Butler (1999) - Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis (p.25) (featured), Gender Trouble (1990)
Hall (1995) - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Caldas-Coulthard (1996) - Text and Practices
Machin and Van Leeuwen (2004) - Global Media: Generic Homogeneity and Discursive Diversity
Benwell - The Handbook of Language, Gender and Masculinity
Johnson and Meinhof (1997) - Language and Masculinity
Fishman (1990) - Conversational Insecurities
Coates - Gossip
Zimmerman and West and Beattie - Interruptions
Tannen - Male and Female Differences
O'Barr and Atkins (1980) - Social Status
Lakoff (1975) - Hedgers and Fillers
Cheshire (1982) - Grammar Conformity
Trudgill (1983/1979) - RP
Wednesday, 7 December 2016
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
RP
Trudgill (1983)
In 1974, he investigated the use of the -ng at the end of words, and found that the lower class you were, the less likely you were to use the -ng, preferring -n', and concluded that it wasn't unique to Norwich, and extended to the whole English speaking world.
Found:
1. In all social classes, the more careful the speech, the more likely people were to say walking rather than walkin'.
2. The proportion of walkin' type forms was higher in lower social classes.
3. The nonstandard -in' forms occurred much more often in men's speech than in women's, and this was true for all social classes.
4. When women were questioned about what they thought they were saying, they tended to say they used the standard -ing forms more often than they really did.
5. When men were questioned about what they thought they were saying, they tended to say they used the nonstandard -in' forms more often than they really did.
He found that the use of -ing in Norwich were as follows:
In 1974, he investigated the use of the -ng at the end of words, and found that the lower class you were, the less likely you were to use the -ng, preferring -n', and concluded that it wasn't unique to Norwich, and extended to the whole English speaking world.
Found:
1. In all social classes, the more careful the speech, the more likely people were to say walking rather than walkin'.
2. The proportion of walkin' type forms was higher in lower social classes.
3. The nonstandard -in' forms occurred much more often in men's speech than in women's, and this was true for all social classes.
4. When women were questioned about what they thought they were saying, they tended to say they used the standard -ing forms more often than they really did.
5. When men were questioned about what they thought they were saying, they tended to say they used the nonstandard -in' forms more often than they really did.
He found that the use of -ing in Norwich were as follows:
| Male | Female | |
| middle middle class | 96 | 100 |
| lower middle class | 73 | 97 |
| upper working class | 19 | 32 |
| middle working class | 9 | 19 |
| lower working class | 0 | 3 |
as So men used informal language more often than women in every scenario. And in addition, women thought they were using the -ing more than they really did, and men thought they used -ng more tan they really did.
Grammar
Cheshire (1982)
Observed groups of boys and girls in Reading, investigating the relationship between grammatical variables and adherence to peer group culture. Recorded the frequency that they used each of 11 variables:
Observed groups of boys and girls in Reading, investigating the relationship between grammatical variables and adherence to peer group culture. Recorded the frequency that they used each of 11 variables:
| 1. non-standard -s | They calls me all the names under the sun |
| 2. non-standard has | You just has to do what the teachers tell you. |
| 3. non-standard was | You was with me, wasn't you? |
| 4. negative concord | It ain't got no pedigree or nothing. |
| 5. non-standard never | I never went to school today. |
| 6. non-standard what | Are you the little bastards what hit my son over the head? |
| 7. non-standard do | She cadges, she do. |
| 8. non-standard come | I come down here yesterday. |
| 9. ain't = auxiliary have | I ain't seen my Nan for nearly seven years. |
| 10. ain't = auxiliary be | Course I ain't going to the Avenue. |
| 11. ain't = copula | You ain't no boss. |
Found that those who conformed to the conventions of a social group used the linguistic standards of the group - people change their grammar to fit in.
Hedgers, Fillers etc
Lakoff (1975)
Published the book Language and Woman's Place, and in a related article, Woman's Language, she listed a set of basic assumptions about what marks out the language of women:
Hedge: using phrases like “sort of”, “kind of”, “it seems like”,and so on.
Use (super)polite forms: “Would you mind...”,“I'd appreciate it if...”, “...if you don't mind”.
Use tag questions: “You're going to dinner, aren't you?”
Speak in italics: intonational emphasis equal to underlining words - so, very, quite.
Use empty adjectives: divine, lovely, adorable, and so on
Use hypercorrect grammar and pronunciation: English prestige grammar and clear enunciation.
