Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Gender and academic discourse: Global restrictions and local possibilities

  • ERIK SCHLEEF (a1)

Abstract

This article investigates the academic speech of humanities and natural science instructors and students in 32 lectures and interactional classes at a U.S. university. It examines how structural markers, questions, question tags, and turn-initial response tokens contribute to variations of style in response to academic division, context, gender, and communicative role in academic discourse. Data analysis couples qualitative discourse analytic methods with a quantitative sociolinguistic analysis. The quantitative analysis shows the factors of communicative role, academic discipline, and speech mode – not gender – to be the most influential in the use of the structures investigated. It is argued that the lack of significant results for gender arise from global discourse restrictions in academic speech. However, despite the global restrictions shown by quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis suggests that such restrictions can be overridden, especially in contexts of structural breaks and disruptions of information flow, and that features that contribute to more interactional and cooperative speech styles, frequently linked to females, can emerge.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Algeo, John (1988). The tag question in British English: It's different, isn't it? English World Wide 9:171–91.
Beach, Wayne A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19:325–52.
Boulima, Jamila (1999). Negotiated interaction in target language classroom discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bucholtz, Mary (1996). Black feminist theory and African American women's linguistic practice. In Bergvall, Victoria L.Bing, Janet M. & Freed, Alice F. (eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice, 267–90. London: Longman.
Calnan, A. C. T., & Davidson, Marilyn J. (1998). The impact of gender and its interaction with role and status on the use of tag questions in meetings. Women in Management Review 13:1936.
Cameron, Deborah (1995). Rethinking language and gender studies: Some issues for the 1990s. In Mills, Sara (ed.), Language and gender: Interdisciplinary perspectives, 3144. London: Longman.
Cameron, Deborah; McAlinden, Fiona; & O'Leary, Kathy (1988). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates, Jennifer & Cameron, Deborah (eds.), Women and their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 7493. London: Longman.
Coates, Jennifer (1993). Women, men and language. London: Longman.
Dines, Elizabeth R. (1980). Variation in discourse – “and stuff like that.” Language in Society 9:1331.
Dubois, Betty L., & Crouch, Isabel M. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of them, do they? Language in Society 4:289–94.
Eckert, Penelope (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckert, Penelope (2005). Variation, convention, and social meaning. Plenary talk at meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.
Eggins, Suzanne, & Slade, Diana (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Erman, Britt (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see, and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Erman, Britt (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 4:217–34.
Fishman, Pamela M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems 25:397406.
Gass, Susan M., & Varonis, Evangeline Marlos (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In Day, Richard R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversations in second language acquisition, 327–51. Rowley: Newbury House.
Goffman, Erving (1981). The lecture. In Goffman, Erving (ed.), Forms of talk, 162–96. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grässel, Ulrike (1991). Sprachverhalten und Geschlecht: Eine empirische Studie zu geschlechtsspezifischem Sprachverhalten in Fernsehdiskussionen. Pfaffenweiler, Germany: Centaurus.
Greenwood, Alice, & Freed, Alice F. (1992). Women talking to women: The function of questions in conversation. In Hall, KiraBucholtz, Mary & Moonwomon, Birch (eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 197206. Berkeley, CA: BWLG.
Heisler, Troy (1996). OK – a dynamic discourse marker in Montréal French. In Arnold, Jennifer (ed.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory and analysis, 293312. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Henley, Nancy (1995). Ethnicity and gender issues in language. In Landrine, Hope (ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology, 361–96. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Heritage, John (1988). Current developments in conversation analysis. In Roger, Derek & Bull, Peter (eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary approach, 2147. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Holmes, Janet (1982). The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3:4065.
Holmes, Janet (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo 27:4762.
Holmes, Janet (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15:121.
Holmes, Janet (1998). Women's talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. In Coates, Jennifer (ed.), Language and gender: A reader, 461–83. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holmes, Janet, & Marra, Meredith (2004). Relational practice in the workplace: women's talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society 33:377–98.
Holmes, Janet, & Schnurr, Stephanie (2006). ‘Doing femininity’ at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10:3151.
Holmes, Janet, & Stubbe, Maria (1997). Good listeners: Gender differences in New Zealand conversation. Women and Language 20:714.
Lakoff, Robin (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lavandera, Beatriz R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7:171–82.
Levin, Harry, & Gray, Deborah (1983). The lecturer's OK. American Speech 58:195200.
McCarthy, Michael (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, Michael (2002). Good listenership made plain. British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation. In Reppen, RandiFitzmaurice, Susan M. & Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 4972. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mehan, Hugh (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice 18:285–94.
Meyerhoff, Miriam (1996). Dealing with gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable. In Bergvall, Victoria L.Bing, Janet M. & Freed, Alice F. (eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice, 202–27. London: Longman.
Mills, Sara (2003). Third wave feminist linguistics and the analysis of sexism. Discourse Analysis Online. http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2003/001/mills2003001-01.html.
Milroy, Lesley (1987). Observing and analyzing natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.
O'Barr, William M., & Atkins, Bowman K. (1980). Women's language or powerless language. In McConnell-Ginet, Sally et al. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society, 98110. New York: Praeger.
Ochs, Elinor (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Östman, Jan-Ola (1981). “You know”: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poos, Deanna, & Simpson, Rita (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In Reppen, RandiFitzmaurice, Susan M. & Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 323. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Romaine, Suzanne, & Lange, Deborah (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66:240–77.
Rosenblum, Karen E. (1986). Revelatory or purposive? Making sense of a female register. Semiotica 59:157–70.
Schachter, Stanley; Christenfeld, Nicholas; Ravina, Bernard; & Bilous, Frances (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:362–67.
Simpson, Rita C.; Briggs, Sarah L.; Ovens, Janine; & Swales, John M. (2000). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the University of Michigan.
Sinclair, John, & Coulthard, Malcolm (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, Michael (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swacker, Marjorie (1975). The sex of the speaker as a sociolinguistic variable. In Thorne, Barrie & Henley, Nancy (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, 7683. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swann, Joan (2002). ‘Yes, but is it gender?’ In Litosseliti, Lia & Sunderland, Jane (eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis, 4367. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tannen, Deborah (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Tannen, Deborah (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 34:1651–69.
Tottie, Gunnel (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels. In Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 254–71. London: Longman.
Zimmermann, Don H., & West, Candace (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne, Barry & Henley, Nancy (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, 105–29. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Gender and academic discourse: Global restrictions and local possibilities

  • ERIK SCHLEEF (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.