrative samples.

3.2 Unit of Analysis

In the conduct of this study, researchers rely on secondary data. Conversation Analysis
(CA) of three (3) conversations was conducted: a) women-women, b) men-men, c) homosexual-
homosexual (gaymen) online gossiping interactions were retrieved from the Facebook
Messenger group chat of the Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies junior students. The
researchers paid attention to the gender of the participants and disregarded a mixed-gender
exchange of talk to focus on the distinct characteristic and gossip behavior of each gender
involved in each communicative exchange. The conversations retrieved were purposively chosen
with the qualities of ‘gossip’ a) talking about people who aren't present (Besnier, 1989), b) a
private exchange between A and B discussing C (Hannerz, 1967). The conversations were then
transcribed but are not directly translated so as the essence and qualities are not altered for the
analysis.

3.3 Data Planning, Gathering and Analysis

Figure 2. Data Gathering FlowChart

The Data Planning Stage started with the selection of a research topic together with the
possible unit of analysis, an appropriate theory to utilize and an effective method to analyze the
data. The researchers considered the accessibility and proximity and decided to pursue using
existing conversations from the Facebook Messenger Group Chat of the Junior BAELS Students,
where the researchers are a part of. Next is the utilization of networks to get online access to the
conversations. Then comes the assignment of tasks, specifically gender per researcher to make
sure that each gender is well-represented via conversation samples. Implementation of the
planned collection of data started with the retrieval of online group conversations from the
Facebook Messenger Group Chat of the Junior BAELS Students in line with Hannerz (1992)
definition of gossip. Each conversation is carefully analyzed according to the criteria of a gossip
and is individually transcribed to conceal the identity of the chat participants. Each conversation
a)women-women, b)men-men c)homosexuals-homosexuals(gaymen) was then analyzed using
Conversation Analysis as a core method where the researchers looked into the linguistic features
found in the chosen communicative exchanges and to follow, the effects of CMC to the
gossipping behavior of the chat participants were also identified. The evaluation of each
researcher on the conversations assigned to them is then collated and synthesized and a
discussion of the results of the three (3) conversation is then created with regards to existing
studies in line with the topic. Moreover, the results are then grounded according to the Social
Information Processing Theory, which was utilized in this study and a general conclusion. Is then
drawn from the findings.

3.4 Ethical Considerations

This study made use of existing conversations from the Junior BAELS students online
group chat, which the researchers are part of. The researchers are personally acquainted with the
participants in the gathered conversation samples and although without formal asking of
permission, the researchers see to it that no personal information such as name dropping and
other forms of identity exposure is displayed in the sample conversations gathered. Such
information is intentionally concealed by the researchers to protect the identity of the
participants. Moreover, since the data revolve around online gossip, the researchers included in
the method to not inform the participants ahead of time as this would affect the quality of the
data, as the participants may avoid the discourse of gossip, which in its simplest form is already
controversial. The researchers assure that no one from the group chat is harmed and exposed in
the data gathering procedure.

4. Analysis

This chapter presents the results of the researchers’ thorough investigation of the online group
conversations. Then, further discuss the results and analysis of the data collated during the
process of the research. The investigation of the modules conducted by the researchers are
further elaborated in this section of the paper.

4.1 Women to Women Conversation

 An interaction with individual characteristics and their relationship to wider social norms
and conventions is frequently part of conversations that are referred to as "gossip" in the general
sense. On the other hand, Besnier (1989, as cited in Foster, 2004 ) wrote that talking about
people who aren't present is enough to justify the term "gossip". Hannerz (1967, as cited in
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. 2010) states that "a private exchange between
A and B discussing C," he defined "gossip" (p. 36). As a result, the lack of a third party appears
to be a minimum and, for many, sufficient criterion. However, in the conversation above, the
person who has been talked about or the gossipee was being mentioned in the group chat and
became aware of the entire conversation. Thus, in a context of cordiality, gossip is the transfer of
personal information (positive or negative) in an evaluative way (positive or negative) about
absent third parties, so the women's gossip does not always imply a negative meaning or
feedback to the person they discussed with, as in the conversation above, where the gossip was
made solely for entertainment. And, as Spacks (1982 as cited in Foster, 2004) stated, “Most
gossipers' engagement is explained by their simple enjoyment." Presented in the tables, are
samples of all-women, all-men and all gay conversations retrieved from a student online group
chat, together with its implications, linguistic features and gossip behaviours unique and
common to these genders