Use direct quotation: men paraphrase more often.
Have a special lexicon: women use more words for things like colours, men for sports.
Use question intonation in declarative statements: women make declarative statements into questions by raising the pitch of their voice at the end of a statement, expressing uncertainty. For example, “What school do you attend? Eton College?”
Use “wh-” imperatives: (such as, “Why don't you open the door?”)
Speak less frequently
Overuse qualifiers: (for example, “I Think that...”)
Apologise more: (for instance, “I'm sorry, but I think that...”)
Use modal constructions: (such as can, would, should, ought - “Should we turn up the heat?”)
Avoid coarse language or expletives
Use indirect commands and requests: (for example, “My, isn't it cold in here?” - really a request to turn the heat on or close a window)
Use more intensifiers: especially so and very (for instance, “I am so glad you came!”)
Lack a sense of humour: women do not tell jokes well and often don't understand the punch line of jokes.
Published the book Language and Woman's Place, and in a related article, Woman's Language, she listed a set of basic assumptions about what marks out the language of women:
So overall, women take longer to get to the point than men, and prefer to offer rather than tell, and generally be more polite than men.
Social Status
O'Barr and Atkins (1980)
Their findings looking at courtroom cases and witness' speech challenges Lakoff's theory of women language. Analysed the 10 basic speech differences between men and women's language from Lakoff's theory and found 'powerless language', showed that language differences are based on situation-specific authority or power and not gender.
Said: “neither characteristic of all women nor limited only to women", as women who used least women's lanaguage were in positions of "unusualy high status" (according to researchers) - well educated middle class backgrounds. The researchers also found that there was a "corresponding pattern" for men who had the lowest frequency of women's language traits . O'Barr and Atkins tried to stress that a powerful position "may derive from either social standing in the larger society and/or status accorded by the court". So there were a number of power-related reasons why people used powerful/less language.
Their findings looking at courtroom cases and witness' speech challenges Lakoff's theory of women language. Analysed the 10 basic speech differences between men and women's language from Lakoff's theory and found 'powerless language', showed that language differences are based on situation-specific authority or power and not gender.
Said: “neither characteristic of all women nor limited only to women", as women who used least women's lanaguage were in positions of "unusualy high status" (according to researchers) - well educated middle class backgrounds. The researchers also found that there was a "corresponding pattern" for men who had the lowest frequency of women's language traits . O'Barr and Atkins tried to stress that a powerful position "may derive from either social standing in the larger society and/or status accorded by the court". So there were a number of power-related reasons why people used powerful/less language.
Male and Female Differences
Tannen (1990)
You Just Don't Understand, her book, shows male vs female language in six contrasts:
Status vs. Support
For men, conversation is competitive - seek to achieve the upper hand to prevent them being dominated. For women, talking is to gain confirmation and support for their ideas. Men sees world as a place where people try to get and keep status, while women see it as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence vs. Intimacy
Advice vs. Understanding
Tannen said:
Information vs. Feelings
Anecdotal evidence from Tannen showed that the length of phone calls reflects different gender's priority when communicating:
A young man makes a brief phone call. His mother overhears it as a series of grunts. Later she asks him about it - it emerges that he has arranged to go to a specific place, where he will play football with various people and he has to take the ball. A young woman makes a phone call - it lasts half an hour or more. The mother asks about it - it emerges that she has been talking “you know” “about stuff”. The conversation has been mostly grooming-talk and comment on feelings.
Showing that while men's opinions used to be considered more important, it is no longer the case, and the giving of info and brevity of speech are considered of less value than sharing emotions or elaboration.
Orders vs. Proposals
Women often suggest in indirect ways - 'lets, why don't we?' etc, while men use and prefer to hear direct imperatives.
Conflict vs. Compromise
Tannen wrote: In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
You Just Don't Understand, her book, shows male vs female language in six contrasts:
Status vs. Support
For men, conversation is competitive - seek to achieve the upper hand to prevent them being dominated. For women, talking is to gain confirmation and support for their ideas. Men sees world as a place where people try to get and keep status, while women see it as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence vs. Intimacy
Tannen said:Women often think in terms of closeness and support, and struggle to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different views of the same situation. Professor Tannen gives the example of a woman who would check with her husband before inviting a guest to stay - because she likes telling friends that she has to check with him. The man, meanwhile, invites a friend without asking his wife first, because to tell the friend he must check amounts to a loss of status. (Often, of course, the relationship is such that an annoyed wife will rebuke him later).
