Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:13:51.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speech differences between women and men on the wrong track?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Dédé Brouwer,
Marinel Gerritsen and
Dorian De Haan
Dédé Brouwer
Affiliation:
Institute of General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Marinel Gerritsen
Affiliation:
Institute of Dialectology, Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam
Dorian De Haan
Affiliation:
Institute of General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the last few years the methods and techniques used in sociolinguistics have aroused keen interest and have continually been improved. Yet the claims that have been made about differences of degree between the language used by women and that used by men are often based on research methods which seem to be anything but reliable. On the basis of a corpus of 587 utterances produced in buying a train ticket, an investigation was made of whether there is a statistically significant difference between women and men in certain aspects of their language use which have been mentioned in the literature: the number of words used to deal with a set task, diminutives, civilities, forms of language expressing insecurity (repetitions, hesitations, self-corrections, requests for information). In addition to the independent variable of sex of speaker, three other variables were introduced: sex of addressee, age of speaker, and time of ticket purchase (rush-hour or normal). The results of our investigation indicate that there are few significant differences between the language used by women and that used by men in this particular situation, with regard to the variables mentioned above. As a consequence, this investigation has demonstrated once again that intuitions should be considered critically. It is remarkable, however, that sex of addressee seems to affect almost all of the variables under consideration. Consequently, the results strongly suggest that anyone who wants to investigate language by means of interviews must take into account the fact that the kind of language used does not depend only on the informant, but just as much on the addressee. (Language and sex, investigation methods, influence of addressee on speaker.)

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1979, pp. 33 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, L. A. & Timm, L. A. (1976). More on women's – and men's – expletives. Anthropological Dinguistics 18 (9). 438–49.Google Scholar
Benney, M., Riesman, D. & Star, S. A. (1956). Age and sex in the interview. The American Journal of Sociology 62 (2). 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blocker, D. (1976). And how shall I address you? Working papers in sociolinguistics, 33.Google Scholar
Bodine, A. (1975). Sex differentiation in language. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds), Language and sex: difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. 130–52.Google Scholar
Dubois, B. & Crouch, J. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech, they don't really use more of them, do they? ↓ LinS 4. 289–95.Google Scholar
Giles, H.Accent mobility: a model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15 (2). 87–105.Google Scholar
Giles, H. & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. (European monographs in social psychology, 7.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Taylor, D. M. & Bourhis, R.Towards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: some Canadian data. LinS 2. 177–92.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. (1970) Elicitation experiments in English. (Linguistic studies in use and attitude.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1975). Experiments on judgements of syntactic acceptability and frequency. Report 2. (MS.)Google Scholar
Key, M. R. (1975). Male/female language. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). Language in the inner city: studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972c). Some principles of linguistic methodology. LinS x. 97–120.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. LinS 2. 45–81.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. M. & Rubin, J. (1975). The use of expletives by some American women. Anthropological Linguistics 17. 191–7.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. (1963). Bilingualism in Paraguay. Anthropological Linguistics 4. 52–8.Google Scholar
Ruke-Dravina, V. (1952). Einige Beobachtungen über die Frauensprache in Letland. Orbis I. 55–73.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (1969). Sociolinguistic research at the Center for Applied Linguistics:The correlation of language and sex. Giornata internazional di sociolinguistica. Roma:Palazzo Baldasini. 849–857.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. J.Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2 (2). 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swacker, M. (1975). The sex of the speaker as a sociolinguistic variable. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. 76–84.Google Scholar
Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds) (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
Timm, L. A. (1976). Review of Robin Lakoff, Language and woman's place. Lingua 39. 244–52.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. LinS I. 179–97.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1976). Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. LinS 5. 189–209.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. 105–129.Google Scholar