I have chosen to base my investigation around the research provided by Deborah Tannen to observe if men and women’s speech is reflective of the rapport and report styles she conceived.
Findings
Within both transcripts there are clear signs of both male and female speech. However it must be acknowledged that transcript two’s context will affect the discourse of the conversation and therefore affect the features of speech. In both transcripts men use more interruptions, expletives and detrimental terms, and more colloquialisms. Whilst the females in the conversations use more interrogatives, intensifiers, and more face threatening terms.
It must be taken into account that the women in transcript two do show male characteristics of speech, as the topic of the conversation is highly concerned with girl power, and this therefore affects the discourse of the conversation.
Analysis
Although I am concentrating on the politeness levels shown by each speaker it also has to be taken into account, that language and power will feature in this investigation. This is because according to the research I have read male conversation tends to be much more aggressive than female. Therefore indicating that the male in the conversation will try and gain dominance over the female speaker. Moreover, as I am studying chat shows the chat show hosts will have more authority in their conversations. Consequently using their power to control what happens in the studio.
Interruptions
Numerous linguists have branded interruptions as a masculine feature of speech and a major feature of mixed gender conversations. They are also a feature of impolite communication that defies the rules of turn taking. There is a lot of research backing up this theory Zimmermann and West researched this topic in 1975 and found that men interrupted 96% of the time whilst women only interrupted 4 %, within mixed gender conversations. They defined interruptions as “Interruptions can be classified as more than one word of simultaneous speech.”(1975) Hence this is how I have looked at interruptions within the transcripts of my investigation.
When analysing transcript one I found that were four interruptions made by male speakers. The women in the transcript interrupt significantly less, giving the males more chance to acquire more talk time. The interruptions also connote status, independence, and conflict for the male participants. The first interruption is made by a man “I can understand that”. This interruption shows M trying to gain the floor, by interrupting W using a polite term, as he is interrupting W’s recollection of a very sensitive subject. However, this implies that M wants to get his point across; he is not as considerate to the other speaker’s situation as his speech would have the audience believe. This complies with Zimmerman and West’s thinking, that this interruption diminishes the status of the female speaker and shows an insufficiency of respect by the male with regards to the female’s choice in topic.
As the transcript continues the men in the transcript continue to interrupt the same woman. It is apparent though that Kilroy’s interruptions are not an attempt to gain status or independence, but just to move the show along. “We aren’t arguing about whether or not (.) We are not arguing whether or not the women are, but whether or not the man should be protected.” This shows that Kilroy as the show’s host is trying to move the subject along. This is similar to leading the audience to a conclusion. However, to make the show interesting it is apparent that the conversation must be moved along so as to allow all the speakers a chance to speak.
This is a trait that is continued in transcript two by Trisha who is also polite but moves along the conversation. At the beginning of transcript one the male interrupts the female host many times with minimal responses, “yep”. These show attempts to challenge the hosts authority, however they unsuccessful, this could be related to topic shifting, by interrupting Trisha whilst she introduces a new topic perhaps the male is trying to force her into a subordinate position within the conversation.
Similarly to transcript one, transcript two shows that the women do not interrupt as the male within the conversation, even though they are being verbally attacked. Female participants only interrupt three times, where as the male participant interrupts eight times. This reflects precisely Deborah Tannen’s theory on the six contrasts of men and women’s speech (1992). In this transcript the women are being challenged yet they do not rise to the conflict, as the male does and prefer to compromise by not interrupting as much.
Female Characteristics & Male Characteristics
As there are numerous characteristics that both men and women display I decided to put them under a collective heading. I assume that whatever women are stereotyped to do then men should be stereotyped to do the other. Lakoff (1975) listed the characteristics used for women’s speech.
The first line of transcript one starts with one of the feminine traits, however it is made by a man. Kilroy, the male host, apologises for no real reason other than to make the participant in the conversation feel safe in what they are about to discuss. The woman continues this theme of apologising in the second line of her first speech sequence. “And Im very sorry about that”, this also shows another characteristic listed by Lakoff (1975) the intensifier, here it is ‘very’ and precedes the apology connoting that this woman is sympathetic to what the other participant has said. The woman also uses a hedge in her first dialogue another characteristic listed by Lakoff (1975).
Moreover, throughout the woman’s first passage of speech, there are many false starts, this suggests that nerves play a part in what the woman is saying, or that she wants to get the correct information across. Consequently this indicates to other members of the audience that the woman has little confidence and can be put into an inferior position within the discourse. The male participant within the conversation who speaks with W most also uses some feminine traits, for example he uses a super polite forms “I can understand that”. This is used here to be indicative of empathy with W as she is discussing a situation, which is obviously difficult for her to talk about. W also uses this phrase in repetition after the interruption has taken place, recognising the interruption, something that men don’t do. However, the fact that both contributors say that they can understand defies Tannen’s theory (1992) that women show more understanding and men more advice. This however, is shown later on in the transcript when M suggests beating up the perpetrator of the assault on W.