Tannen said:
“When my mother tells my father she doesn't feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he can do, whereas she wants sympathy.”So many men see a complaint as a solution for them to solve.
Information vs. Feelings
Anecdotal evidence from Tannen showed that the length of phone calls reflects different gender's priority when communicating:
A young man makes a brief phone call. His mother overhears it as a series of grunts. Later she asks him about it - it emerges that he has arranged to go to a specific place, where he will play football with various people and he has to take the ball. A young woman makes a phone call - it lasts half an hour or more. The mother asks about it - it emerges that she has been talking “you know” “about stuff”. The conversation has been mostly grooming-talk and comment on feelings.
Showing that while men's opinions used to be considered more important, it is no longer the case, and the giving of info and brevity of speech are considered of less value than sharing emotions or elaboration.
Orders vs. Proposals
Women often suggest in indirect ways - 'lets, why don't we?' etc, while men use and prefer to hear direct imperatives.
Conflict vs. Compromise
Tannen wrote: In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
For example a management situation, where a change would prompt men to complain vocally, while women would say nothing but complain afterwards.
Often considered generalisations - there are many exceptions to these rules.
Interruptions
Zimmerman and West (1975) - Interruptions
Argues with Zimmerman and West's Theory. Said that one loud man could ruin their investigation, and said Why do interruptions necessarily reflect dominance? Can interruptions not arise from other sources? Do some interruptions not reflect interest and involvement?
Says that men interrupt often to try and show interest and involvement, not an assertion of dominance, which would result in the opposite effect - men are being submissive and letting others talk, and encouraging them to do so.
Dominance Theory - men are more likely to interrupt than women. In 1975 a study was conducted, all subjects were white, middle class and under 35. In 11 men-women conversations, men used 46 interruptions, women 2. Sample has been considered unrepresentative (one loud man could ruin it). Since men interrupt more, they are dominating or attempting to be.
Beattie (1982) - Male Interruptions
Argues with Zimmerman and West's Theory. Said that one loud man could ruin their investigation, and said Why do interruptions necessarily reflect dominance? Can interruptions not arise from other sources? Do some interruptions not reflect interest and involvement?
Says that men interrupt often to try and show interest and involvement, not an assertion of dominance, which would result in the opposite effect - men are being submissive and letting others talk, and encouraging them to do so.
Categories of female talk
Coates
Looked at Deborah Tannen and Robin Lakoff's work and decided to build on it further.
Categorises the female 'Gossip', women's oral culture, into 4 categories:
House Talk - the exchange of information and resources connected with the female role as an occupation
Scandal - judging behaviour of others, women in particular. Usually made in terms of 'domestic morality, of which women have been appointed guardians' - someone has done something wrong domestically
Bitching - overt expression of women's anger at their 'restricted role and inferior status', expressed in private to women only. Women bitching do not expect change, but want to air their complaints to make their anger understood and expected.
Chatting - most intimate form of gossip, a mutual self-disclosure, a transaction where women use to their own advantage the skills they have learned as part of 'their job of nurturing others.
So women use language and communication to build relationships and nurture with other women or to critisice, all without expecting meaningful results.
Looked at Deborah Tannen and Robin Lakoff's work and decided to build on it further.
Categorises the female 'Gossip', women's oral culture, into 4 categories:
House Talk - the exchange of information and resources connected with the female role as an occupation
Scandal - judging behaviour of others, women in particular. Usually made in terms of 'domestic morality, of which women have been appointed guardians' - someone has done something wrong domestically
Bitching - overt expression of women's anger at their 'restricted role and inferior status', expressed in private to women only. Women bitching do not expect change, but want to air their complaints to make their anger understood and expected.
Chatting - most intimate form of gossip, a mutual self-disclosure, a transaction where women use to their own advantage the skills they have learned as part of 'their job of nurturing others.
So women use language and communication to build relationships and nurture with other women or to critisice, all without expecting meaningful results.
Dominance Theory
Fishman (1990)
Challenging Lakoff's theory, Conversational Insecurity said that rather than women asking questions showing insecurity and hesitancy in communication, it showed that they were using questions to assert power, not personality weakness.
She also said in this book that men speak on average twice as long as women.
Challenging Lakoff's theory, Conversational Insecurity said that rather than women asking questions showing insecurity and hesitancy in communication, it showed that they were using questions to assert power, not personality weakness.