1 M : (sends a picture of Ji hye from the Kdrama entitled ‘Love alarm’)

Murag c A___. (pertaining to a girl blockmate)

2 O : Unsa na nga salida…..Si Nabi ba yan charot

3 M : love alarm Ma___ (O’s nickname)

4 O : Ay kato ning babae nga taka rag pili charot HAHAHAH tiaw
manang gi bash

5 C : (*replied to O’s last reply) pataka daw kag pili @CCT (referring
to the girl blockmate being talked about)
 6 O : (*replied to C) DILI MAN GUD SI C____ (the girl blockmate’s
name) *insert cry emoticons*……. S____ (C’s name) UY! *insert cry
emoticons*

7 C : (*replied to O) HAHAHAHAHAHA TIK LNG

Table 1: Women Students Online Group Conversation

Table 1 shows the conversation of women in their group chats. Group chats consist of
more than 40 participants, everyone can interact regardless of gender, however in this
conversation only women are exchanging replies to certain topic and a few research suggests that
people are most engaged in gossip about people their age or people of similar sex to them (e.g.,
McAndrew, Bell, & Garcia, 2007; McAndrew & Milenkovic, 2002). Moreover, there are a few
key linguistic features that are common in the conversations of women as seen in the
conversation above. Lexically, there is a presence of code-switching from Cebuano to English in
Line 4, while the semantic relation of entailment is evident in the conversation. Goddard (1998
as cited in Indarti, 2015), asserted that Entailment is a relationship that applies between two
sentences, where the truth of one implies the truth of the other because of the meanings of the
words involved. Thus, Saeed (2009) composite truth table for entailment, says that "when q is
true, p can be either true or false." And in the conversation, line 4 is q while line 5 is which
implies that q is true as she (the non-existent blockmate) is described by the speaker in line 4 and
it is similar to the physical appearance of the girl in the Kdrama, but p is either true or false, for
there is no fact that states that she is similar to the girl as per romantic attitudes. Pragmatically,
the women's conversation violated the Gricean Maxim's: Quantity and Relevance. In lines 2, 4
and 5 violated the maxim of relevance, as the speaker’s responses made the conversation
unmatched and changed the conversation’s topic abruptly. Moreover, the participants violated
the Maxim of Quantity, as is evident in lines 2 and 5, where the speakers did an ironic response
to the other participants and in line 6 where the speaker replied too much about the topic, a non-
existent person.

Additionally, the spoken features found in the women's conversation are a number and
first to that is turn-taking, which can be observed in how the conversation continued despite not
having to mention which turn is it. Messenger's instant messaging applications typically open a
small window for communication. Each participant in the communication is identified by his or
her user name and messages are displayed in the order in which they are posted. The format of
these typed messages graphically represents turn-taking in a conversation (Grinter, Palen, &
Eldridge, 2006; Merchant, 2001). Typing is much slower and more error-prone than is speaking
(Herring, 2003). Secondly, line 6 displayed a process of repairing, as it can be understood that
the speaker is altering her previous reply in line 4 to correct and clarify her statement and avoid
misunderstanding between the person mentioned in the conversation and the topic of the
discussion, as she describes having a resemblance to the picture sent in line 1. Third,
paralinguistic features, in lines 6: using an emoticon as a way of showing motions in the
discussion. According to Park (2015) "Emoticons are graphical representations of interpersonal
and emotional features, expressed through gestures and facial expressions in face-to-face
interactions, in the online setting". Emoticons are used in the chat box as a symbol of emotions
for a speaker, and in the conversation, they are used as paralinguistic features to add meaning to
the speaker beyond the word being spoken. Fourth, Elision: in line 7, where the speaker omits
one syllable in her where the word "TIK" is equal to the Cebuano term "Atik", which can be
translated to English as "kidding". Fifth, the Cebuano swardspeak "charot" in lines 2 and 4 is
consequently used. This is known as hedging, and it is used to demonstrate ambiguity in her
remarks and to signal a level of caution in her assertion. These tactics are common in women's
talks with one another (Coates 1996, cited in Mooney, A., & Evans, B. 2018).