Throughout the transcript W continues to overuse qualifiers, and intensifiers, “I really don’t think”, and “I just felt that”. M also continues to use intensifiers, such as ‘totally’ this could be related to fact that he is not allowed to use expletives an option men often use to intensify the discourse.
Nevertheless, it is Kilroy’s conversation that is quite interesting. As noted earlier he begins using feminine technique and continues to do so throughout the transcript. It is understandable that Kilroy will use more imperatives than the other guests, but it is clear that he uses the ‘wh-’ imperatives, “Do you understand why he feels the need for anonymity”. Although Kilroy takes a back seat within the discourse he is still very much leading the conversation, this is replicated in this quote. “For a malicious allegation (.) Err (.) yeah yeah (.) Karen (.) // let Karen”, here K repeats the words just spoken by M which is a positive and encouraging response, he then uses a filler as he is obviously unsure which direction this discourse needs to be taken. Again he uses a positive response, followed by the introduction of a new speaker. This is a definitely a feminine attribute of introducing a new topic, done here by encouraging a new participant to speak. This encouragement is reflected as support and is a female contrast that Tannen (1992) suggested was opposed to status where the conversation is competitive and favoured by men.
Transcript two also demonstrates the shows host, using interrogatives but as I have already established this is most probably to move the topic along. In the hosts first interrogative she over qualifies “do you really think British women…” This could be to emphasise the British women in the phrase so as to get the audiences attention, it could also be, comparable to K in transcript one as leading the participants as T here is leading the audience by introducing the male character and getting straight to the point, thus erupting emotions of female audience so that they feel challenged and there is the males need for conflict, as outlined by Tannen (1992).
M answers the interrogative and begins with a false start this could be because he feels nervous, as he is causing conflict and is being questioned by a member of the social group he is targeting, and is surrounded by the same group in the audience. He continues and enforces his point by including an expletive, which men tend to use to intensify a situation. Moreover the expletive is a derogatory term for women, which Tannen also comments on in her research. It suggests that M is trying to cause conflict by using the term as a face-threatening device. The male in transcript one also uses detrimental terms to women, by using premodifiers such as ‘viscous’ and ‘malicious’. He also uses patronising terms such as ‘darling’ which is can be considered as patronising to women, as the user is lowering himself to an inferior level so that the female participants can understand him.
The male participant, in transcript two, continues using false starts throughout his speech “all their (.) They’ve got con (.)” this connotes nerves and it could be due to the possibility that he is being interviewed by a British woman who is accusing of being unfaithful, and full of contempt. Furthermore, like Kilroy in transcript one M here also overlaps the other speaker to provide encouragement and cause repetition, however, due to the context it can be assumed that this is done to make the other contributors will see things from his point of view. This therefore is a feminine trait used for a male’s prerogative.
The first female to join in the dialogue is obvious unhappy about the way the man is describing women, and can be reflected in the fact that she is shouting. The dialogue between these participants starts with the female shouting followed by “EXCUSE ME (.) EXCUSE ME” the repetition of this produces a stress on the lexemes, whilst also trying to gain dominance over the conversation. Characteristically this is not how Tannen denoted that women behave; in fact the behaviour is very male like. This can be attributed to the context of the topic, and it could also be said that even though this lady is trying rather abruptly to gain dominance, she does us the polite form of excuse me. This is in comparison to the male who ultimately tries to add to the conflict by retaliating, thus providing more conflict than compromise proving that Tannen’s six contrasts of communication (1992) are quite correct. W here also uses face-threatening terms, this is perhaps an attack on the males apparent lack of confidence connoted in the false starts that are being made.
M continues to encourage the conflict and uses what Tannen describes as a generic term ‘man’. “Look at your attitudes man”, this phrase is shouted although he is addressing a woman. This is accepted, as ‘man’ is a lexeme, which describes the whole human race, and is considered slang from the dialectical area of England from which this man came. Where as if he had shouted ‘woman’ at the end of the phrase, it would have been considered condescending.
Hypotaxis
Deborah Cameron said that men are more likely to use hypotaxis; this is the use of subordinate clauses, within sentences. For example, ‘as we ran, we sang and told jokes’. Within a transcript it is sometimes hard to define where there are subordinate clauses as there are not always commas, to show the discourse. However, in both transcripts there are examples of hypotaxis. In each transcript I believe there are four examples of parataxis one is created by a female participant, and seven male, proving Cameron’s theory. An example of this in transcript one is “…the sort of people we’ve got in this today (.) Today’s world (.) we’ve got a lot of…” Another example from the second transcript “…I mean poor Blake there he’s had a bad time (.) Which I mean is fair enough (.) I mean I’m pretty sensible”.
