English Language Coursework

Investigation

Do men and women differ in their speech when placed in different gender environments, and if so,
how?

INTRODUCTION, HYPOTHESIS and QUESTIONS

Outlining the topic
I am investigating a user based language variation topic, where I will be studying language use and
how gender effects this. The particular aspect of language variation, which comes as a result of
changes in topic, I feel ties in many aspects of the course relating to language acquisition; with how
children learn to use different language in different situations, dialect change; when there is power
differences in conversation between men and women and how words are changed to suit this, and
how language is used to achieve a specific purpose in conversation, for example control, submission
or persuasion.
I felt the particular aspect of gender had potential to explored through further research
possibly relating to research previously gauged by theorists such as Susan Herring, Lesley Milroy,
Dale Spender, Deborah Tannen and Peter Trudgill.
Justifying the topic
The roles men and women play in conversation can give a detailed insight into the changing
roles of men and women in modern society. We can see how stereotypical thoughts of gender in
language may be challenged, supported or even proved false. In modern years with the world
growing ever more integrated, the roles of men and women in society are changing and with this I
wish to explore, in detail, if in fact it is, how, and why.
Hypothesis and questions
I expect to find different levels of language variation between genders, depending on
specific topics of conversation. I believe males take a more dominant role in male orientated topics
and that there is a more balanced distribution of power in gender neutral topics. However, I believe
despite their being differences in language when a topic is specific to one gender, there will have
been a shift from traditional thoughts of men being more dominant in language to showing the
language of women being more balanced with males. For example I will expect to see a shift in
topics which possibly were male dominated several years ago, such as business or sport. I believe
now we may see a change with more female involvement and a possible struggle for power. A 1980
study by William O'Barr and Bowman Atkins looked at courtroom cases and witnesses' speech.
Their findings challenge Lakoff's view of women's language. In researching what they describe as
“powerless language”, they show that language differences are based on situation-specific authority
or power and not gender. Of course, there may be social contexts where women are (for other
reasons) more or less the same as those who lack power. But this is a far more limited claim than
that made by Dale Spender, who identifies power with a male patriarchal order - the theory of
dominance. I wish to look into all these theories to see whether any closely link with my findings
and whether any support or contradict any of my findings.
The language level
within the topic of language change and variation, I will be looking in particular at specific
aspects of the linguistic frameworks including: speech, lexical-semantic, grammatical and
morphological and interactional language change and variation between genders.
AIMS
(I expect to find different levels of language variation between genders, depending on specific
topics of conversation, but believe women are becoming more involved in male orientated topics.)
Aim 1: I wish to look specifically at distinctive patterns and features in the use of interactional
conversation strategies by males and females when talking about different topics.
Aim 2: to identify whether there are changes in these patterns and features when the topic choice is
changed.
Aim 3: compare these findings to traditional theories proposed, such as the Theory of Dominance
recorded by Don Zimmerman and Candace West at the Santa Barbara campus of the University of
California in 1975. I will also be looking at how my findings compare to Professor Tannen in her
book You Just Don't Understand in which she represents male and female language use in a series
of six contrasts. These are:
• Status vs. support
• Independence vs. intimacy
• Advice vs. understanding
• Information vs. feelings
• Orders vs. proposals
• Conflict vs. compromise
The investigation will be looking more specifically into who uses particular types of language
based on specific situations.
METHEDOLOGIES
The type of data I have used when compiling my results are primary data sources. I gathered this
data specifically for the project; it is the language being studied. I have recorded a series of
conversations between family and friends and then transcribed particular parts that are of interest.
These are examples of spoken language. I have recorded a mixture of topics that I have provoked
amongst a group and also recorded segments of completely natural speech where no specific topic
was proposed and conversation was created at the participants discretion. I used a high quality
Dictaphone where the quality of the recording was sufficient enough to clearly replay speech with a
good level of clarity. I recorded in situations where there were limited disruptions, however this
may have contributed to a less than authentic representation of true conversation where speakers
would perhaps not act as naturally than in a busier environment. I feel I have achieved a good play-
off between clarity and reality where I have left sufficient levels of natural conversation without
effecting clarity too much. After collecting sufficient amounts of data, I transferred the recording
onto a computer and began to transcribe them. I used a simple transcript method where I label the
speaker by name to the left of each utterance, begin a new line for each speaker's new utterance and
do not use punctuation such as full stops, commas and question marks. However I did use other
types of punctuation to enhance the accuracy of the transcript such as '(.)' to represent a pause of
less than a second, '(2)' to represent a longer pause (number of seconds indicated), 'Bold' to
represent emphatic stress, '[ ]' to represent simultaneous speech and '[italics]' to represent selected
non-verbal features.
After the successful completion and analysis of primary data sources, I used secondary data
when referring to data previously collected by other individuals or researchers, most are in the form
or articles, research projects or reports. The primary data recorded before is entirely qualitative data
and is used to look at meanings and effects of language, although it has been transcribed into a form
of quantitative date which interruptions and other measurable features. Interruptions for example
can be used in a scientific manner and represented in graphs to give findings a solid foundation
from which to move onto a more detailed analysis of language. I can then use both types of data and
begin to compare and contrast to secondary data already presented. The type of secondary data I
will be looking at is very relevant to the topic I am studying. Theorists such as Don Zimmerman,
Candace West, Professor Tannen and Lakoff have all looked into the relationship of gender and
language. Their research has been represented in such a way that I feel I will be able to accurately
compare my own findings with their own. Much of their research was carried out years ago and it is
in this particular reason that I feel my results may be contrasting to theirs and has given me
optimism in my hypothesis.
All the participants I have collected data from have been in full knowledge of the project
and have given consent to be recorded. I have given them a comfortable level of confidentiality by
not listing any personal details other than name, age and gender. They are all consenting to this. I
have told them that I will not be using the entirety of the data I have collected but could use any
selected part of their speech and that I would show them my findings before they were published to
ensure that any part of my findings that provokes sensitivity or should be kept confidential are
edited or omitted. I believe this shows a courtesy and an awareness of the nature of research ethics.
Linguistic Frameworks
Aim 1: I wish to look specifically at distinctive patterns and features in the use of interactional
conversation strategies by males and females when talking about different topics.
Aim 2: to identify whether there are changes in these patterns and features when the topic choice is
changed.
Firstly, I will look to investigate deeper into my specific aims of the project by exploring specific
use of clauses and phrases of men and women along with the use of active or passive language in
contrasting conversation topics. For example, 'Do women use specialist phrases and detailed clauses
when involved in a stereotypically male orientated conversation such as business. They may include
terms like, 'globalisation', 'inflation', or jargon words such as 'big-hitter'. Or secondly, 'Do women
take an active or passive role when interacting in a stereotypically male orientated conversation
such as sport'. Here I may look at the amount of times the female interrupts, and more precise
definitions of word classes such as their use of abstract nouns to show excitement and creativity, or
adjectival metaphors to help describe their ideas and issues.
In contrast to this, I will instruct the participants to engage in a conversation topic which is
thought of as being more gender neutral such as discussing the role of a character in a book. Again I
will study the language use of the female subject and compare them to the language used to the
male orientated topic. I will expect to find a change in language use which suggests that the male
speaker is dominating the male orientated conversation, however, I also expect to see the female
including specialist 'male' language and becoming a more evenly powered speaker than perhaps
perceived in other research.
After using a linguistic framework that looks specifically at the aims of the project, I will
then look into focusing on theory. For example, 'Does the language used by women conform to
suggest changing values and social expectations of women in society'. Here I will look more
generally at the findings from the first linguistic framework and try to achieve a sense of conclusion
on whether the changing roles of men and women in society are reflected in their choice of
language use when placed in a range of different environments including changes in gender and
topic. The final stage will be to look into other theorists findings and compare the results.
THE ANALYSIS
The first framework point I analysed was the idea that women's use of language is changing when
placed in contrasting conversation topics Specifically looking at the use of specialist phrases and
clauses on male orientated topics compared with their use of language in mutual conversation
topics. I am expecting to see a small difference in the female subjects use of language between the
changing topics, however, I also expect to find that women are involving themselves more in
conversations where traditionally they would not be involved in as much. Text A has been
consciously prepared to include specific male orientated topics of conversation. These include a
discussion about rugby and a discussion about globalisation. The conversation begins like this:

