Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:38:36.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Britt Erman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study focuses on the use of the three pragmatic expressions (you know, you see, and I mean) by female and male British English speakers. The aim of the study is two-fold: first, to establish actual differences in usage between men and women over a number of functions of the three pragmatic expressions; second, to find out whether such differences could be correlated to same-sex as opposed to mixed-sex interaction. The results of my investigation show that there are gender-specific differences in the use of pragmatic expressions. Some of the more salient differences were that the women tended to use pragmatic expressions between complete propositions to connect consecutive arguments, whereas the men preferred to use them either as attention-drawing devices or to signal repair work. The two groups also showed differences from the point of view of absolute frequencies, so that, generally speaking, the men used the expressions about 25% more often than the women and in some contexts up to twice as much. The results also point to the use of pragmatic expressions being largely dependent on whether the conversation takes place in a same-sex or in a mixed-sex environment, so that they tend to be used more sparingly in mixed-sex as compared to same-sex interaction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , July 1992 , pp. 217 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language. Studies in language and linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coates, J. & Cameron, D. (1988). Women in their speech communities. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1972). The intonation system of English. In Bolinger, D. (ed.), Intonation. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 110–136.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1975). Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of them do they? Language in Society 4:289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English. Stockholm Studies in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (1989). From lexical to pragmatic meaning. In Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies. Copenhagen: Copenhagen University.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (1992). Female and male usage of you know in a semantic-pragmatic perspective. In ASLA Symposium: Språk, språkbruk och kön. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hedström, K. E. (1984). A study of repairs in speech. In Stockholm papers in English language and literature, vol. 4. Stockholm: English Department, Stockholm University. 69–101.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2:45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordenstam, K. (1990). Hur talar kvinnor och män till vardags? Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift 1:32–42.Google Scholar
Nordenstam, K. (1992). Tag questions and gender in Swedish conversations. In Winter, J. (ed.), Working papers on language, gender and sexism. Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, W. R. & Todd, L. (1980). Variety in contemporary English. London: Allen and Unwin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.- O. (1981). You know: A discourse functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragan, S. L. (1983). Alignment and conversational coherence. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure and strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 157–171.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Studies in International Sociolinguistics 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silva, G. M. & Macedo, A. (1992). Discourse markers in the spoken Portuguese of Rio de Janeiro. Language Variation and Change 4:235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. & Quirk, R. (eds.). (1980). A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund Studies in English 56. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. (eds.), English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 254–271.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 105–129.Google Scholar