She also said in this book that men speak on average twice as long as women.
Sexism
Wodak (1997)
Wrote a paper on CDA - Critical Discourse Analysis, a type of research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. And furthermore, it goes on to discuss the notions such as 'gender' in relation to CDA.
So this study shows how language can be used in a sexist way, even if it's not intentional.
Wrote a paper on CDA - Critical Discourse Analysis, a type of research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. And furthermore, it goes on to discuss the notions such as 'gender' in relation to CDA.
So this study shows how language can be used in a sexist way, even if it's not intentional.
Masculinity
Johnson and Meinhof (1997)
Their book Language and Masculinity solely looks at male language. Included in this study is the 'sexist language of male power', 'chauvinist discourse in a patriarchal society' as well as how and why men engage in social interactions typically thought of as feminine, such as gossip.
Said that although men take part in gossip, which is feminine, they do so to 'costruct hegemonic masculinity' - again tries to assert masculine dominance, but with gossip (maybe knowing more?).
Their book Language and Masculinity solely looks at male language. Included in this study is the 'sexist language of male power', 'chauvinist discourse in a patriarchal society' as well as how and why men engage in social interactions typically thought of as feminine, such as gossip.
Said that although men take part in gossip, which is feminine, they do so to 'costruct hegemonic masculinity' - again tries to assert masculine dominance, but with gossip (maybe knowing more?).
Gender in Magazines
Caldas-Coulthard (1996)
In her book Text and Practices (1996), Caldas-Coulthard discusses the idea that language can be used as a form of social control, specifically in the form of discourse (speech). This book includes examples from both genders, and features chapters such as Problems with the representation of face (pragmatics) and its manifestations in the discourse of the 'old-old' and Audience manipulation in police records of interviews with suspects.
Machin and Van Leeuwen (2004)
In their paper Global Media: Generic Homogeneity and Discursive Diversity, the idea that language has become homogenous due to the media is explored, and examined in detail from a variety of perspectives - genre and it's similarities, contents of magazines such as Cosmo in different locations etc.
Machin and Thornborrow (2006)
The paper Lifestyle and the depoliticisation of agency: Sex as power in women's magazines suggests that although women's magazines often aim to show the women featured in them in a powerful light, this is not done by showing political opinion or other opinions, but instead how 'they seduce men and behave sexually'. They also go on to state that this is because in modern society modern society we don't define ourselves by who we are (class etc), but rather by what we do.
Benwell
The Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality by Bethan Benwell look at masculinity in magazines. In particular, it looks at the discourse in mens lifestyle magazines - the use of gross out, a phenomena that attempts to shock the reader by showing graphic/violent content (both images and discourse).
In her book Text and Practices (1996), Caldas-Coulthard discusses the idea that language can be used as a form of social control, specifically in the form of discourse (speech). This book includes examples from both genders, and features chapters such as Problems with the representation of face (pragmatics) and its manifestations in the discourse of the 'old-old' and Audience manipulation in police records of interviews with suspects.
Machin and Van Leeuwen (2004)
In their paper Global Media: Generic Homogeneity and Discursive Diversity, the idea that language has become homogenous due to the media is explored, and examined in detail from a variety of perspectives - genre and it's similarities, contents of magazines such as Cosmo in different locations etc.
Machin and Thornborrow (2006)
The paper Lifestyle and the depoliticisation of agency: Sex as power in women's magazines suggests that although women's magazines often aim to show the women featured in them in a powerful light, this is not done by showing political opinion or other opinions, but instead how 'they seduce men and behave sexually'. They also go on to state that this is because in modern society modern society we don't define ourselves by who we are (class etc), but rather by what we do.
Benwell
The Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality by Bethan Benwell look at masculinity in magazines. In particular, it looks at the discourse in mens lifestyle magazines - the use of gross out, a phenomena that attempts to shock the reader by showing graphic/violent content (both images and discourse).
Gender Performativity
Butler (1999)
In her book Gender Trouble (1990), Butler explored the possibility that gender can be 'performed', in retrospect of her book, she said this:
In the first instance, the performativity of gender revolves around... the way in which the anticipation of a gendered essence produces that which it posits as outside itself. Secondly, performativity is not a singular act, but a repetition and a ritual, which achieves its effects through its naturalisation in the context of a body, understood, in part, as a culturally sustained temporal duration
This denotes that people 'perform' as one gender (act in a way the gender is supposed to) because it is assumed that they would act that way. And the second point denotes that gender performativity isn't just acting like a gender is expected to, but someone becoming accustomed to acting that way to the point that it becomes the norm.
