1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Women in politics in Australia have been in the spotlight recently as their numbers have increased over the last decade particularly with the unprecedented number of women elected in the 1996 General election and also with the 1994 promise of the ALP to increase the number of women preselected in winnable seats to 35% by 2002. Recent research on language and gender has shown that women and men use different discourse strategies when they speak and that women tend to be more ‘cooperative’ in their speech while men are more ‘adversarial’ (Tannen 1993). The context of this paper will be the highly public forum of the political media interview. The hypothesis that women avoid answering questions less than men is tested, showing that women do avoid answering questions less than men. The gendered use of different avoidance strategies is also examined but with no significant difference in the way questions are avoided. The use of prefered and disprefered answers, however, showed a gender difference with women using significantly more prefered answers than men. To define different types of answer and avoidance, the notion of topic used by Gardner (1987) and the Gricean Maxims (1975) are used.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.20.1.06bra
1997-01-01
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bennett, C.
    (1995) Equivocation in political interviews: Understanding strategic ambiguity. ACAS Discussion Paper Series, The Australian Centre for American Studies, Sydney, University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bilmes, J.
    (1988) The concept of preference in conversational analysis. Language in Society. 17:161-181. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500012744
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012744 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, G. and G. Yule
    (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, P.
    (1994) On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology13,2:115-131. doi: 10.1177/0261927X94132002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bull, P. and K. Mayer
    (1993) How not to answer questions in political interviews. Journal of Political Psychology14,4: 651-666. doi: 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, S.
    (1993) Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text13,2:159-188.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Di Pietro, J.A.
    (1981) Rough and tumble play: A function of gender. Developmental Psychology17,1:50-58 doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.17.1.50
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.50 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fishman, P.
    (1983) Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thome , C. Kramarae and N. Henley (eds) Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA, Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gardner, R.
    (1987) The identification and role of topic in spoken interaction. Semiotica55, 1-2: 129-141
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodwin, M.H.
    (1980) Directive/response speech sequences in girls’ and boys’ task activities. In S. McConnell-Ginet , R. Borker and N. Furman (eds.) Women and language in literature and society. New York, Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Greatbatch, D.
    (1986) Aspects of topical organisation in news interviews: The use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture and Society8, 441-455. doi: 10.1177/0163443786008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443786008004005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, H.P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In (eds) P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics3) New York, Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. James, D. and J. Drakich
    (1993) Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In Tannen (ed.) Gender and conversational interaction. New York, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kalcik, S.
    (1975) ‘... like Ann’s gynecologist or the time I was almost raped’: Personal narratives in women’s rap groups. Journal of American Folklore88:3-11.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Keenan, E.O. and B.B. Schiefflin
    (1976) Topics as a discourse notion: A study of topics in the conversations of children and adults. In C.N. Li (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Leaper, C.
    (1991) Influence and involvement: Age, gender and partner effects. Child Development62:797-811. doi: 10.2307/1131178
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1131178 [Google Scholar]
  17. Maccoby, E.E.
    (1986) Social groupings in childhood: Their relationship to prosocial and antisocial behaviour in boys and girls. In D. Olweus , J. Block and M. Radke-Yarrow (eds) Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviour. San Diego, Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Tannen, D.
    (1990) You Just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, William Morrow, Ballantine.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (ed.) (1993) Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Winter, J.
    (1993) Gender and the political interview in an Australian context. Journal of Pragmatics20,2:117-139 doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90079‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90079-5 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.20.1.06bra
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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