Theorists - Language difference between the sexes

Robin Lakoff - deficit approach (1975) on women:

•  Women use 'empty adjectives'
• They tag questions to show uncertainty 'that's a nice top isn't it'
• More polite forms than men, they use more euphemisms.
• The more frequent use of hedges 'you know' 'like' 'sort of'
• Precise colour terms 'Jade' instead of 'green', 'Ruby' instead of 'red'
• Weak expletives 'Oh dear!', 'Golly gosh'
• Intensifiers 'so'
• Questioning intonation in declarative statements/mitigated directives (imperatives)/modals

Peter Trudgill - Women use more received pronunciation and more non standard forms (informal language).
His research was supported by Dale Spencer - Men tend to use non standard forms as a meaning of social bonding with the opposite sex (covert prestige)


Jenny Cheshire - Boys converge towards the vernacular as a shared show of linguistic and social solidarity


Jennifer Coates - difference approach (1989) on women:

• Women = cooperative
• This goes against Lakoff's theory as she explains why women tend to be more informal.

Pilkington (1992) - Supports Coates and says that women are collaborative (positive politeness strategies)


Debborah Tannen - Criticised studies - It is ignoring the important issue of power and in some cases making assertions and generalisations based on minimal research evidence.

Transcript analysis

In the conversation between person J,F,S and T everyone was equal. The dominance and power within the conversation was negotiated, this is because there was no case of occupational power or any other advantages present because we were all the same age and we are friends. The opening sentence was interrogative and as the conversation began with a question it meant that the dominance at that point in time had been decided. Although person J had answered the first question he didn't necessarily get his question answered as the person he was talking to was distracted (person F) and that meant that he had not received as much dominance within the conversation as he could have had. Person J actually had his face threatened after he had asked his question as person S and T made remarks, only understandable through contextual information, which took the mick out of and was an attempt to steal some of person J's power. Person S was deemed the least powerful/dominant throughout the whole conversation which shows that he was the best listener however he was actually the rudest because he was involved in the most interruptions showing that he desired the power yet didn't receive it. Another interesting fact about person S is that he made the least utterances yet was the most face threatening and spoke over what people had said. This proves that person S didn't get the reaction they so wanted and so they became more reserved throughout the chat. On the subject of utterances person J had the most within the conversation showing that he wanted to be the most dominant and he was successful as he didn't allow himself to become reserved even after his face was threatened. Person F was the most powerful within the conversation as he asked the most questions. He was the most powerful because by asking the questions you are controlling the subject and by controlling the subject of the conversation you are essentially controlling the entirety of the conversation. The level of fillers which were used was high as everyone made one or two laughs throughout the chat showing that the conversation was comical which could mean that many faces were threatened as jokes can sometimes be insulting towards the person you are trying to get a reaction out of however this wasn't apparent and so the laughter could have been used to fill silences which could have made the conversation awkward. Person T made the least pauses however he didn't make any utterances which could mean he had a lot of time to think about what he was going to say and so he spoke more fluently than the others. Person F used much colloquial language within what he had to say as he was the only one to use elision and ellipsis multiple times, this could link to contextual factors as to how he grew up or because of how he was feeling during the time at which I recorded. Finally, person J was also face threatening because he called person F a 'drama queen' and swore during what he had to say (although swearing doesn't link to face threatening it heightened the level of the threatened face because it made what he said even more aggressive. He could have been face threatening because of what happened at the start of the conversation and so he wanted to get the same reaction as person S and person T.

Grammar definitions

Grammar - The study of the system and structure of language

Syntax - Sentence Structure

Morphology - Words

Discourse structure - The way in which texts are organised and sequenced

Pragmatics - the context of language

Word class - A group of words that fulfil the same kind of role and function in speech and writing

Lexical word classes -  Have the most members and are open to new membership

Grammatical/closed word classes - Provide connections and cohesion between other words

Noun Phrase - groups of words entered around a noun that acts as the ‘head’ of the phrase

Nouns - naming words

pronouns - takes the place of a noun

concrete nouns - things you can touch

abstract nouns - concepts

Verbs - Either auxiliary or main. Main tell you the action auxiliary give extra info on the main verb.

Auxiliary can be subcategorised between the following:

Primary Auxiliary - Do, have and be

Modal auxiliary - Can, could, will, would, shall, should, must, may and might (have the ability to make a text more polite or more formal or emphasise something’s importance or add formality

Adjectives - describing words (describes an attribute of a noun)

Adverbs - words that describe how verbs are carried out (eg: quickly)

Iconic signs - a direct picture of the thing it represents (often simplified eg: male/female toilet sign)

Symbolic sign - Draw on association and are defined by cultural convention (eg: school logo)

Graphology - The features that contribute to the appearance of a text (eg: fonts, colours etc)

Ferdinand de Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure is one of the founding fathers of Semiotics, which he called semiology. His concept of the sign/signifier/signified/referent forms the core of the field. Equally crucial, although often overlooked or misapplied, is the dimension of the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes of linguistic description.

Instead of focusing his theory on the origins of language and its historical aspects, Saussure concentrated on the patterns and functions of language instead. Although the name has been changed to semiotics, Saussure's theory is still commonly used in today's society. He also believed that the relationship that exists between the signifier and the signified is purely arbitrary and analytical.

 

Semiotics is the theory of how signs are interpretated and understood. examples of this include logos or pictures.

