gation of language variation on the basis of both socio-economic and gender factors. With respect to a number of sociolinguistic factors including gender these studies investigated linguistic features such as phonological variability of male and female differences. The goal, on the one hand, was to determine the stratification of these variables and, on the other hand, to find support for a mechanism of synchronic change. The differential use of these variables was interpreted as constituting a gender pattern. Women were found to be closer to a prestige norm (ie received pronunciation) than men. In particular, studies by Martin (1954), the Norwich studies by Trudgill (1972, 1978, 1998) and Portz (1982), and Fasold (1990) provided support for this position. As Martin [1954] put it: Women, it seems, are considerably more disposed than men to upgrade themselves into the middle-class and less likely to allocate themselves to the working-class - a finding which confirms the common observation that status consciousness is more pronounced among women. [Martin 1954]. [1975] claimed that the differential use of language needed to be explained in large part on the basis of women «s subordinate social status and the resulting social insecurity. Lakoff observed that women »s use of color terms (mauve, ecru, lavender), of adjectives (divine, adorable), their frequent use of tag-questions (John is here, isn« t he?) And weak expletives (Oh fudge I »ve put the peanut butter in the fridge again!) differed radically from male use. Taking her cue from Bernstein «s [1972] theory of language codes she claimed that women» s linguistic behavior is deficient when contrasted with male speech behavior. As one explanation for this deficiency she pointed to the differences in the socialization of men and women. At the same time another qualitative approach to male-female speech variation developed [Thorne / Henley 1975, Maltz / Borker 1982]. Cultural rather than factors of socialization were seen as being responsible for speech differentiation. Women and men are seen as constituting subgroups of the speech community. Minimal responses (also known as back-channel speech, positive feedback and assent terms) can be defined as the brief, supportive comments provided by listeners during the conversation interaction. They are a feature of jointly produced text, and show the listener s active participation in the conversation. [Coates 1989]. Common examples include mmm, uh huh, yes, yea and right.examples:
Ian: It s laying on my mind
Jody: Mmm.
Ian: So I think if I do it now and get it over and done with I can relax.
Jody: Yea ... I have to.
Ian: Pay ever after the phone.
Jody: Mmm.
Andy: High energy ... You probably know him ... Australian.
Ian: Mmm.
Andy: Is he a national hero or ... does anyone really care?
Ian: Uhmm ... He was for a while but ... I dunno. I think he s more popular outside Australia now
Andy: Mmm ... an export.
Ian: Yea.
Jody: How do you think about this now? Do you think it s ready?
Ian: It probably is ready and its beef so ...
Jody: Yea.researche...