4.2 Men to Men Conversation

According to the research done by the University of California an average human spends
52 minutes a day talking to someone per day (Matyszczyk, 2019). Gossip is defined as
"Conversation about personal matters: conversation about the personal details of other people's
lives, whether rumor or fact, especially when malicious," according to Encarta's World English
Dictionary. Note that the definition is not gender-specific, but the term gossip has somehow
become synonymous with women. Matyszczyk (2019) stipulated that men gossip as much as
women do. Men, for example, gossip as much as women, according to a study conducted by the
Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC), a UK-based non-profit organization that conducts
research on a variety of social topics. Men talk about themselves more than women when they
gossip (Turner, 2017). Additionally, according to Turner (2019) it is important to note that most
guys are not lying when they say they don't chatter. Many people simply don't think about their
locker room chatter as gossip. If a man is talking about himself, he may believe he is not
gossiping. According to the study, men gossiped on their phones 33% of the time or on most
days, while women gossiped 26% of the time. In this section, the researchers will try to find out
how males gossip with one another and distinguish the linguistic features they utilize.

1 F: Nagtuon ka? Hoy unsaon pag tuon? yawa wala pa jud ko as in wala pisti

2 N: ug naa kay twitter, makabalo ka na wala ko gatuon kay nag sige rakog
tweet…. wala gani ko ga abli man lang ug notebook…..nag atbang ra kog
cellphone ug laptop….. im ready to fail and shift course. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

3 F: Same here HAHAHAHAHA wala jud koy gana mag tuon pistii, tapulan yawa.

4 N: malipay pako ug numbers akong tun an

Table 2: Men Students Online Group Conversation

Table 2 is an all-men conversation revealing a number of linguistic features about this

gender. In this conversation, code switching is still manifested as well as the poor utilization of
punctuation marks. There are instances such as in line 1, where the speaker used punctuation
marks inconsistently, as at some point utilized and at some point disregarded. Also, it is evident
in this conversation that the participants are not hyper-correct or being overly correct;
excessively fastidious with their language. The participants did not mind the capitalization of the
first words in their sentences such as in line 2, where the speaker did not capitalize a proper
noun. In terms of pragmatics, the Maxim of Quantity, Manner and Relevance were violated in
line 2 where the speaker is giving too much information and is ambiguous and out-of-context
with his answer.

Present still in this conversation are Cebuano swear words like yawa and pisti in lines 1
and 3, which implies that men use swear words in their speech to heighten emotions or present
additional cues. In connection to this, the term ‘as in’ was also used as an intensifier to
strengthen a statement such as in line 1, additionally, affixation through the form of adding an
extra letter ‘I’ for ‘pistii’ in line 3 can be observed to intensify the speaker’s frustration to the
situation. Moreover, speaker N employed elision in his replies such as ‘rakog’ instead of ‘ra ko
ug’ and ‘kog’ instead of ‘ko ug’ in line 2 and ‘pako’ instead of ‘pa ako’ in line 4.. Lastly,
according to Enago Academy (2021) in order to discern between facts and assertions, it is wise
to be cautious in one's statements. Hedging is a term used to describe this process. Following the
conversation, speaker N used the word “charot” to show uncertainty as he is not sure whether it
is better for him to study numbers than language, which is a spoken feature called hedging.

4.2 Homosexual to Homosexual (Gaymen) Conversation

According to Harvey (2000 as cited by Oficiar 2019), queries about 'how gay men
communicate’, relate to the study of 'language and sexual identity,' which we prefer to call it.
Also, Kulick (2003) asserted that the study of language and sexuality involves not only how
people enact sexuality and perform sexual identity in their speech, but also how sexuality and
sexual identity are represented linguistically in a range of discourse genres. Thus, gay language
is regarded by homosexuals as a means of expressing one's sexual preference and with this
specialized language they expressed not only their individual identities but also the gay
community as a whole. Interestingly, homosexuals' unique language contains linguistic features
and spoken language features that differ from other languages making them stand out, which is a
typical trait among homosexuals.