 

There are two types of signs as follows:

1. Iconic signs -  A direct image of the thing it represents (often simplified) such as the male/female toilet sign.
2. Symbolic signs - Draw on association and are often defined by social convention. An example would be the school logo
    

 

Ferdinand de Saussure

 

Born - November 26, 1857

           Geneva, Switzerland

 

Died - February 22, 1913

           Vufflens-le-Chateau, Switzerland

 

Main interest - Linguistics

 

Notable ideas - The development of Semiotics

William Labov

William Labov, has researched and studied various elements of the English language, including the grammatical rules of African American Vernacular English and referential indeterminacy (where when confronted with the same object different people call it different things, e.g. cup/mug/beaker). However, the majority of William Labov’s work is in social linguistics and language prestige.

Labov’s most important and relevant language contribution to this day was his focus on the discourse structure in a conversation. Labov created a structural approach for the fundamental problems of discourse structure, these are called narrative categories:

1.     Abstract (A) - The indication that a narrative is about to start and the speaker wants to get the listeners attention.

2.     Orientation (O) - The who, what, where and why of the narrative, set the scene by providing contextual information.

3.     The complicating action (CA) - The main body providing a range of narrative detail.

4.     Resolution (R) - The final events to give narrative closure.

5.     Evaluation (E) – Additions to the basic story to highlight Attitudes/commands the listener’s attention at important moments.

6.     Coda (C) – A sign that the narrative is complete. May include a return to the time frame before the narrative.

The Evaluation (E) can be divided into:

·        External evaluations – Added by the narrator at the time of recounting and not usually part of the series of events.

·        Internal evaluations – Occurring at the same time as those detailed in the complicating action (C) which can further be divided into an intensifying evaluation and an explicative evaluation.

·        Intensifying evaluations – Contributing via gestures, repetitions or dramatic sounds.

·        Explicative evaluations - Proving reasons for narrative events.

      Labov’s approach to Linguistic theory:

•We build a model that corresponds point-for-point to each element of language structure,

•Then we state the rules for relating parts of the model to each other and to the empirical facts.

•Using this model, we attempt to provide an answer to the most general questions, on the basis of whatever information we currently have.

•From the model, make deductions about empirical facts which will confirm or disconfirm it.

•This procedure moves from the unknown to the known. It is rapid and productive, though it does not necessarily have cumulative results. It is deductive, moving from a few examples to the statement of an unrestricted principle, from which we predict further confirmatory facts.

      William Labov:

       

      Born - December 4, 1927

                  Rutherford, New Jersey, US

      Died - N/A 

      Main interest - social linguistics 

      Notable ideas - Narrative catagories~Variationism

Erving Goffman

The sociologist Erving Goffman developed a theory known as ‘in the face theory’, in which an individual has both positive and negative face theory.

·        Positive face theory needs are associated with feeling valued and appreciated.

·        Negative face needs are the desire to feel independent and not to be imposed upon.

During any one encounter, the subjects will each have a certain face and will produce utterances that take into consideration each other's face in this particular situation. In different situations, a single individual's face will be constructed differently. For example, when an individual is engaged in small talk with their family, they might expect to be addressed through terms of endearment, and not mind having fun made of them; when running a business meeting, on the other hand, they may expect to be addressed more formally, and to be treated with respect by other subjects. An individual's face can also change during a single interaction, for example when a businessman at a meeting completes his speech and turns to colleagues to discuss the injustices of a referee's decisions in the football match the previous evening.

Erving Goffman:

Born - 11 June 1922

            Manville, Alberta, Canada

Died - 19 November 1982 (aged 60)

            Philadelphia, US

            Stomach cancer

Main interest - Sociology

Notable ideas - Sociology of everyday life~Symbolic and social construction

Herbert Paul Grice

 Herbert Paul Grice or, Paul Grice (How he was usually referred to), determined that speakers adhere to four conversational maxims:

1 .     Quantity- to use an appropriate amount of detail

2 .     Quality – to speak the truth and do not knowingly mislead

3 .     Relevance – to keep what is being discussed relevant to the topic

4 .     Manner- to avoid vagueness and ambiguity

This is known as the cooperative principle (How people talk to one another).

Politeness is known as a ‘Super-maxim’, in that people are mindful of others personal or face (see Ervin Goffman) needs in a conversation.

Those who obey the cooperative principle in their language use will make sure that what they say in a conversation furthers the purpose of that conversation. Obviously, the requirements of different types of conversations will be different.

As the maxims stand, there may be an overlap, as regards the length of what one says, between the maxims of quantity and manner; this overlap can be explained (partially if not entirely) by thinking of the maxim of quantity (artificial though this approach may be) in terms of units of information. In other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five units of information from the speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected number, then the speaker is breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the speaker gives the five required units of information, but is either too curt or long-winded in conveying them to the listener, then the maxim of manner is broken. The dividing line however, may be rather thin or unclear, and there are times when we may say that both the maxims of quantity and quality are broken by the same factors.

Herbert Paul Grice:

Born - 13 March 1913

             Birmingham, England, UK

Died - 28 August 1988 (aged 75)

            Berkeley, California, US

School study- Analytical Philosophy 

Main interests - Philosophy of langauage

• Semantics
• Pragmatics
• Metaphysics
• Epistemology
• History of philosophy

Notable ideas - Speaker meaning~Gricean maxims~Grice's paradox