1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 22, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Over the last ten years, evidence of gender difference in the use of language has been re-examined from a social constructionist perspective. This approach emphasises the extent to which we actively “perform” or construct aspects of our social identity in interaction with others. Drawing on an extensive database of workplace interactions recorded in a wide range of New Zealand workplaces, this paper uses a social constructionist framework to examine the strategies used by women managers to perform their professional identities at work. The analysis examines the ways in which these women draw on a range of discourse strategies to effectively manage meetings and achieve their workplace objectives.

© 1999 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.01hol
1999-01-01
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.01hol
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ainsworth-Vaughn, N.
    (1992) Topic transitions in physician-patient interviews: power, gender and discourse change. Language in Society21, 3: 409–426. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500015505
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015505 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aries, E.
    (1996) Men and Women in Interaction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, J.M.
    (1979) Sequencing and shared attentiveness to court proceedings. In George Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodol-ogy. New York, Irvington Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and S.J. Harris
    (1997) Managing Language: the Discourse of Corporate Meetings. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.44
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.44 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bunker, B.B.
    (1990) Appreciating diversity and modifying organisational cultures: men and women at work. In S. Srivastva and D.L. Cooperrider and Associates . Appreciative Management and Leadership: the Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Butler, J.
    (1990) Gender Trouble. New York, Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cameron, D.
    (1992) Review of D. Tannen’s You Just Don’t Understand. Feminism and Psychology2: 465–468.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1996) The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation. In V.L. Bergvall , J.M. Bing and A.F. Freed (eds) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. New York, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Case, S.S.
    (1991) Wide verbal repertoire speech: gender, language and managerial influence. Women’s Studies International Forum16, 3: 271–290. doi: 10.1016/0277‑5395(93)90056‑F
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(93)90056-F [Google Scholar]
  10. (1995) Gender, language and the professions: recognition of wide-verbal-repertoire speech. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences25, 2: 149–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (1988) Cultural differences, not deficiencies: an analysis of managerial women’s language. In S. Rose and L. Larwood (eds) Women’s Careers: Pathways and Pitfalls. New York, Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chambers, J.C.
    (1992) Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English World-Wide13, 2: 173–218. doi: 10.1075/eww.13.2.02cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.13.2.02cha [Google Scholar]
  13. Coates, J.
    (1988) Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds) Women in their Speech Communities. London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (ed.) (1998) Language and Gender: a Reader. Oxford, Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (1996) Women Talk. Oxford, Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooperrider, D.L.
    (1986) Appreciative Inquiry: a Methodology for Understanding and Enhancing Organizational Innovation. Ann Arbor, University Microfilms International.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cox, J.A. , J.L. Read and P.M. van Auken
    (1990) Male-female differences in communicating job-related humor: an exploratory study. Humor3, 3: 287–295. doi: 10.1515/humr.1990.3.3.287
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1990.3.3.287 [Google Scholar]
  18. Crawford, M.
    (1989) Humour in Conversational Context: Beyond biases in the study of gender and humour. In R.K. Unger (ed) Representations: Social Constructions of Gender. Baywood, Amityville, NY.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (1995) Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London, Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Crawford, M. and D. Gressley
    (1991) Creativity, caring, and context: women’s and men’s accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly15: 217–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1471‑6402.1991.tb00793.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00793.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Eakins, B.W. and R.G. Eakins
    (1979) Verbal turn-taking and exchanges in faculty dialogue. In B.L. Dubois and I. Crouch (eds) The Sociology of the Languages of American Women. San Antonio (Texas), Trinity University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Edelsky, C.
    (1981) Who’s got the floor?Language in Society10: 383–421. doi: 10.1017/S004740450000885X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450000885X [Google Scholar]
  23. Elgin, S.H.
    (1993) Genderspeak, Men, Women and the Gentle Art of Self Defense. New York, Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Freed, A.F.
    (1992) We understand perfectly: a critique of Tannen’s view of cross-sex communication. In K. Hall , M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds) Locating Power. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (April 4 and 5 1992), vol.1. Berkeley, Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gray, J.