1 Z: Guys wala pa lage ang ENG125 sa MOLE ay (*sends a picture of mole). Ana si
maam, naa na daw.

2 J: Butngi ug space Z.

3 A: uu naa space

4 Z: (*replied to J) Hala as ennn ka arte sad oi sge sge thaaanks tiii….. Hala ooh naa
na basta naay space..atchay pero thanks mga gays.

5 A: welcome straight
6 Z: (*replied to A) I am deeply offended #cancelledt #misgender

7 A: Hoay char2 ra baya na madam ha basin i death note nako nimo huhuhu

8 Z: O actually naka 3 pages naka, one page isa ka pangalan nimo, dakoo kaau
pagkasulat lagot nkoo nanana

9 A: Nahh uy sorry kaayo madam super sincere jud kayni was char

10 Z: helom oi ra jud kag giatay ai

11 A: labyo kaayo Z ha?

12 Z: (*replied a nauseated face emoji to A) Ay hala gi haha ni J imong genuine nga

pag i love u, plastic ba ka sa iyang pananaw A?

13 J: (*replied to Z) Shustikada jud ka ti, A

14 A: (*replied to Z) Uyy in my life wa jud ko nagpaka sarcastic nimo Z swear

15 Z: (*replied to A with haha emoji) helooom kapila nako nimo gi (*sending

blankspace) vaklang twoooo

16 J: Layog na mo mga beks.

17 A: (*replying to Z) huy abast

18 Z: (*replied to A) nipiiiiiis kayg hawak

19 A: (*send a LOVE YOU gif with the cat)

20 Z: (*replied to J) angay jud ni layugon si A……(*also replied to A with a glaring

image of a dog) Attichuna kaayo akong dog madam, pareha mo.. dog

21 A: (*replied to Z) Luhhh tawag ka H ay…..aw char huhuhuhu mandamay

 22 Z: (*replied to A) Aahhh!!!! Hala shady kaau ai…. H, layugon jud nako ni…. Kabalo
raba ta aha ilang balay

23 A: Sorry taga city planning

24 Z: (*replied to A) YAWA AHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!

25 H: paghilom daw mo mga bayot

26 Z: (*replied to H) Ohhhhhhh hala A

27 A: sorry barako nga lalaki

28 Z: (*replied to A) kanang dghan chix

29 A; I mean ang nawng barako

30 Z: (*replied to A) Ohhhhhh the shaaade

31 A: Hoay ka offendivr naba

32 Z: (*replied to himself) The library is open.

Table 3. Gaymen Student’s Online Group Conversation

In table 3, an analysis on how gay students talk about gossips specifically the usage of
gay lingo among gay friends is presented. In the study of Rubiales (2020), pointed out that in the
Philippines, gay men, particularly those who are out, communicate with one another in a colorful
language that combines English, Tagalog, and Visayan which are evident in the sample
conversation gathered by the researchers. Moreover, students that have used swardspeak or gay
lingo may do so for a variety of reasons, including the desire to prevent having other people are
hearing what they are saying, particularly in regards to sex. As a result, this seems to be a way
for them to resist cultural standards and construct their own identity. For instance, at the onset of
the conversation the maxim of quantity appeared first, when speaker Z asked all his classmates
about the presence of the ENG125 subject in the mole classroom. However, the response showed
that the maxim of quantity was violated because the information is less than is required as in
lines 2 and 3. Maxim of quality was also violated by speaker A when his reply to speaker Z in
line 5 was not truthful, despite being a joke to a close friend and with speaker A’s prior
knowledge that speaker Z identifies himself as a gay. According to the Gricean approach, irony
is considered as a blatant violation of the quality maxim wherein the speaker states something
that is plainly incorrect (Sequeiros, 2016). Maxim of relevance as well as violated when most of
the responses do not align to the topic at hand such as in line 9, 11, 14 and more.
Morphologically, affixations can also be observed in the conversation such as in the words
‘hoay’ & ‘madam’ in line 7 and the word ‘atchay’ in line 4; the change of initial phoneme of the
word Vakla instead of ‘B’ in line 15. Moreover, several morphological processes can be
observed such a (1) clipping with affixation in which a certain language is chosen as the basis for
clipping and affixation (Oficiar,2020), for instance, the gay words like ‘shustikada’ in line 13 is
formed from the Cebuano word plastic, is clipped to tik and added with the prefix shus- and a
suffix –ada and ‘attichuna’ in line 20, the English term for attitude is clipped to atti- and added
with the suffix -chuna. Lastly, the gay word beks also formed because the Tagalog term beki is
clipped to bek then added with the suffix -s. And, (2) gay words of expression, such as the words
like char, was char, and charot which is used to mean both certainty and uncertainty, which
reflects, hedging.

