A follow up study in 1983 by Zimmerman and West altered the research techniques. The 1975 study involved speakers that were already acquainted with each other. The purpose of the 1983 study was to investigate whether the same results would be arrived at when the sample speakers were randomly chosen and unknown to each other. Once again their results showed a marked tendency for men to interrupt more than women, with an average of men interrupting 75% of the time, to women’s 25%.
Zimmerman and West’s initial study’s in the field of mixed sex conversations created an interest in the topic which encouraged other studies in different contexts which produced similar results. A study of pre-school children by Esposito (1979) produced similar results as did Eakins and Eakins’ (1976) faculty board study. 3 The results of these studies, showing that men do indeed interrupt more than women, in various different social contexts, were interpreted as an issue of dominance. When one speaker interrupts, the other tends to fall silent. This could be interpreted as men infringing women’s rights to speak, and specifically to finish their turn speaking. In this sense men are asserting dominance on conversations. An interesting fact is that in Zimmerman and West’s study’s men were observed not interrupting each other when speaking in same sex pairs.
A factor that Zimmerman and West’s study does not appear to have taken into account is that of the positive interruption. Sometimes overlaps in speech and interruptions are productive for a conversation, providing a certain amount of support. However, Fishman’s study (1983)4 seemed to show that the male tendency to interrupt was more to facilitate a change of topic, or to gain control of a conversation, than it was to provide support.
An area of study closely linked to the male habit of interrupting female speakers is the study of each genders input to conversational support. A conversation interjected with regular long silences can become awkward and disjointed. In a conversation both the speaker and the listener have an active part to play. The listener has the responsibility to show an understanding and an interest in what the speaker has to say. This can be done through various minimal responses. Conversational support can be provided through physical gestures, or the use of affirmatives such as mmmh, yeah, ok, at appropriate points. These responses are known as back-channelling. A certain amount of back-channelling is expected in the English speaking world, though just how much is dependent on situation and context. As a general rule a certain amount of back chanelling is usually a good thing so that the speaker isn’t left wondering whether or not they are being understood, or whether anybody has any interest in what they are saying.
Zimmerman and West recorded the average silence times in mixed and single sex conversations.5 They found that the average silence in mixed conversations was 3.21 seconds, more than double that of single sex conversations, 1.35 seconds. Pamela Fishman undertook a study in 1978 investigating the success rates of mixed sex conversations initiated by both males and females.6 Fishman recorded three professional couples, aged between 25 and 35. Fishman found that although women raised 62 percent of all topics only 36 percent of them were deemed to be successful and became established. In contrast the males in the study only raised 38 percent of topics, yet 97 percent of the subjects raised by the men succeeded in being established as successful conversations.7
These results may be interpreted to show that men play less of a supporting role in conversation development and maintenance. Fishman observed that while women make use of affirmatives and minimal responses to show attention, interest and to help support and build a conversation, men used minimal responses much less frequently. Men would often not use a minimal response until the end of lengthy periods of uninterrupted dialogue. Some topics raised by women were met with complete silence. These studies of minimal responses could be interpreted as male lack of interest in hearing women’s topics of conversation. Delayed and non existent minimal responses seem to be another method used by men to dominate conversational topics.
From the evidence that has been available it does seem that men use certain strategies to control the directions and topics of conversations. Though interrupting does provide the speaker with an immediate power over the other person in the conversation, it is only a temporary affectation of power. As a strategy for gaining immediate power it is very effective, though blunt and brutal. This makes it easily recognised as a means of controlling a conversation so surely loses some of its effectiveness with use. If somebody interrupts and the original speaker continues to speak then no power has been taken away from them. The male habit of interrupting does seem to be a way of men attempting to assert dominance on a conversation, as does the strategy of delayed and non existent minimal responses. It is though very difficult to draw a conclusion from the evidence I have available because so many different contextual issues have not been taken into account. To categorize society into two groups, male and female, is correct but very vague. Within these two groups are many differences, males and females display different types of power in different situations. Conversations do not always take place between two people with similar levels of expertise on a subject. The results of the studies I have looked at do seem to show a conversational dominance by men, but I do not feel that these studies are comprehensive or modern enough to draw a definite conclusion on men showing dominance through language. It is clear that in general men and women have different linguistic styles, perhaps the differences lead to a slight linguistic incompatibility?
Reference:
1. Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, pp 105-29.Cited in: Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts, Newbury House, cited in Coates, J. (1986) Women, Men and Language. New York: Longman Inc.
2. Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. Cited in: Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Cited in: Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender Voices. Oxford. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
3. Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. Cited in: Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Cited in: Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender Voices. Oxford. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
4. Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. Cited in: Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Cited in: Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender Voices. Oxford. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
5. Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, pp 105-29.Cited in: Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts, Newbury House, cited in Coates, J. (1986) Women, Men and Language. New York: Longman Inc.
6. Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. Cited in: Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Cited in: Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender Voices. Oxford. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
7. Giles, H, Robinson, W.P. and Smith, P. (1980) Conversational insecurity. Language: Social PsychologicalPerspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bibliography
Christie, C. (2000) Gender and Language Towards a Feminist Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Coates, J. (1986) Women, Men and Language. New York: Longman Inc.
Ecket, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003) Language and Gender.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H, Robinson, W.P. and Smith, P. (1980) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Goddard, A. and Patterson, L.M. (2000) Language and Gender. London: Routledge
Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender Voices. Oxford. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M (eds) (2003) The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Hotthopp, H. and Wodak, R. (eds), (1997) Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing co.
Structure
Intro – Attempt to explain my interpretation of the question. Provide a brief explanation of traditional strategies associated with male linguistics. e.g. overlaps, interruptions, minimal responses and men’s more prolific use of delayed or non-existent minimal responses, men’s greater verbosity also male presumptions of speaking rights.
Main Body
An explanation of traditional perceptions of male / female linguistic strategies.
Particular focus on male linguistic strategies, explanation of statistic, provided by, Zimmerman and West, Fishman, Eakins and Eakins.
Present the statistics and explain the significance of:
Overlaps
Interruptions
Minimal responses and delayed minimal responses
The male tendency to talk for longer and more often than women.
Conclusion
Attempt to provide an explanation of the statistics presented in the main body of the essay and critically assess the validity and worth of my sources.
Problems
The main problem which I have encountered while writing this essay has been locating relevant and useful sources. The internet is a useful tool but guaranteeing the academic validity of some of the sources can sometimes be difficult. Hope College library’s sociology and English language sections appeared to have been ravaged by book eating locusts! I was unable to get almost anything of use from the college library and had to rely on Manchester Language and Literature library and U.M.I.S.T. library. Once I had found suitable sources my main problem was the overwhelming amount of discussion surrounding the topic of male conversational dominance. It was quite difficult extracting views that weren’t politically motivated. During the 1960’s and 1970’s it seems that feminist groups had taken a great deal of interest in the subject and placed a lot of importance on the use of language.
There was also so much conflicting information and similar studies that used different parameters it proved very difficult to decide which evidence should be relied on. To have looked at all connected subject matters within a 1500 word framework would have been absolutely impossible considering that academics have dedicated entire books to the topic.