    (1992) Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York, Harper Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gumperz, J.J.
    (1992) Interviewing in intercultural situations. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hay, J.
    (1994) Jocular abuse in mixed gender interaction. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics6: 26–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1995) Gender and Humour: Beyond a Joke. Wellington, New Zealand, MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmes, J.
    (1992) Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society3, 2: 131–150. doi: 10.1177/0957926592003002001
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002001 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1995) Women, Men and Politeness. London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (forthcoming a) Politeness, power and provocation: how humour functions in the workplace. To appear in Discourse Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (forthcoming b) Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace. Paper to be presented at13th New Zealand Linguistics Society Conference, Palmerston North, November 1999.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Holmes, J. and M. Marra
    (1999) Over the edge? Subversive humour between colleagues and friends. Paper presented atInternational Humour Conference, Oaklands, San Francisco, July 1999.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Holmes, J. , M. Stubbe and B. Vine
    (1999a) Constructing professional identity: “doing power” in policy units. In S. Sarangi and C. Roberts (eds) Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208375.3.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.3.351 [Google Scholar]
  35. (1999b) Analysing New Zealand English in the workplace. New Zealand English Journal13: 8–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. James, D. and J. Drakich
    (1993) Understanding gender differences in amount of talk. In D. Tannen (ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kendall, S. and D. Tannen
    (1997) Gender and language in the workplace. In R. Wodak (ed.) Gender and Discourse. London, Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446250204.n5
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250204.n5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kotthoff, H.
    (1997) The interactional achievement of expert status: creating asymmetries by “teaching conversational lecture” in TV discussion. In H. Kotthoff and R. Wodak (eds) Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam, Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.42.09kot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.42.09kot [Google Scholar]
  39. Leet-Pellegrini, H.M.
    (1980) Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles , P. Robinson and P. Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Meyerhoff, M.
    (1996) Dealing with gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable. In V.L. Bergvall , J.M. Bing and A.F. Freed (eds) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. New York, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (1991) Review of Tannen 1990. Australian Journal of Linguistics11: 236–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Morrison, A. , R.P. White and E. van Velsor
    (1987) Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s Largest Corporations?New York, Addison-Wesley.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Mott, H. and H. Petrie
    (1995) Workplace interactions: Women’s linguistic behaviour. Journal of Language and Social Psychology14, 3: 324–336. doi: 10.1177/0261927X95143005
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X95143005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rearden, K.K.
    (1995) They Don’t Get it Do They?Boston, Little Brown.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Romaine, S.
    (1999) Communicating Gender. Mahwah (New Jersey), Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith-Hefner, N.J.
    (1988) Women and politeness: the Javanese example. Language in Society17, 4: 535–554. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500013087
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013087 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sollitt-Morris, L.
    (1996) Language, Gender and Power Relationships: the enactment of repressive discourse in staff meetings of two subject departments in a New Zealand secondary school. PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Srivastva, S. , R.E. Fry and D.L. Cooperrider
    (1990) Introduction: the call for executive appreciation. In S. Srivastva and D. L. Cooperrider and Associates . Appreciative Management and Leadership: the Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Stubbe, M.
    (1998) Researching language in the workplace: a participatory model. Proceedings of the Australian Linguistics Society Conference (University of Queensland, July 1998). www.cltr.uq.edu.au/als98.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Talbot, M.M.
    (1998) Language and Gender: an Introduction. Oxford, Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Tannen, D.
    (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York, William Morrow.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (ed.) (1993) Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (1994a) Gender and Discourse. London, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (1994b) Talking from 9 to 5. London, Virago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Troemel-Ploetz, S.
    (1991) Review essay: selling the apolitical. Discourse and Society2, 4: 489–502. doi: 10.1177/0957926591002004009
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926591002004009 [Google Scholar]
  56. Turner, R.
    (1972) Some formal properties of therapy talk. In D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York, Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. West, C.
    (1984) When the doctor is a lady. Symbolic Interaction7, 1: 87–106. doi: 10.1525/si.1984.7.1.87
     https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1984.7.1.87 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wodak, R.
    (ed.) (1997) Gender and Discourse. London, Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.01hol
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error