The conversation also presented a number of semantic properties such as in line 20 by

speaker Z, where the word dog there has two semantic meanings: (1) refers to a carnivorous
mammal, and (2) refers to a person’s personality which was quantified in line 21. Another
example, is the semantic meaning of the word ‘shady’ in line 22 which means a tease that should
not be taken seriously and as for the gay community, its purpose is to prove someone’s wit and
has no serious intention upon usage. Hence, the term ‘shade’ was previously only associated with
the LGBT community and drag queen culture in which, the documentary film "Paris Is Burning,"
centered on the Manhattan drag subculture in the 1980s, was the first known use of ‘shade’. Line
32 also presents semantics as ‘the library’ is a figurative place where drag queens trash each
other in a humorous manner whether it comes to reading or throwing shade (Borge, 2015).
 Furthermore, this conversation also highlighted some of the spoken language features
such as: (1) the prosodic features - the use of pitch, pace, rhythm and volume in speech as in
lines 1 and 8 where the utterances presented examples of pause prosodic or the temporary stops,
which are intentional to distinguish grammatical construction units such as sentences and clauses
and are often represented by full stops, colons, semi-colons, and commas, (2) Back-channel, a
listener's way of indicating to a speaker that the message has been received and understood, for
example, the ‘huy abast’ expression in line 17 and the “ooh” in line 26, (3) Paralinguistics, to
provide nuance, emotional tone, and control debate in online communication, creative use of
punctuation and typographical characteristics, as well as emoticons and emojis, are used (Wylie,
2020). This is evident when Z replied to A, a nauseated face emoji, a haha reaction and also the
words like HAHAHAHAHA and ahhh!!!!, lastly, a glaring image of a dog. (4) Repairs, an editing
term wherein it usually utilized the word ‘I mean’, such as in A’s utterance like “sorry barako
nga lalaki..” into “I mean ang nawng barako.”

4.4 Effects of CMC to Online Gossiping

Cyber-gossiping has emerged as a new trend in the online world, and through SNS
platforms such as Facebook chats, gossip can be openly plastered in all genders, positively or
negatively. In a nutshell, SNS platforms, particularly Facebook, influenced the gossiping
behavior of society, whereas Hiatt (2011) also asserted that gossip spread through social media
contributes directly to the formation and reinforcement of group norms and values, and so has a
direct influence on community and personal behavior. As a result, SNS creates a bridge to bring
people from all over the world together, as well as allows people to connect with whatever they
can say about other people, whether negatively or positively. This is to say that, gossip has been
easily mobilized through the advent of technology and in this sense, conversations on gossip
remained private in setting yet reel time in setup. However, SNS did not create people to gossip;
rather, it is people who use the SNS platform to gossip, either positively or negatively. The
existence of many chatting programs has met the desires of human beings to be connected and
engage with one another, and these interactions can take the form of gossiping and disseminating
information that isn't always factual (Anggraeni, 2019). CMC (computer-mediated
communication) is a powerful instrument that has transformed people's daily lives, work, and
learning especially now that we are experiencing a pandemic. CMC tools allowed such
interactions to happen like what the sample conversations above are. Any human
communication that occurs through the use of two or more electronic devices is referred to as
computer-mediated communication (CMC). Therefore, what makes this interaction CMC is
because it happened on Messenger Chat and uses two or more electronic devices to access.
Topics of people, places, things and experiences discussed privately online is more likely to be a
practice of gossip. To sum things up, the social networking sites (SNSs) are an ideal venue for
satisfying people's curiosity, in other words, they are tied to gossip in a way that makes it easier
for information to move from one person to another. Consequently, social networking sites really
have a massive effect on society's gossiping behavior wherein the existence of different chatting
programs allowed us to do such interactions online.