Hall (1995)
In the book Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Hall noted that stereotypes regarding gender, specifically the stereotype that women perform poorly in maths, resulted in a self fulfilling prophecy when it the stereotype was high - called stereotype threat:
In Study 1 we demonstrated that the pattern observed in the literature that women underperform on difficult (but not easy) math tests was observed among a highly selected sample of men and women. In Study 2 we demonstrated that this difference in performance could be eliminated when we lowered stereotype threat by describing the test as not producing gender differences. However, when the test was described as producing gender differences and stereotype threat was high, women performed substantially worse than equally qualified men did. A third experiment replicated this finding with a less highly selected population and explored the mediation of the effect. The implication that stereotype threat may underlie gender differences in advanced math performance, even those that have been attributed to genetically rooted sex differences, is discussed.
So although only tested in one context - performance in an academic test, this theory can apply to society as a whole, in that stereotypes can effect the way people perform, creating a self fulfilling prophecy, and although not shown, this is assumed to apply to all genders.
In her book Gender Trouble (1990), Butler explored the possibility that gender can be 'performed', in retrospect of her book, she said this:
In the first instance, the performativity of gender revolves around... the way in which the anticipation of a gendered essence produces that which it posits as outside itself. Secondly, performativity is not a singular act, but a repetition and a ritual, which achieves its effects through its naturalisation in the context of a body, understood, in part, as a culturally sustained temporal duration
This denotes that people 'perform' as one gender (act in a way the gender is supposed to) because it is assumed that they would act that way. And the second point denotes that gender performativity isn't just acting like a gender is expected to, but someone becoming accustomed to acting that way to the point that it becomes the norm.
Hall (1995)
In the book Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Hall noted that stereotypes regarding gender, specifically the stereotype that women perform poorly in maths, resulted in a self fulfilling prophecy when it the stereotype was high - called stereotype threat:
In Study 1 we demonstrated that the pattern observed in the literature that women underperform on difficult (but not easy) math tests was observed among a highly selected sample of men and women. In Study 2 we demonstrated that this difference in performance could be eliminated when we lowered stereotype threat by describing the test as not producing gender differences. However, when the test was described as producing gender differences and stereotype threat was high, women performed substantially worse than equally qualified men did. A third experiment replicated this finding with a less highly selected population and explored the mediation of the effect. The implication that stereotype threat may underlie gender differences in advanced math performance, even those that have been attributed to genetically rooted sex differences, is discussed.
So although only tested in one context - performance in an academic test, this theory can apply to society as a whole, in that stereotypes can effect the way people perform, creating a self fulfilling prophecy, and although not shown, this is assumed to apply to all genders.
Gender Revision Portfolio - Introduction/Overview
These researchers proposed theories surrounding gender and how it is portrayed in the media. These people are (alphabetical):
Butler (1999) - Gender Performativity
Beattie (1982) - Male interruption
Cameron (2007) - Male and Female (1997) Gossip
Caldas-Coulthard (1996), Machin and van leeuwen (2003), Machin and Thornborrow (2006), Benwell - Gender in magazines
Cheshire (1982) - Grammar
Coates (1986(check) - Categories of female talk
Fishman (1990) - Dominance Theory
Hall (1995) - Gender Performativity
Johnson and Meinhof (1997) - Masculinity
Lakoff (1975) - Hedgers, fillers etc
O'Barr and Atkins (1980) - Social Status
Tannen (1990) - Male and female differences
Trugill (1983) - RP
Wodak (1997) - Sexism
Zimmerman and West (1975) - Interruptions
Butler (1999) - Gender Performativity
Beattie (1982) - Male interruption
Cameron (2007) - Male and Female (1997) Gossip
Caldas-Coulthard (1996), Machin and van leeuwen (2003), Machin and Thornborrow (2006), Benwell - Gender in magazines
Cheshire (1982) - Grammar
Coates (1986(check) - Categories of female talk
Fishman (1990) - Dominance Theory
Hall (1995) - Gender Performativity
Johnson and Meinhof (1997) - Masculinity
Lakoff (1975) - Hedgers, fillers etc
O'Barr and Atkins (1980) - Social Status
Tannen (1990) - Male and female differences
Trugill (1983) - RP
Wodak (1997) - Sexism
Zimmerman and West (1975) - Interruptions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)