rs have found that, in casual conversation, it is women who take on the role as facilitator. [Zimmerman and West 1975; Fishman 1980; Holmes 2001; Tannen 1990].
Men, it has been demonstrated, are less sensitive to the interactional process. One study which Holmes recounts found that women gave over four times as much of this kind of positive feedback as men [Holmes 2001]. For women, then, talk is for interaction. [Tannen 1990].
A deeper analysis of this view, however, should consider the influence of context. Being a small group conversation in a casual context, the goals of this conversation sample are most likely focused on group solidarity (rather than control), which follows women s strategy of being cooperative conversationalists. According to Holmes, the norms for women s talk may be the norms for small group interaction in private contexts, where the goals of the interaction are solidarity stressing maintaining good social relations. Agreement is sought and disagreement avoided. [2001].
It is now understood that men and women differ in terms of their communicative behavior [Coates, 1989]. In explaining these differences, however, Montgomery [1995] warns that there is a sense of variation in speech differences between men and women. One sociological point to be remembered, he states, is that speech differences are not clear-cut and a set of universal differences does not exist. [Montgomery, 1995]. Gender, as a dimension of difference between people should always be thought of in relation to other dimensions of difference, such as those of age, class, and ethnic group. A second point hestresses is that linguistically one must be clear as to what is being identified as adifference between the sexes. Unless examining identifiable linguistic behavior, such as interruptions or tag questions, it is difficult to validate generalized claims of dominance, politeness or subordinance. Even then, the formal construction of utterances is no consistent guide to what function they might be performing in a specific context. [Montgomery, 1995]. Reinterpretations of gender-differentiated language fall into one of two approaches, which reflect contrasting views of women in society. The dominance approach considers language differences to be a reflection of traditional social roles, that of men s dominance and women s subordination. The difference approach, in contrast, focuses on sex speech differences as outcomes of two different subcultures. Women, it is claimed, come from a social world in terms of solidarity and intimacy, while men are more hierarchal and independent minded. Contrasting communicative styles are born out of these two subcultures.
The dominance approach to sex differences in speech is concerned with the imbalance of power between the sexes. Powerless speech features used by women help contribute to maintaining a subordinate position in society; while conversely, men s dominance is preserved through their linguistic behavior.
Early research that regards imbalance of power as a main factor toward gender speech differences can be attributed to Robin Lakoff, and her influential work Language and Woman s Place [1975]. Although relying heavily on personal observation, and later criticized for its feminist bias and lack of empirical research, Lakoff s definition of woman s language-bo...