4.5 Role of Gossip Behavior in building Online Social Relationships

Gossiping behaviors may vary from gender to gender if one is to look at the linguistic
features it contains, but these features can be both unique and common among genders especially
in the context of online gossip. As to what Hiatt (2011) asserted, there's no denying that
Facebook gossip is still a social thing. Almost every contact on Facebook, whether it's gossip or
not, is societal. And to rundown the common linguistic features of women in gossiping on the
SNS platform, women constantly, intentionally or not, divert their topic to another topic, which
almost breaks the behavior of gossiping. Women conversations do not usually revolve around
formal matters and are mostly focused on expressing emotions and sentiments about the
surrounding issues around them. In the women conversation analyzed, the participants frequently
violated the Maxim of Relevance, and even though gossiping has been exercised in the
conversation, it doesn't solely imply that they are gossiping negatively, because of the factors
that affect the entire conversation, such as the coming of the new participant, the emerging of a
new topic, and the avoidance of commenting on a certain topic or person. Women are mostly
concerned about the repertoire they build with their conversational partners, thus, are careful
with what they talk about or how they respond to specific topics at hand. They also exhibit a
unique conversational characteristic of repair and in addition, women use hedging devices to
show uncertainty in their assertions and to avoid misconceptions about the thoughts of other
participants, which is another way of assuring the other conversational participants that they
understand and are on the same page. This in its simplest form is empathy. Therefore, the
constant occurrence of the violated maxim of relevance and the usage of hedging devices makes
the conversation of women in group chats unique from that of other genders. These types of
conversation reveal so much about how women manage relationships.

Similarly, homosexual (gay men) also display the same signification towards developing
social relationships even online through gossipping, but in a slightly different way. Unlike the
other genders, gay students are more likely to alter the structure of a word by clipping the
original word and then adding affixation, such procedure is called morphological process, that is,
modifying a word's function and structure to match a situation, sometimes to the point of altering
its meaning and/or grammatical role, this relates to the way gay men nurture social relationships
in a way that when engaging in gossip conversations, they express the same gender identity
though language use. Additionally, in terms of semantics, gay students frequently employ words
and sentences that have distinct meanings than their actual meaning— particularly if they want to
conceal the exact meaning of some words or phrases in their gossips. This is to say that, gay
men, despite blatantly speaking about censored things, they remain respectable though altering
the vocabulary. As asserted by Red (2012), the term "gay language" refers to a form of code
employed in the LGBT community to prevent persons from outside the group (heterosexuals)
from deciphering it and connecting them in "their own discourse”. Generally, gay men
conversations in the context of gossip usually revolve around jokes that don’t get them offended
but rather entertained. Entertainment in the conversational circle is seen as the basic
conversational foundation in building online social relationships among homosexual (gay men).

Taking a different path, men do not engage much in gossip and at times when they do,
they are not aware of it. Men think that engaging in gossip is not a manly act thus they avoid
engaging in it. Men rarely participate in group conversations, but usually talk about things that
concern them such as mobile games and sports as these things keep them connected with the
other male counterparts in the conversation, which reveals how men nurture online social
relationships only with people of the same interest as them. Male dominance can still be seen in
the way most men participants in this study are selective of the discourse they would participate
in. This study discovered that, when compared to other genders, men are more prone to use
swear words in their communication, to express dominance and power and to express to the
speakers that they are superior, and not woman-like, at least during the conversational exchange.
They don't overcorrect themselves either, which reveals how men tolerate men, and they chat
informally with one another, which shows complacency in men-men conversations. In nurturing
online social relationships, men are the type to always have something to show interest and avoid
inferiority in the exchange of talk.

5. Conclusion
This chapter contains the research findings after a careful analysis of the modules done by the
researchers. Conclusions are also drawn from these findings.

The shift in the mode of education has not only greatly affected the teaching and learning
process but as well as both professional and personal relationships. Due to COVID-19 stay at
home policies and health protocols, face-to-face interactions have been limited and everyone is
forced to convert into virtual setups and use online platforms, which led the students to treat
CMC as a major necessity in order to communicate over academic purposes and continue
education at the comfort of their homes. Students have now become highly dependent on CMC
for interaction, but more than just academic matters, lessons and instructions, students also talk
about more personal things and even gossip online. But these gossips which are informal and
done in private setups and shared in group chats that are made for educational purposes in the
first place actually means more than just talking to these student participants. It fuels a stronger
bond between the students as they are stressed out and have not seen each other personally for
more than a year. Academic discussions sure are informative but it can sometimes be boring thus
gossip has the capacity to spice up online communication as it piques the interest of the chat
members and enables them to actively participate in the discourse.