Parataxis
Cameron also said that women tend to use parataxis more, this is the ‘we ran, we sand, and we told jokes’ where the sentence structure is more connected and strung together without subordination. Within these two transcripts there are less examples of hypotaxis, altogether there are four examples, four from transcript one and none from transcript two. These are all made by one woman and can therefore not prove that Cameron’s theory is correct, as one woman does not represent all women, and one man does not represent all men. The examples within this texts include, “…the fact that you were wrongly accused (.) You know (.) and I’m very sorry...”
Conclusion
From the data analysed there are some clear themes that have emerged. In answer to the question, who is more polite the answer is women. As the analysis shows, it is women who tend to stick to their characteristics even when being challenged where as men seem to adjust to the situation, and the context of the dialogue. It would appear that women and men are just as threatening as each other, yet women tend to be more polite about the matter.
Neither the male or female television show hosts was more polite than the other. This is probably the most interesting part of the research, as in a profession such as television presenter; training will be given on how to handle situations when the presenter is on the air. Therefore, some part of this training must be given as to what the hosts can say, as these are no scripted shows. The analysis has shown that Kilroy, the male host, has adapted feminine features to his speech so as to appear more sympathetic and in touch with his participants. Both hosts make the receiver feel good, and don’t seem to impose. The only other politeness principle set out by Lakoff (1973) was give options, and within this text there do not seem to be that many opportunities for the host to provide these. It is also apparent that both sexes use hedges, overuse qualifiers, and intensifiers as suggested by Lakoff (1975), that these were female characteristics.
The analysis also agreed with the research of Zimmermann and West (1975) that men are more dominant in their conversations and are more competitive in their conversations, hence the interruptions. It is also obvious from the amount of speech appearing in the transcript men hold the floor for longer, acquiring more talk time. Also, in both transcripts the men were speaking in public another feature of Tannen’s report talk (1992). The idea of negotiating status or avoiding failure is also apparent in the face-threatening taking place within the analysis. However, it seems that many features of the rapport talk were not visible within these two transcripts.
The six contrasts that represent male and female language developed by Tannen (1992) do not all appear however, independence vs. intimacy, advice vs. understanding, and conflicts vs. compromise do. The analysis shows that men do prefer independence and conflict to intimacy and compromise. Yet both genders use understanding, as reflected through Kilroy and M in transcript one.
Overall, I believe that women tend to stick more rigidly to the politeness principles, and the characteristics that have come to be recognised that seem polite and associated with female speech. However, men are now adapting better to this politically correct, un-gender biased society that we know live in. It is no longer acceptable to discredit a woman because of her sex, and this is reflected in the way men and women speak. Thus the change in time and technology has perhaps made a change in the way men speak by now adhering to the polite and feminine characteristics of speech.
Appendix
Transcript 1
K= Kilroy, the presenter
W= Claire, female guest
M= Michael, male guest
W2= Karen, female guest
M2= Jonathon, male guest
//= Interruptions
Bolded = stressed words
CAPITALS CONTINUOSLY = shouting
K: You were gonna say. Sorry (.) Claire
W: Its o.k. (.) I appreciate the fact that you were wrongly accused (.) you know (.) and I’m very sorry about that (.) but you were saying about, you had a life sen (.) or you had a years sentence (.) what happens to the female who has been violated? How do you think they cope? (.) I actually spent (.) it took me two years to get over this (.) I had (.) I did have and eating problem when I was a kid, but I got over that (.) after the rape I was bulimic (.) again (.) I became bulimic again because I wanted to clean myself (.) I was having baths all the time (.) I couldn’t talk to anybody I couldn’t do anything (.) I was (.) I just lost it completely//
M://I can understand that
W: and so therefore (.) I can understand your argument, but also when you say (.) you know (.) that these women are go out (.) I really don’t think that there are that many women who are that vicious to actually go out// and falsely accuse
K:// we aren’t arguing about whether or not (.) we are not arguing whether or not the women are, but whether or not the man should be protected.
W: its something he said (.)// Its something he said and I just felt that I had to come back on that
K://Yes but
K: But should (.) Do you understand why he feels the need for anonymity// at least until he’s been charged or found guilty?