A: have you seen the starting line up for the game on sund er saturday
D: yeah
M: wilkinson's on the bench(3)isn't foden on the bench
D: no he's starting
A: starting
M: start(2) what about
D: delon aint aint no where(.)no where to be seen
A: bout time innit(3) and
tindal havn't they got tindal(.)yeah they got tindal
M: yeah
The conversation starts with A asking the question 'have you seen the starting line up for the game';
this interrogative is an open questions to all members of the discussion however, the fact that the
response in almost immediately answered before the entire speech of A is complete by D shows the
male dominance in this topic by not allowing the female participant, M, to answer the question
herself.. Text B, which shows a contrast of topic in a neutral aspect, shows M respond very
differently. When asked a similar open interrogative regarding the weather, 'wasn't it bright to start
off with today' M quickly replies with enthusiasm and this time quickly ceases the opportunity to
respond first, ahead of D. In both instances, this demonstrates a particular participant taking a more
dominant starting role in the conversation, however, the gender-dominance relationship has
reversed with a change in topic, supporting the original hypothesis.
Text A then goes on to talk in more detail about the topic of Rugby. M attempts to interact
with an informative statement regarding the starting positions of some of the players. D corrects her
with 'no he's starting' when M mistakes a player for being on the bench for an upcoming game. A
then converges with D almost at the same time by saying the same word 'starting'. With both
participants now colluding that M was wrong, M converges also and realises her mistake by also
adding 'start' after A and D. This shows that the female participant is attempting to interact with the
male participants however, when she is incorrect, they portray a sense of dominance and power by
explicitly correcting her and ultimately forcing her to converge with their own views.
However, in relation to the framework, M is achieveing a certain level of topic convergence
in terms that she is able to use specialist words and phrases which specifically link with the topic.
For example, reference to specific players, 'Wilkinson', and 'Foden'. This shows that she has a level
of knowledge and is prepared to share this with the other male participants. This challenges the
view that women are passive in male orientated conversations.
These specific findings are very comparable to similar findings published by theorist
Deborah Tannen where she talks about 'status vs. support'. Men grow up in a world in which
conversation is competitive - they seek to achieve the upper hand or to prevent others from
dominating them. For women, however, talking is often a way to gain confirmation and support for
their ideas. Men see the world as a place where people try to gain status and keep it. Women see the
world as “a network of connections seeking support and consensus”. This can clearly be seen in
reference to Text A.