Interestingly, each gender conversation studied by the researchers displayed both distinct
and common gossip behaviors. Moreover, each gender shares a different kind of participation in
gossip discourse but women and gaymen contributed the most in the group's communicative
exchanges while men are the ones who seldom communicate and avoid non-trivial topics.
Women and gaymen share a characteristic of being aware that they are engaging in gossip and
are the ones who open these topics at hand while men are mostly unaware that they are already
participating in it and would not even admit that they are doing so. Since SIPT posits that
computer mediated communication (CMC) bridges the development of interpersonal
relationships and with the idea that “at every level, a CMC user divulges information, and the
receiver processes the information continuously, where judgments are formed based on the
verbal cues interpreted by the receiver” (Walther, 1992). The researchers posit that through the
discourse of gossip, the participants create a common space in which they exchange
communicative ideas and intentionally or unintentionally create an online bond with their
conversational members. Women, men and homosexual (gay men) have distinct ways of
contributing to online gossip conversations and has a different way of nurturing online social
relationships. Gossip has been easily mobilized through the advent of technology. Additionally,
since gossip is a topic that piques the interest of most members in an online community, it does
not only serve as a trigger for an interesting conversation but as well as assures each member
shares the same sentiment, which could the the reverse effect wherein, the participants can
openly express themselves better knowing they have a good online relationship with the other
members, making them more active and participative in gossip discourse. This is to say that,
even without much cues, through the use of unique wordings, emojis or emoticons,
supplementary photos or GIFs and continuous exchange of affirmation, understanding people
and conversations done online have been easier. Gossips may have always been associated with
negative, baseless, unnecessary and detrimental remarks but in this case, gossip bridges cmc
users, helping them connect with people of the same identity as them.

Generally, the idea that these people share a common identity, which is the identity of
being a student under the same program, doing the same assignments and tasks, answering the
same exams, having the same instructors and subjects and even worrying about the same things,
grants a communal and shared sentiment that makes each one feel understood and gives a sense
of belongingness despite the online setup. Despite not seeing each other for more than a year,
these students know that they are on the same page. Now more than ever, CMC has been the
center stage, as it not only helped different educational institutions to continue despite the
pandemic, but it also helped people to still connect with each other and with the world despite
the distance and limitations. CMC even provided an avenue where gossip, both positive and
negative, can thrive and human relationships can still continue to bud and develop until face-to-
face interactions are permitted.

References: PAKI-ARRANGE ALPHABETICALLY THANKS :*

Bosson, J.K., Johnson, A.B., Niederhoffer, K., Swann, W.B., 2006. Interpersonal chemistry
through negativity: bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships
13, 135–150

Bosson, J. K., Taylor, J. N., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2006). Gender role violations and identity
misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55(1-2), 13-24.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of computer‐mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Boyd, D. & Heer, J. (2006) ‘Profiles as conversation: networked identity performance on
friendster’, in Proceedings of the Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences,
Persistent Conversation Track, IEEE Computer Society, 4 –7 January, Kauai, HI.
https://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf

Davis, A. C., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2018). Sex differences, initiating gossip. The
encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science, 75-91.

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy:
Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 15, 83–108 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x

Dores Cruz, T. D., Beersma, B., Dijkstra, M., & Bechtoldt, M. N. (2019). The bright and dark
side of gossip for cooperation in groups. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1374.

Dores Cruz, T. D., Balliet, D., Sleebos, E., Beersma, B., Van Kleef, G. A., & Gallucci, M.
(2019). Getting a grip on the grapevine: extension and factor structure of the motives to gossip
questionnaire. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1190.

Dunbar, R. (1998) Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.8.2.100

Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of
general psychology, 8(2), 78-99.