W:// absolutely (.) yes I can understand that
M: I think the laws we’ve got today are totally inadequate with the sort of life and the sort of people we’ve got in this today (.) today’s world (.) we’ve got a lot of malicious women, we have a lot//you (.) you may not, HANG ON A MINUTE LET ME FINISH WHAT IVE GOT TO SAY
//Audience interrupts
M: can I (.) excuse me I chat up a lot of women in my lifetime// and I don’t think you are in a better position to tell me about women because I sit next to many many women in my life
W2:// I bet you have (.) yes (.) I bet you have
M:I can tell you women are getting more and more vicious in this day and age// someone (.) someone (.) hang on I haven’t finished yet darling (.) I haven’t finished yet (.) someone has been nasty to me I would like this same person to go to prison for fourteen years for what she put me up against//(.) for a malicious allegation I didn’t
K:// for a malicious allegation (.) err (.) yeah yeah (.) Karen (.)// Let Karen
M:// she didn’t feel no pity for me going to prison for fourteen years for something I didn’t do (.) now I feel totally sorry for this lady (.) all the time she is telling me and she was having to wash herself because someone has violated her (.) I totally feel sorry, you know, and I would be on your side to beat the guy up, even (.)// I’m on your side but in my case what would you do in my case?
W: I wouldn’t want that
K: let Karen speak (.) let Karen speak
W2: if you turn round right (.) o.k. Fine (.) someone falsely accused you, so there should be something there to protect you if it (.) becomes to a point that you’ve been falsely accused (.) right
K: yes but you don’t know that till it gets to trial
W2: Yeah so you (.) so fine (.) so you still have to go there, to that point (.) right (.) and if it then comes to the point she has blatantly lied then fine (.) then there should be a law where something happens to that person (.)
Transcript 2
T= Trisha, the presenter
M= John, male guest
W= female audience member
W2= female audience member
* Action * = action made by speaker
CONSTANT CAPITALS= shouting
//= Interruption
T: So John //(.) lets hear from you
M:// yes
T: do you really think British women are programmed to be unfaithful?
M: I (.) I (.) well its not about being programmed to be unfaithful its about the culture and (.0 of women’s attitudes (.) British women and western women (.) I mean the American women aren’t much better (.) but British women in particular all ever do is slag men off (.) they take the Mickey out of em' (.) and err (.) at the end of the day its (.) its (.) of course at the end of so many relationships someone asks you to put your hand in a fire (.) the fifth time you’re gunna say no I’ve been burnt five times (.) eventually your gunna say no I’m not putting up with this anymore
T: so you’re saying though (.) the women (.) because of the culture the women (.) //women are
M:// yep
T: why do they think they can cheat?
M: their attitude towards men (.) all their (.) they’ve got con (.) they ave
Been developing// a contemptuous attitude towards men
T://Tell me about this (.) oh go on
M: that all men are the same (.) ave you never heard that one?
T: all men are the same? (.) //yes (.) yes
M:// yes (.) yes (.) yes we all know it (.) everybody’s heard it (.) we all know it (.) everybody’s heard all the sayings about men//(.) but what happens? (.)
T:// but (.) but why would they cheat?
M: no (.) but the thing is (.) what women do also I mean poor Blake there he’s had a bad time (.) which I mean is fair enough (.) I mean I’m pretty sensible (.) but at the end of the day (.) he’s had a bad time and these boo ‘im (.) because es callin women but they don’t (.) when someone calls out men they give it that (.) *Claps his hands* at the end of the day that’s part of the culturing of women that they make it o.k. To demean men and its part of culture
T: but where does the cheating come in?
M: the cheatin (.) //the cheatin
//audience shouting
T: oh wow just a minute//
W: WOW (.) WOW (.) WOW (.) EXCUSE ME (.) EXCUSE ME I DON’T THINK SO O.K.// NO NO NO SHUT UP ITS MY TURN TO TALK O.K.
M:// oh I do
W: listen it ahs been fine for men to demean women for hundreds of years so we aren’t aloud to say some things?
M: look at your attitudes man!
W: EXCUSE ME (.) I have a husband I am happily married // I take care of him o.k.
M:// oh (.) that’s fair enough
W: You know what maybe there’s something wrong with you (.) maybe there’s something wrong WITH YOU
M://one thing you’ll never hear me say is all women (.) you’ll never hear me say all women I know some brilliant women
T: o.k. Thank you (.) thank you (.) wow (.) wow (.) wow (.) I haven’t got the mic on you what were you going to say?
W2: All right then (.) on the camera there (.) yeah (.) you said me and my friends look pathetic (.) do you know me? // do you know me?
M:// no no no what I said was
W2: you basically said //that we look pathetic
M:// I didn’t what I actually said (.) I didn’t say you looked pathetic you said he looked of pathetic
References
Gardiner, A (2003) English Language A-Level Study Guide, Revision Express, Pearson Education Ltd.
Lakoff, R.T (1975) Language and Woman’s Place , Longman Higher Education Ltd.
Zimmermann, D.H, West, C (1975) ‘Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation’. In B. Thorne, N, Henley, (eds). Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tannen, D. (1992) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation Virago Press.
Cameron, D (1985) Feminism and Linguistic Theory Palgrave Macmillan.
23/03/04
www.heatonmanor.newcastle.sch.uk/ jls/TheoriesofLanguageandGender%5B1%5D.doc 23/03/04