Gluckman, M. (1963). Papers in honor of Melville J. Herskovits: Gossip and scandal. Current
anthropology, 4(3), 307-316.
Grinter, R. E., Palen, L., & Eldridge, M. (2006). Chatting with teenagers: Considering the place
of chat technologies in teen life. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI),
13(4), 423-447.

Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network analysis of positive
and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 177-212.

Guerin, B. (2003). Language use as social strategy: A review and an analytic framework for the
social sciences. Review of General Psychology,7,251–298. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-
2680.7.3.251

Guerin, B., & Miyazaki, Y. (2006). Analyzing rumors, gossip, and urban legends through their
conversational properties. The Psychological Record, 56(1), 23-33.

H
Harvey, K. (2000). Gay community, gay identity and the translated text. TTR
Traduction,Terminologie, R´edaction13 (1): 137–65. https://doi.org/10.7202/037397ar

Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. The handbook of language
and gender, 202-228.

Indarti, G. A. P. (2015). Distinguishing Entailment and Presupposition Under Negation Test.

LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 18(1), 27-38.

Joinson, A. N. (2008, April). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and use
of Facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 1027-1036).

K
Kittinger, R., Correia, C. J., & Irons, J. G. (2012). Relationship between Facebook use and
problematic Internet use among college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15(6), 324-327.

Kermarrec, A. M., & van Steen, M. (2007). Gossiping in distributed systems. Operating Systems
Review (ACM), 41(5), 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/1317379.1317381

Kulick, D. (2003). Language and desire. The handbook of language and gender, 119-141.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791178

L
Levin, Jack, and Arnold Arluke. "An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip." Sex roles
12, no. 3 (1985): 281-286. Cited by Adam Davis et. al. "Sex differences, initiating gossip." The
encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (2018): 75-91.

M
Mandelbaum, J. (2008). Conversation Analysis Theory: A Descriptive Approach to Interpersonal
Communication. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483329529.n13

McAndrew, F. T. (2014). The “sword of a woman”: Gossip and female aggression. Aggression
and violent behavior, 19(3), 196-199.

McAndrew, F. T., Bell, E. K., & Garcia, C. M. (2007). Who do we tell and whom do we tell on?
Gossip as a strategy for status enhancement 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7),
1562-1577.

McAndrew, F. T., & Milenkovic, M. A. (2002). Of tabloids and family secrets: The evolutionary
psychology of gossip 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1064-1082.

McDonald, K. L., Putallaz, M., Grimes, C. L., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (2007). Girl talk:
Gossip, friendship, and sociometric status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 381-411.

Merchant, G. (2001). Teenagers in cyberspace: an investigation of language use and language

change in internet chatrooms. Journal of research in reading, 24(3), 293-306.
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: Contexts,
consequences, and controversies. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 371-390.

Mitra, T., & Gilbert, E. (2013). "Analyzing gossip in workplace email" by Tanushree Mitra and
Eric Gilbert, with Ching-man Au Yeung as coordinator. ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, (Winter), 1-
7.

Mooney, A., & Evans, B. (2018). Language, society and power: An introduction. Routledge.

Neuage, T. (2005). Conversational analysis of chatroom talk (Doctoral dissertation, University of

South Australia).

O
Oficiar, J.E. (2019). LANGUAGE OF HOMOSEXUALITY: A MORPHO-SEMANTIC
ANALYSIS. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research. Vol.7, No 5,
pp. 1-18, October 2019. Retrieved on December 13,2021 from https://www.eajournals.org/wp-
content/uploads/Language-of-Homosexuality.pdf

Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 44, 75–196.

Park, T. (2015). Emotional Facial Expression Processing of Emoticon: an ERP Study. In

EAPCogSci.

R
Rubiales, J. A. (2020). Linguistic Deviations of Swardspeak and Its Implication to Gay Students’
English Language Competencies. Available at SSRN 3860558. Retrieved on December 13,2021
from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/10789/RESEARCH%20PAPER
%20-%20RUBIALES.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
S

Subramanian, M. (2013). Gossip, drama, and technology: how South Asian American young
women negotiate gender on and offline. Gender and Education, 25(3), 311-324.

T
Tufekci, Z. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace: What can we learn about these
sites from those who won't assimilate? Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 544-564.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801999050

W
Walther, J. B. (2015, December 01). Social Information Processing Theory (CMC).
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic192